[breathesgelatin]

Wow, this thread has.... escalated....

A few thoughts:

I come from a very southern, very, very, very, very, very white school. We have few minorities. We have never had trouble placing African-Americans (or Asian Americans, Jewish women, etc) in rush. I suspect this is for a few reasons: our Panhellenic was only founded in 1989 (coeducation began in 1985) and we have no NPHC chapters. While the majority of African American women do not rush, and sometimes only 1 goes through recruitment, there is actually usually competition over who will get that woman--because everyone wants their group to be diverse. All the groups except one (to my knowledge) currently have at least one African-American member. Most of them have Asian-American members, also. If you looked at the groups, however, with the exception of maybe mine, you wouldn't see a lot of diversity. We try, but because so few "diverse" women rush (or even go to our school), it's hard to be genuinely diverse the way some sororities are.

I think what is getting lost in the issue is--if African-American women don't go through recruitment, they can't be pledged. Suppose next year at Alabama 200 African-American women sign up for Panhellenic recruitment. Do you think that none of the Old Row chapters would take an African American woman? I doubt it. My guess is that most of the really qualified African-American PNMs at Alabama are PNMs for the NPHC groups--which is fine, those groups have a lot to offer women and have rich histories. We're always saying that PNMs should find their home and 'fit'. My guess is that the new African-American Gamma Phi Beta member fit there a lot better than the "Old Row" houses. I hate to be blantantly honest, but at my school, the rich, snotty African American girls went to the rich, snotty sorority. The down-to-earth African American girls went to the down-to-earth sorority. Maybe I'm just idealistic and that wouldn't happen at Alabama, but I don't know.

Additionally, I think that JAM's point about the NPHC groups is that they refuse to discuss their membership selection on GC because they view it as private. And, frankly, I know that some southern NPHC groups are quite elite--some of the African American girls on my campus wouldn't have a shot at getting into NPHC groups on certain campuses. They, too, make judgement calls that hurt PNMs. I worked with a girl this summer who had had a frustrating experience with NPHC intake--she goes to a well-known campus, and basically, her money wasn't old enough for the group (she's hoping to AI). That this type of situation happens is corroborated by many of my African-American friends. NPHC is great, but all Greeks sometimes make membership decisions over shallow reasons. We all have room for improvement.

Another thing--as JAM pointed out, we use other membership qualifications. I know that my chapter (or any chapter at my school) probably would not take a PNM whose body was covered in tattoos and piercings, or who had slept with all the men in any one fraternity. Now, some of you may be saying, "Well, gosh, that's horrible of them not to take the tattooed girl. These are things that are gaining acceptance in society!" I know--this has come up on GC MANY times--that one of the big issues for many chapters is whether or not to eliminate PNMs who have questionable morals or who are "skanks". Most of us probably want to say it's important for our reputation that we are not viewed as loose women. But, in reality, what do either of these characteristics, tattoos or hookups, that have to do with being a good sister? One of the sisters that has been there for me the most is a woman who doesn't necessarily have the best campus reputation. I know that she will listen to me when no one else will, that she will pick me up when I fall. But I know people made fun of our chapter for taking her. In reality, none of these outward characteristics (tattoos, race, religion, sexual morals) determine who will make a good sister. Yet, to differing degrees, we use them to determine who our sisters will be. Even GPA and class standing do not determine someone's sisterhood potential, yet to my knowledge EVERY NPC uses those--oftentimes to the detriment of some of our beloved GC PNMs who've had a bad semester or who just decided to rush later than most! Almost no one will defend using race or religion as a category anymore, and with good reason. Don't be the pot that calls the kettle black--we all have to make membership decisions, and I'm sure many of our chapters have cut women for shallow reasons. At the same time, we should ALL work to better our membership selection and look at PNMs for their inner character--dedication, loyalty, and all the values of our respective sororities. Remember that it is a very fine line between being an ELITIST organization and being a SELECTIVE organization. Obviously we all have things to learn--some groups just have a lot farther to go.

I feel for both sides of the discussion--racism is inexcusable but unfortunately it can easily be incorporated (along with a lot of other --isms and prejudices) into our secret membership selection process. At the same time, it really is very, very difficult to understand the campus climate unless you have experienced it yourself--I don't claim to understand Alabama, but I do understand the southern elitism of my college--and to *automatically* call the "Old Row" women racist, elitist, shallow, and pathetic is perhaps a little too persumptous without having talked to them or been through their membership selection (which perhaps some of you have).

That said, I wonder what some constructive ways are to encourage groups to diversify their membership. Do any nationals have awards for diverse chapters or chapters that make efforts to diversify their membership? I mean, the solution isn't to just shut down these chapters!

Sorry for the length--this is something I think about a *LOT*!