NPC appoints Community College Task Force

[shirley1929]

Originally Posted by 33girl

This sounds too much like when we were voting on mixers (which we did week by week). The mixer would get approved, only a third of the sisters would show up, and we would look like asshats. Then it came about that people were voting like this: “well I have a class/study group/rehearsal/what have you that night, but I voted in favor of it so other people could go and enjoy it.” After that, we said: don’t vote in favor of a mixer unless you can/intend to actually GO to the mixer.

I would use the exact same reasoning here. If you don’t intend to ever submit an expansion proposal to a community college, don’t vote in favor of it just because you think ABC or XYZ would want to. Let ABC and XYZ worry about themselves.

I get where you're going with this, but doesn't it have to be a unanimous vote? So just letting ABC and XYZ worry about themselves kinda screws them over, right? If it doesn't have to be a unanimous vote then, your thinking makes sense to me.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by shirley1929

I get where you're going with this, but doesn't it have to be a unanimous vote? So just letting ABC and XYZ worry about themselves kinda screws them over, right? If it doesn't have to be a unanimous vote then, your thinking makes sense to me.

It doesn’t screw them over, it prevents a tiered system from forming. You’re going to have to have some canaries for this coal mine and we all know damned well that it’s not going to be any of the groups that are thought of as nationally prestigious.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by 33girl

It doesn’t screw them over, it prevents a tiered system from forming. You’re going to have to have some canaries for this coal mine and we all know damned well that it’s not going to be any of the groups that are thought of as nationally prestigious.

There are already well-known "tiers", if you want to call them that, because all of the NPC sororities have different criteria for presenting, and some are not interested in smaller, lesser known colleges, while others enthusiastically open chapters at the same. Horses for courses.

[shirley1929]

Originally Posted by 33girl

It doesn’t screw them over, it prevents a tiered system from forming. You’re going to have to have some canaries for this coal mine and we all know damned well that it’s not going to be any of the groups that are thought of as nationally prestigious.

I’m not trying to be dense I swear, I just want to understand... How does it NOT screw them over
- if ABC and XYZ want to be those canaries you speak of
- and PDQ does not, so they vote against it
- so ABC and XYZ don’t even get a chance to try, because PDQ doesn’t want to? (Given that all 26 have to unanimously decide to try it)

How is this any different from an extension happening At a 4year and groups not choosing to put in a packet for whatever reason?

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by shirley1929

I’m not trying to be dense I swear, I just want to understand... How does it NOT screw them over
- if ABC and XYZ want to be those canaries you speak of
- and PDQ does not, so they vote against it
- so ABC and XYZ don’t even get a chance to try, because PDQ doesn’t want to? (Given that all 26 have to unanimously decide to try it)

How is this any different from an extension happening At a 4year and groups not choosing to put in a packet for whatever reason?

It's not; you are exactly right.

[shirley1929]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

It's not; you are exactly right.

Ok thanks. I really was feeling dumb there for a sec...

[TriDeltaSallie]

I thought of this discussion when I saw this today.

(Disclaimer: Did not listen to actual interview, only read article.)

Almost Half Of Universities May Be Gone In 5 To 10 Years, Professor Admits

[33girl]

Originally Posted by shirley1929

I’m not trying to be dense I swear, I just want to understand... How does it NOT screw them over
- if ABC and XYZ want to be those canaries you speak of
- and PDQ does not, so they vote against it
- so ABC and XYZ don’t even get a chance to try, because PDQ doesn’t want to? (Given that all 26 have to unanimously decide to try it)

How is this any different from an extension happening At a 4year and groups not choosing to put in a packet for whatever reason?

Extension is not always a matter of “wanting” or “not wanting” to go somewhere. How many times have we talked about the SEC schools that need more groups but there aren’t groups that have the $ or local alumnae available to handle it?

[Titchou]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Extension is not always a matter of “wanting” or “not wanting” to go somewhere. How many times have we talked about the SEC schools that need more groups but there aren’t groups that have the $ or local alumnae available to handle it?

Good heavens! She said "choosing" not "wanting." Groups may want to go to a campus but choose not to for any number of reasons. And it isn't always money or local alumnae. Not everyone wants to be at Big Southern U!

[33girl]

I know that.

I just see this making the tier system that’s already in the NPC worse. Obviously all the groups will never be equal - we are 150 years too late for that.

It just seems to me that if there are, as some people are saying, CCs that are virtually indistinguishable from regular 4 year colleges, it would be better to vote on expanding to them individually as exceptions to the rule, rather than opening the door to CCs that because of their student turnover are simply not suitable places to put an NPC group.

[SWTXBelle]

I trust NPC member groups to evaluate for themselves whether or not a community college would be a good place to plant a colony, just as they do now for 4 year schools
Unless they change V, it is not even a possibility. Starting to grant individual exceptions to the Unanimous Agreements would set a very dangerous precedent, and open up an entirely unnecessary can of worms.

[Titchou]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I know that.

I just see this making the tier system that’s already in the NPC worse. Obviously all the groups will never be equal - we are 150 years too late for that.

It just seems to me that if there are, as some people are saying, CCs that are virtually indistinguishable from regular 4 year colleges, it would be better to vote on expanding to them individually as exceptions to the rule, rather than opening the door to CCs that because of their student turnover are simply not suitable places to put an NPC group.

33, I get a headache from smh at some of the things you say.

1) Do you really want ALL of NPC to have to vote unanimously every time MMM or NNN wants to simply submit a packet to a CC expansion effort? Does that sound feasible to you?

2) What makes you think that student turnover is the reason?

3) And what the heck do you mean by "simply not suitable?" OMG! sounds like you are in a membership selection meeting at the stereotypical Big Southern U that everyone rails against

Well, bless your heart!

[TriDeltaSallie]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I just see this making the tier system that’s already in the NPC worse. Obviously all the groups will never be equal - we are 150 years too late for that.

The groups could have all started at the same time and they still would not be equal. That's not the nature of human beings.

Some groups would make choices that work out well and others wouldn't. Groups would adopt different growth strategies, membership retention strategies, expansion strategies, etc.

Will we ever know how things would have been if they had all started at the same time? No. That's the way the world works. The USA is only a few hundred years old and look what it has accomplished that countries thousands of years old have never come close to achieving.

Chi Omega came into existence decades after other groups and yet they are the largest organization now. One could argue that some of the groups that joined later might not even exist if they hadn't been added to NPC.

[SWTXBelle]

I was being lazy, but now I've done the research:

https://www.npcwomen.org/wp-content/...Agreements.pdf

TL/DR - UA V would have to be amended by a unanimous vote by all 26.