Title IX and gendered prerequisites

[naraht]

I know *most* of the people on here aren't lawyers, but this is also wondering if anyone has heard of...

Would Title IX allow for a collegiate non-social GLO where the prerequisites would be impossible for one gender to achieve?

For example:
In order to pledge BCD you have to have been an Eagle Scout?
In order to pledge EFG you have to have been a Girl Scout?
In order to pledge HIK you have to have been a Deacon in the LDS church (which more or less means you were a male member of the LDS church between turning 12 and turning 14)

Ideas?

[sndp1129]

I'm not very familiar with Title IX but I believe non-social GLOs are co-ed by choice although I might be misunderstanding. I know Alpha Phi Omega voluntarily became co-ed.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by sndp1129

I'm not very familiar with Title IX but I believe non-social GLOs are co-ed by choice although I might be misunderstanding.

You do misunderstand. Broadly speaking, Title IX prohibits colleges and universities that receive federal funds—which is pretty much all of them—from recognizing student organizations that discriminate on the basis of sex. There are a few exceptions to that general rule, including social fraternities and sororities.

Some non-social GLOs did indeed choose to go co-ed before they had to, or complied willingly with Title IX. Others did so reluctantly because they were required by law to go co-ed or risk losing school recognition.

[AlwaysSAI]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Some non-social GLOs did indeed choose to go co-ed before they had to, or complied willingly with Title IX. Others did so reluctantly because they were required by law to go co-ed or risk losing school recognition.

And, some non-social GLOs chose to loosen their membership requirements to challenge the Title IX ruling and were ultimately deemed a social GLO under the federal guidelines. They were allowed to maintain their academic focus and remain single sexed on college campuses.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AlwaysSAI

And, some non-social GLOs chose to loosen their membership requirements to challenge the Title IX ruling and were ultimately deemed a social GLO under the federal guidelines. They were allowed to maintain their academic focus and remain single sexed on college campuses.

I know of two groups that did more or less that.

But for at least one of those groups, "non-social GLO" that "chose to loosen [its] membership requirements" and was "allowed to maintain [its] academic focus" isn't quite accurate. We didn't change our membership requirements and we didn't have any "academic focus" as such, as we were never limited to music majors or minors.

[AlwaysSAI]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I know of two groups that did more or less that.

But for at least one of those groups, "non-social GLO" that "chose to loosen [its] membership requirements" and was "allowed to maintain [its] academic focus" isn't quite accurate. We didn't change our membership requirements and we didn't have any "academic focus" as such, as we were never limited to music majors or minors.

SAI went through many phases of membership - originally being named a musical sorority and for a time, considered (though never officially named) a professional music fraternity. Originally, MiTs had to be female music majors (what I referred to as an "academic focus"). To comply with Title IX, our MiT requirements were changed to one music course and ladies with a sincere interest in music. The federal government ruled that we existed to foster social relationships among women musicians as opposed to advancing the music profession and ruled that we were, in fact, a social organization and could remain single sexed on college campuses.

I knew Phi Mu Alpha went through an uncertain period circa Title IX and decided to challenge it after we [SAI] were successful. All the other details - I wasn't totally sure of.

I feel like we've had this conversation before here on GC.