Will the Greek world ever desegregate?

[Alias23]

"I can't speak for any GLO except my own, but I personally think that no organization should be forced to accept a person of a different sex if it goes against the founding principles of the organization itself." -- dzrose

Take the word "sex" and substitute "race," and that's exactly what some organizations would argue to justify keeping other races out of their group.

"For example, Delta Zeta was founded specifically for women and her ceremonies and rituals were designed with women in mind. To accept someone of a different sex would make no sense, because the standards that make Delta Zeta what it is are applicable only to women. I certainly can't go into detail, but believe me when I say that it would be pointless to initiate a man into our circle. Our rituals are meaningless to men, and have no symbolism associated with them." -- dzrose

So because an organization has goals and principles designed to facilitate growth and advancement for women, you're saying that a man has no place taking part in that? What if a man wants to help in the growth and advancement of women and believes in the organization's principles? Shouldn't he be allowed to join? The NAACP's focus is the advancement of the African-American community, and it has White members. What makes it any different for a man to join a group that has principles designed to help women if he really wants to help (chances are most men won't WANT to, but why shouldn't they be ABLE to)?

"I just don't think that every organization should be forced to be all things to all people, just for the sake of equality. (I'm talking about gender here, not race.)" -- dzrose

What makes exclusion based on gender different than exclusion based on race?

[FuzzieAlum]

I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with co-ed GLOs. I think there are people who would prefer that, and both types of organizations can exist side by side. But I would rather be in a single-sex group.

Perhaps this is because gender is something much more defined and unchangable than race (unless you get the operation!). If someone has a Chinese grandparent, a German grandparent, a Nigerian grandparent and a Brazilian grandparent, what race are they? Do they belong everywhere or nowhere? But for someone to be half-boy and half-girl ... well, hermaphropdites DO exist, but they're not exactly common. (Now I know that most people define their own race more easily than in that example I just made up. But interracial dating and marriage are becoming more common.)

Then too in a single-sex house, sexual tensions are mitigated. Yes, there are lesbian and gay Greeks, but it's infrequent that they date within their own house. I get the impression that co-ed Greeks don't frown on inter-house dating. I suppose two of us could fight over the same guy, but at least we're not fighting over our own brother.

And in this day and age (most) women still learn better in single-sex environments. In a sorority they have opportunities to strengthen themselves before heading out into the real, co-ed world. Look around at any co-ed group, be it the workplace or a college glee club. You'll usually see more men at the top then women. I'm not saying, "Oh, men are oppressing us." It has just as much to do with women choosing not to strive for these positions as anything else. Men are still generally perceived by men and women as better leaders. So the sorority is one of the few environments where all women can learn their own strengths and gain leadership skills.

Maybe what it comes down to (and I'm getting myself into trouble by making a generalization here) is that most of us, whether or not we want our GLOs to be fully racially balanced, still want our groups to be OPEN to those of races other than the ones of our founders. Whereas many fewer of us even want our groups to be open to the opposite sex. Until we all really want that, I don't see a mass movement to co-ed Greeks happening.

[dzrose93]

FuzzieAlum,

You said it for me!

[dzrose93]

Originally posted by Alias23
[BSo because an organization has goals and principles designed to facilitate growth and advancement for women, you're saying that a man has no place taking part in that? What if a man wants to help in the growth and advancement of women and believes in the organization's principles? Shouldn't he be allowed to join? The NAACP's focus is the advancement of the African-American community, and it has White members. What makes it any different for a man to join a group that has principles designed to help women if he really wants to help (chances are most men won't WANT to, but why shouldn't they be ABLE to)?[/B]

It's not just the goals and principles, Alias, it's also the rituals and symbolism that make our sorority what it is. It's impossible for me to go into further detail because I can't reveal anything about our ritual. Suffice it to say that it's definitely a women-only ceremony, and that a man getting involved in it would be like letting a bull loose in a china shop.

There are organizations available for men and women who want a co-ed environment. If a man asked to join Delta Zeta, I'd point him in the direction of the closest fraternity or co-ed group, and I wouldn't feel one bit guilty for doing so.

If men want to help us out with our personal philanthropy projects, then they are more than welcome. That's why we offer charity events that are open to the public, so that interested people can help us out if they so choose. A man who is interested in the charitable works we do doesn't have to be in the sorority to assist us.

[Alias23]

Hello FuzzieAlum.

"Perhaps this is because gender is something much more defined and unchangable than race (unless you get the operation!)." -- FuzzieAlum

Race is not changeable.

"If someone has a Chinese grandparent, a German grandparent, a Nigerian grandparent and a Brazilian grandparent, what race are they? Do they belong everywhere or nowhere? But for someone to be half-boy and half-girl ... well, hermaphropdites DO exist, but they're not exactly common. (Now I know that most people define their own race more easily than in that example I just made up. But interracial dating and marriage are becoming more common.)" -- FuzzieAlum

You are speaking of ethnic background, which is heritage and helps define who you are. Race as we have been discussing it deals with what racial group you declare to be from and are accepted/perceived as being a part of. This also helps define who you are and, more relevant to the issue at hand, what you experience in life. We are all a mixture of ethnicities (whether we want to accept that or not), but no matter what combination of ethnicities are in someone's background, other people will categorize them based on their perceptions and (sometimes) whatever other information they can attain. Everybody is lumped into a category whether they like it or not. This is what influences race relations. If anything, race is more complicated and influences relations more so than gender (though in a different way). History has shown that it is easier for people to coexist harmoniously with members of the opposite sex than members of another race, largely because men and women need each other to survive. Why, then, would it be percieved as acceptable to exclude someone from a group based on gender and not race?

"Then too in a single-sex house, sexual tensions are mitigated. Yes, there are lesbian and gay Greeks, but it's infrequent that they date within their own house. I get the impression that co-ed Greeks don't frown on inter-house dating. I suppose two of us could fight over the same guy, but at least we're not fighting over our own brother." -- FuzzieAlum

Racial tensions are also alleviated when organizations exclude people of different races. Is that a justification for it? If not, why is it a justification for excluding members of the opposite sex? After all, shouldn't people be able to address the situations that would cause such tension, whether they be racial or sexual? Interacting with people of another race/gender, rather than excluding them to avoid the problems, would only improve everyone's ability to interact with them in the real world and yet still accomplish objectives.

"And in this day and age (most) women still learn better in single-sex environments. In a sorority they have opportunities to strengthen themselves before heading out into the real, co-ed world. Look around at any co-ed group, be it the workplace or a college glee club. You'll usually see more men at the top then women. I'm not saying, "Oh, men are oppressing us." It has just as much to do with women choosing not to strive for these positions as anything else. Men are still generally perceived by men and women as better leaders. So the sorority is one of the few environments where all women can learn their own strengths and gain leadership skills." -- FuzzieAlum

Women CAN learn thier own strengths and leadership skills in the presence of men. If, hypothetically, a women's organization allowed men in, the women wouldn't all of the sudden have difficulty learning as long as the same approach was taken towards strength and leadership development as before. It has more to do with taking into account gender differences than whether or not the other sex is around.

"Maybe what it comes down to (and I'm getting myself into trouble by making a generalization here) is that most of us, whether or not we want our GLOs to be fully racially balanced, still want our groups to be OPEN to those of races other than the ones of our founders. Whereas many fewer of us even want our groups to be open to the opposite sex. Until we all really want that, I don't see a mass movement to co-ed Greeks happening." -- FuzzieAlum

Whether few of us WANT it or not is actually irrelevant. Freedom and equal rights not about what most people WANT to do, but what each and every individual CAN do if they so choose. If one single individual wants to be able to join an organization that is predominantly another race/gender, they should be able to if they meet all of the other requirements to do so. Many of the people who participated in the Montgomery bus boycotts didn't even ride the bus, but they fought so that if they, or anybody else, CHOSE to ride the bus they could sit anywhere they pleased. This is not the only time in history when people have fought so that others could have the freedom to do something, regardless of whether most people wanted to or not. All it takes for such a movement to form is for people to develop an understanding of the nature of freedom and an appreciation for the rights of every individual, regardless of what they want personally. As long as the people fighting for their rights can make their voices heard at the right level, they don't need support from the majority in the Greek world to win their battle. So, whether or not the groups themselves WANT to be open to people of the opposite sex is really irrelevant within the scheme of freedom and equal rights. After all, some groups (more than you realize) still don't WANT to be open to other races. Whether or not this is the desire of most groups or only a few, they shouldn't be allowed to exclude people based on race. Why shouldn't the same be true for gender?

[Alias23]

"It's not just the goals and principles, Alias, it's also the rituals and symbolism that make our sorority what it is. It's impossible for me to go into further detail because I can't reveal anything about our ritual. Suffice it to say that it's definitely a women-only ceremony, and that a man getting involved in it would be like letting a bull loose in a china shop." -- dzrose

I won't even ask for further details on your "ritual." If what you say about the involvement of a male is true, would you exclude someone who was a lesbian from the ritual as well? If so, do you also exclude them from your sorority?

If you do not and would not exclude lesbians, are you suggesting that a lesbian would have more self control sexually than a man?

"If men want to help us out with our personal philanthropy projects, then they are more than welcome. That's why we offer charity events that are open to the public, so that interested people can help us out if they so choose. A man who is interested in the charitable works we do doesn't have to be in the sorority to assist us." -- dzrose

That's great, but suppose he WANTS to be in the organization? This is about a man being ABLE to, not whether or not it is necessary.

[dzrose93]

Originally posted by Alias23
[BI won't even ask for further details on your "ritual." If what you say about the involvement of a male is true, would you exclude someone who was a lesbian from the ritual as well? If so, do you also exclude them from your sorority?

If you do not and would not exclude lesbians, are you suggesting that a lesbian would have more self control sexually than a man?

"If men want to help us out with our personal philanthropy projects, then they are more than welcome. That's why we offer charity events that are open to the public, so that interested people can help us out if they so choose. A man who is interested in the charitable works we do doesn't have to be in the sorority to assist us." -- dzrose

That's great, but suppose he WANTS to be in the organization? This is about a man being ABLE to, not whether or not it is necessary. [/B]

Well, like the Rolling Stones are so famous for saying, you can't always get what you want. A sorority is a private organization, and its governing body has the right to exclude males if it wants to. That's it in a nutshell...

But, here's an example: I'm Catholic. Just because I may want to serve the church in an official capacity, that doesn't mean that I can call up the Archdiocese and tell them that I want to study to become a priest. There are Vatican laws stating that women cannot be admitted into the priesthood. They can, however, enter convents and serve the church as a nun. So, I would take that route offered to me. I would still be serving the church and taking great satisfaction in it... I just wouldn't be wearing the vestments of a priest.

Same thing with guys wanting to be in a sorority (if there are any out there)... If they are that interested in Greek Life, then they can go join a fraternity or a co-ed GLO. It's not like they don't have options open to them that provide the same types of things that a sorority does: friendship, social interaction, and philanthropic opportunities.

As for lesbians, of course we don't exclude them from our membership. After all, they're women. Just because they prefer to sleep with other females doesn't mean that they can't relate to the same types of things that heterosexual sorority women do. You really can't compare a lesbian to a male in this case. It's like trying to compare apples and oranges.

As for whether a lesbian has more sexual self-control than a man does: That has no relevance at all. We're not barring men from our organizations because we're scared they're going to molest us or make us feel uncomfortable around them sexually!

The simple fact is that men don't need to be privy to every single thing that a woman is involved in -- just like women don't need to be privy to everything that men are involved in. Men wouldn't be able to relate to the most basic tenets of our organization, and so their presence would be pointless. Might as well send them to a breastfeeding class for new mothers!

[Alias23]

"As for lesbians, of course we don't exclude them from our membership. After all, they're women. Just because they prefer to sleep with other females doesn't mean that they can't relate to the same types of things that heterosexual sorority women do. You really can't compare a lesbian to a male in this case. It's like trying to compare apples and oranges.

As for whether a lesbian has more sexual self-control than a man does: That has no relevance at all. We're not barring men from our organizations because we're scared they're going to molest us or make us feel uncomfortable around them sexually!" -- dzrose

Then what are you talking about with this ritual where letting a male in would be like "letting a bull loose in a china shop?" That led me to believe you were talking about some ceremony where all the women were exposed or something? Could you clarify?

"But, here's an example: I'm Catholic. Just because I may want to serve the church in an official capacity, that doesn't mean that I can call up the Archdiocese and tell them that I want to study to become a priest. There are Vatican laws stating that women cannot be admitted into the priesthood. They can, however, enter convents and serve the church as a nun. So, I would take that route offered to me. I would still be serving the church and taking great satisfaction in it... I just wouldn't be wearing the vestments of a priest.

Same thing with guys wanting to be in a sorority (if there are any out there)... If they are that interested in Greek Life, then they can go join a fraternity or a co-ed GLO. It's not like they don't have options open to them that provide the same types of things that a sorority does: friendship, social interaction, and philanthropic opportunities." -- dzrose

It is NOT the same thing. The nature of religious organizations is that you join based on shared beliefs. If certain gender roles are part of those beliefs, then an individual considers those beliefs before subscribing to them and attending the church. It's not like sororities have beliefs about gender roles that they ask men to adopt, and then let them in. The nature of both organizations are completely different from one another. Bad example.

"Well, like the Rolling Stones are so famous for saying, you can't always get what you want. A sorority is a private organization, and its governing body has the right to exclude males if it wants to. That's it in a nutshell... "

So if that's your philosophy, I guess they have the right to exclude people based on race if they wanted to as well, huh? If not, what's the difference?

"The simple fact is that men don't need to be privy to every single thing that a woman is involved in -- just like women don't need to be privy to everything that men are involved in. Men wouldn't be able to relate to the most basic tenets of our organization, and so their presence would be pointless. Might as well send them to a breastfeeding class for new mothers!" -- dzrose

Organizations can argue that certain races can't relate to their most basic tenets as well. Does that mean it's ok to exclude that race? The NAACP didn't think so when they allowed Whites to place membership.

[carnation]

If I had wanted to join a coed GLO, I would have--there are plenty out there.

But--as one of very few female ag majors, I wanted female companionship and thank God that the Supreme Court has allowed single-sex, private organizations such as Scouts and GLOs to exist. There were plenty of other places where I could and did interact with guys. I understand what dzrose said about the very fabric of her organization not being anything that men would get into. I know the other Pi Phis will agree with me here about how men would be out of place in our group.

Alias, you might be trying to play devil's advocate but since you apparently don't understand what we're talking about, we can't and won't put it into words. It's just inexplicable.

[Alias23]

Originally posted by dzrose93


You just hit on the toughest point... It's all hearsay, all he said/she said. There's no real way to tell, is there? And that's the frustrating part.

I don't really know of a clear-cut way for people to "prove" their discrimination cases concerning Rush.

That's why a person doesn't have to prove intent to prove discrimination took place.

It's not that I don't think some of the claims are real -- I'm sure some of them are. And I seriously would like to see discrimination become extinct. It's just that, by trying to rid the Greek world of racism, it seems like somebody's rights or reputation are always going to get trampled on. In this case, the Alabama NPC sororities got some really bad press. Was it deserved? Maybe. Maybe not. I just hate to see the names of good chapters dragged through the mud if discrimination really wasn't a reason for Twilley's cut. A lot of people view Twilley as a victim. The truth is, the Alabama sororities could just as easily be victims, too. There's no way for us to know at this point.

That's why we INVESTIGATE. The problem is, it's hard to even get a thorough investigation of an allegation of racial discrimination such as this one unless you draw a lot of attention to the situation. That's where the media comes in. Yes, sometimes reputations are damaged (even when the investigation clears the accused's name) because people jump to conclusions, but that's the chance our community has to take to eliminate discrimination -- I'm sure you can understand that. Sounds like you have more of a problem with the media and people who jump to conclusions than Twilley.

Valid efforts at integration (outreach programs, diversity training, etc.) can help these organizations improve thier image and become more diverse after such an incident, or even build a positive reputation before such and incident happens (which could only help thier case or prevent such incidents in the first place). Desegregation and integration won't occur without efforts from all races involved to "take a step forward."


Hope this makes sense... I'm typing fast because I'm about to leave! I'll chat tomorrow.

[dzrose93]

Originally posted by Alias23
"As for lesbians, of course we don't exclude them from our membership. After all, they're women. Just because they prefer to sleep with other females doesn't mean that they can't relate to the same types of things that heterosexual sorority women do. You really can't compare a lesbian to a male in this case. It's like trying to compare apples and oranges.

As for whether a lesbian has more sexual self-control than a man does: That has no relevance at all. We're not barring men from our organizations because we're scared they're going to molest us or make us feel uncomfortable around them sexually!" -- dzrose

Then what are you talking about with this ritual where letting a male in would be like "letting a bull loose in a china shop?" That led me to believe you were talking about some ceremony where all the women were exposed or something? Could you clarify?

As to the bull in the china shop reference, I'm sorry, but I really can't clarify any further without divulging ritual secrets that have no place on this board. And, no, women don't expose themselves during our rituals! Sounds like a scene from a B horror movie! All I'm saying is that there are certain things associated with my sorority that only women can understand and relate to. A man would have absolutely no place in Delta Zeta because he couldn't relate -- not because he wouldn't want to, necessarily, but because there are certain things that are prevalent in women's lives that have no meaning to a man.

For example, I can't remember the sorority right offhand, but there is one who has a creed with a line reading, "To Be Womanly Always". Please tell me how a man could possibly stand up and promise "To Be Womanly Always" with a straight face and actually mean what he's saying? He doesn't have the first clue about how it feels to be a woman!

Originally posted by Alias23
"But, here's an example: I'm Catholic. Just because I may want to serve the church in an official capacity, that doesn't mean that I can call up the Archdiocese and tell them that I want to study to become a priest. There are Vatican laws stating that women cannot be admitted into the priesthood. They can, however, enter convents and serve the church as a nun. So, I would take that route offered to me. I would still be serving the church and taking great satisfaction in it... I just wouldn't be wearing the vestments of a priest.

Same thing with guys wanting to be in a sorority (if there are any out there)... If they are that interested in Greek Life, then they can go join a fraternity or a co-ed GLO. It's not like they don't have options open to them that provide the same types of things that a sorority does: friendship, social interaction, and philanthropic opportunities." -- dzrose

It is NOT the same thing. The nature of religious organizations is that you join based on shared beliefs. If certain gender roles are part of those beliefs, then an individual considers those beliefs before subscribing to them and attending the church. It's not like sororities have beliefs about gender roles that they ask men to adopt, and then let them in. The nature of both organizations are completely different from one another. Bad example.

It is exactly the same thing. Women join sororities based on shared beliefs, just as people join churches based on them. Women join a sorority knowing that she will find a place among her sisters. After all, that's the whole meaning behind the word sorority. Soror = sister. There's no reference to a "brother" there because our founders didn't start our organization for just anybody - they started it for college WOMEN who were interested in scholarship, philanthropy, and sisterhood.

Originally posted by Alias23
"Well, like the Rolling Stones are so famous for saying, you can't always get what you want. A sorority is a private organization, and its governing body has the right to exclude males if it wants to. That's it in a nutshell... "

So if that's your philosophy, I guess they have the right to exclude people based on race if they wanted to as well, huh? If not, what's the difference?

Why do we keep getting back to race here? I thought we were talking about gender. But to answer your question, I personally think that a privately-run organization should be able to select its members based on whatever criteria that they choose. For example, we have GPA requirements where a girl whose GPA is below a 2.6 isn't allowed to join. Is that discrimination? In a way, I suppose it is -- but our sorority would fold quickly if we took in girls who were not able to meet the academic requirements of their universities. And, to allow men into our organization would be detrimental also because it would change everything that we stand for; it would change Delta Zeta's entire "personality" into something that most girls going through rush wouldn't be interested in joining -- because the vast majority of girls going through rush are looking for SISTERHOOD in a SORORITY. And, like I mentioned before, there is no such thing as having a male "sister". It's just genetically impossible.

Seriously, if you look hard enough you can find some kind of discrimination in nearly anything in today's society. There are adult apartment communities that don't allow children. Should we rally the troops and protest that? Of course not. Private high schools don't accept students whose parents can't afford the annual tuition. Should we cry discrimination against poor people because of that? Yeah, and, while we're at it, let's start a campaign that will force employers to pay everybody the same high salary so that there won't ever be anyone who can't afford private school tuition.

A public library doesn't allow animals inside except for seeing eye dogs. Is that discrimination against pet owners with 20/20 vision? Maybe, if you want to get anal about it. But would anyone really want to make a federal case about it? If so, then I'd seriously question their sanity.

Alias, these examples are all given tongue in cheek. But my point is serious -- where do people expect us to draw the line in cases of discrimination?

Originally posted by Alias23
"The simple fact is that men don't need to be privy to every single thing that a woman is involved in -- just like women don't need to be privy to everything that men are involved in. Men wouldn't be able to relate to the most basic tenets of our organization, and so their presence would be pointless. Might as well send them to a breastfeeding class for new mothers!" -- dzrose

Organizations can argue that certain races can't relate to their most basic tenets as well. Does that mean it's ok to exclude that race? The NAACP didn't think so when they allowed Whites to place membership.

Again, we're getting into race instead of gender. But, since we are, let me point out that there is an organization called the Ku Klux Klan that is a perfectly legal entity in this country. They have the right to keep out African-Americans, Jews, and anyone else that they choose. I'll be the first to state that it's a nasty, deplorable club to be in, but it does have rights that are protected by our constitution. They even have the right to spout out their hatred on public streets as long as they have the necessary permits. Why is the KKK any different from any other private organization?

The thing is, it's all about freedom, and I personally draw the line when one person tries to force his or her own view of the "ideal world" onto someone else. Some people may not like the fact that sororities only accept women and fraternities only accept men. The great thing about this country is that, if they don't like it, then they can start their own co-ed groups. And that's happened. I don't have a problem with any co-ed GLO's. As far as I'm concerned, the Greek community has room for everybody, and we'll respect your beliefs and traditions as long as you respect ours.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by Alias23
Other than the few Blacks who pledge mostly White frats/sororities and vice-versa, will there ever be desegregation in the Greek community to the point where the ratio of Whites to Blacks in a given frat/sorority is anywhere close to 50/50? Even 40/60? Or will cultural/social differences prevent that from happening? If you think it will happen, how close do you think we are, and how does that reflect upon our society as a whole?

What do you all think? Be honest.

Uhhh . . . why would they be 50/50?

According to the 1990 census (most current data I have right here), the US is about 68% non-hispanic whites . . . and if you break it down even further, each campus has its own individual community statistical breakdown.

Shouldn't "integration" be examined versus the population from which membership is drawn, rather than some sort of random "50/50" type thing?

I think that's the only valid way to invoke the original post - I'll never argue that race relations in the US are perfectly wonderful, but I don't feel this is a valid definition as posted above.

[ChaosDST]

I certainly hope not. If folks want a co-ed fraternity, they should join a co-ed fraternity. In BGLOs, some of us acknowledge brother/sister relationships among the fraternities and sororities(whole new topic ). This can serve as a means of sharing a bond with people of the opposite sex. But, other than that, fraternities and sororities should remain single sex.

Originally posted by Alie549
I was more interested in knowing if GLO's would ever become genderless... I know there are some less mainstream groups out there that are coed, but I can't help thinking that greek life could be better if the strong bonds we share were held between men and women...What do you guys think?

[ChaosDST]

Geesh, this world is becoming so accepting of everything and anything that it's almost ridiculous. No, men should never be able to join a sorority---girls in the Boyscouts and boys in the Girlscouts (Naw). A man is more than welcome to form his own sorority (it has happened). I personally believe that transvetites shouldn't be able to join either. Let's not treat cross-gender and race as if they are the same thing. I would, beyond a doubt, discriminate against a man (or even a used-to-be-man) who attempted to pursue membership. No, this is not the same as discriminating against someone based on race---the two are extremely different. No, I will not even attempt to be open minded or politically correct. But, I acknowledge that my opinion may be unpopular, especially in a world where people are so quick to take offense and walk on eggshells in order to avoiding giving offense.


Greek Love,
1913

Originally posted by Alias23
That's great, but suppose he WANTS to be in the organization? This is about a man being ABLE to, not whether or not it is necessary.

[Alias23]

KSigRC--

You're right in what you're saying, and that has actually already been addressed and settled (I'm sure you didn't read all the replies because there are so many). Some people have been addressing whether or not the proportions will ever correlate with the census, and others have actually said that one day they would be 50/50 or 40/60 (obviously assuming dramatic changes in the make-up of the population).

I was aware of the census numbers when I tossed it out there, but just wanted to see what the responses were. I'm known to play devil's advocate