Who Has Removed Preferential Treatment for Legacies?

[TXDG]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Reading through this and the rec thread, does anyone else think it’s bat guano crazy to be doing all this in the middle of a worldwide pandemic?

I mean - the people who are pushing all these changes through have probably picked an optimum time to do so as most of us are occupied with other more pressing things or in the throes of depression. When everyone snaps out of it and wakes up, will these policies really stay? How many national convention throwdowns will result?

I also wonder how the national leadership of so many groups has come to be so far out of touch with the rest of the membership.

I don’t think the national offices are “so far out of touch with the REST of the membership.” On my group’s Facebook page, there are regularly posts from members thanking EO for the positive changes being made, especially from women who wouldn’t have been eligible to be in a sorority 60 years ago and have sometimes felt marginalized even as full members.

Even myself, a white girl from a “good” family and a strong high school but no legacies...when I was deciding between two colleges, I definitely considered the fact that one school had a 100+ year old Greek system with more legacies than spots in many chapters. And the other school had a younger Greek system where the first chapter legacies would start to come through the year I graduated. My rush was competitive - sororities were still selective and I had cuts - but our chapter had maybe 2-5 legacies pledge each year. The last time I saw our chapter’s stats, legacies were about 40-50% of the pledge class with many legacy cuts. That’s a huge difference in 25 years and represents many fewer opportunities to pledge for PNM’s like me (who literally was born on life’s “3rd base”), not to mention other PNM’s who have as much or more to give but don’t know the ropes.

Are members grumpy and even outraged about these changes? Sure. But they seem to be the same kind of people screaming “make America great (white) again” and fighting tooth and toenail against America becoming more diverse,, ignoring the huge “leg up” in life they had by being (mostly) white, college educated women. I won’t be so ignorant to think my daughter would be a better DG than a non-legacy just because of her family name. All legacy relatives should strive to raise their legacies in a way that every sorority is interested in her because her character, kindness, morals, service, and intellect radiate on their own.

[33girl]

I know with our org, part of the problem was that this change was announced after a convention during which it had been neither brought up nor discussed.

Also, some women of color were the loudest critics of eliminating the legacy policy. They wanted their sisters or future children to get an extra look if they attended a school that was more homogeneous than where they had gone.

I know that everyone’s policy is different but I think there are ways other than throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Chi Omega has been very smart in confining who is a legacy to mothers and sisters. Once again, this is something that would be served better by being handled on a chapter level rather than nationally.

[carnation]

Originally Posted by TXDG

Are members grumpy and even outraged about these changes? Sure. But they seem to be the same kind of people screaming “make America great (white) again” and fighting tooth and toenail against America becoming more diverse,, ignoring the huge “leg up” in life they had by being (mostly) white, college educated women. I won’t be so ignorant to think my daughter would be a better DG than a non-legacy just because of her family name. All legacy relatives should strive to raise their legacies in a way that every sorority is interested in her because her character, kindness, morals, service, and intellect radiate on their own.

I know a black DG who would be infuriated if she read that. She is extremely upset because her daughter's legacy status won't be honored when she rushes.

ETA: I can think of a lot of women who are angry about this who do not fit that MAGA picture.

[Cheerio]

Originally Posted by TXDG

I don’t think the national offices are “so far out of touch with the REST of the membership.” On my group’s Facebook page, there are regularly posts from members thanking EO for the positive changes being made, especially from women who wouldn’t have been eligible to be in a sorority 60 years ago and have sometimes felt marginalized even as full members.

Even myself, a white girl from a “good” family and a strong high school but no legacies...when I was deciding between two colleges, I definitely considered the fact that one school had a 100+ year old Greek system with more legacies than spots in many chapters. And the other school had a younger Greek system where the first chapter legacies would start to come through the year I graduated. My rush was competitive - sororities were still selective and I had cuts - but our chapter had maybe 2-5 legacies pledge each year. The last time I saw our chapter’s stats, legacies were about 40-50% of the pledge class with many legacy cuts. That’s a huge difference in 25 years and represents many fewer opportunities to pledge for PNM’s like me (who literally was born on life’s “3rd base”), not to mention other PNM’s who have as much or more to give but don’t know the ropes.

Are members grumpy and even outraged about these changes? Sure. But they seem to be the same kind of people screaming “make America great (white) again” and fighting tooth and toenail against America becoming more diverse,, ignoring the huge “leg up” in life they had by being (mostly) white, college educated women. I won’t be so ignorant to think my daughter would be a better DG than a non-legacy just because of her family name. All legacy relatives should strive to raise their legacies in a way that every sorority is interested in her because her character, kindness, morals, service, and intellect radiate on their own.

Originally Posted by carnation

I know a black DG who would be infuriated if she read that. She is extremely upset because her daughter's legacy status won't be honored when she rushes.

ETA: I can think of a lot of women who are angry about this who do not fit that MAGA picture.

The newer policy also makes me grumpy, and please count me as not fitting the TXDG-described MAGA picture.

My small sorority chapter (mumble) years ago when I was initiated was PLENTY diverse as far as nationalities, sexual orientations and religious affiliations among our members, too, and we LIKED IT that way!

[shirley1929]

Originally Posted by TXDG

Are members grumpy and even outraged about these changes? Sure. But they seem to be the same kind of people screaming “make America great (white) again” and fighting tooth and toenail against America becoming more diverse,, ignoring the huge “leg up” in life they had by being (mostly) white, college educated women. I won’t be so ignorant to think my daughter would be a better DG than a non-legacy just because of her family name. All legacy relatives should strive to raise their legacies in a way that every sorority is interested in her because her character, kindness, morals, service, and intellect radiate on their own.

Holy generalizations, Batman! I’m grumpy and voted for Biden. I’m grumpy that a triple XYZ legacy could get taken to Pref round and put at the bottom of the bid list. I’m grumpy that fantastic small town girls will get overlooked, and I’m grumpy that weak chapters will likely get weaker. I’m grumpy that this was shoved down the members throats with very little input/discussion. All the while...none of this is doing anything to change diversity in our groups.

[GoldenAnchor]

Originally Posted by shirley1929

I’m grumpy that this was shoved down the members throats with very little input/discussion.

If we’re still specifically discussing DG there was plenty of input and discussion before this change was made, this change was the direct result of a large outcry of members asking for this change and many others last summer. The discussion around legacy’s was happening for years and it finally was pushed to its breaking point when a chapter wrote an incredibly well thought out proposal to council for the removal of the policy and they listened to member input and that proposal was backed and supported by dozens of other chapters. (It was Beta - Washington if I’m not mistaken)

Just because others chose to ignore the conversation doesn’t mean it wasn’t happening.

[shirley1929]

Originally Posted by GoldenAnchor

If we’re still specifically discussing DG there was plenty of input and discussion before this change was made, this change was the direct result of a large outcry of members asking for this change and many others last summer. The discussion around legacy’s was happening for years and it finally was pushed to its breaking point when a chapter wrote an incredibly well thought out proposal to council for the removal of the policy and they listened to member input and that proposal was backed and supported by dozens of other chapters. (It was Beta - Washington if I’m not mistaken)

Just because others chose to ignore the conversation doesn’t mean it wasn’t happening.

Not specific to DG at all. Several other groups have had issues with this being thrown at them.

The policy some have had of "leaving it up to the chapters" (who, incidentally, likely all conduct recruitment/membership selection differently depending on the size and scope of their recruitments) made the most sense to me.

[carnation]

Originally Posted by shirley1929

Holy generalizations, Batman! I’m grumpy that a triple XYZ legacy could get taken to Pref round and put at the bottom of the bid list. I’m grumpy that fantastic small town girls will get overlooked, and I’m grumpy that weak chapters will likely get weaker. I’m grumpy that this was shoved down the members throats with very little input/discussion. All the while...none of this is doing anything to change diversity in our groups.

Yes! Yes! Yes! And they're claiming that they're doing it in the name of diversity but we all know it won't change anything, except to make the chapters less diverse because now the girls will only be voting for PNMs whom they know.

[shirley1929]

Originally Posted by carnation

Yes! Yes! Yes! And they're claiming that they're doing it in the name of diversity but we all know it won't change anything, except to make the chapters less diverse because now the girls will only be voting for PNMs whom they know.

Bolded to make things louder for those in the back!!!!

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by TXDG

I don’t think the national offices are “so far out of touch with the REST of the membership.” On my group’s Facebook page, there are regularly posts from members thanking EO for the positive changes being made, especially from women who wouldn’t have been eligible to be in a sorority 60 years ago and have sometimes felt marginalized even as full members.

I went digging and found Facebook posts regarding the legacy policy changes for a handful of organizations. There is certainly a mixed bag of responses for each.

Alpha Sigma Alpha
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...composer=false

Gamma Phi Beta
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...composer=false

Kappa Alpha Theta
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...composer=false

Kappa Kappa Gamma
https://m.facebook.com/kappakappagam...composer=false

Sigma Sigma Sigma
https://m.facebook.com/sigmasigmasig...composer=false

[carnation]

I feel like most of the emotion with the dropping of all legacy preferences is with the loss of legacies who make it to prefs being on the first bid list. Hey, if you don't want her, cut her before prefs. No big deal.

These lame-ass HQs who are dropping all legacy policies are saying, "But we will still celebrate our legacies." How? HOW? Sending them a congratulatory email when they graduate from high school? Letting them wear legacy T-shirts when they're babies? Why can't these HQs answer these questions?

[33girl]

Because the sisters working at HQ probably didn’t write the policies. A consultant (who may or may not have been Greek) did.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

I went digging and found Facebook posts regarding the legacy policy changes for a handful of organizations. There is certainly a mixed bag of responses for each.

Alpha Sigma Alpha
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...composer=false

Gamma Phi Beta
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...composer=false

Kappa Alpha Theta
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?sto...composer=false

Kappa Kappa Gamma
https://m.facebook.com/kappakappagam...composer=false

Sigma Sigma Sigma
https://m.facebook.com/sigmasigmasig...composer=false

The last two didn’t come up. I certainly had some favorites in these, though.

-The Theta who said that GPA shouldn’t be a factor because your parents might be in jail. (I would venture that if your parents are in jail sorority rush is the least of your worries)

-The frequently posting Gamma Phi who apparently has zero understanding of the difference between NPC, local Panhellenic, and individual GLO policies on recommendations, but has no problem weighing forth as though she does.

As far as the ASA thread I plead the 5th

I’ve come to the conclusion that a scuttling of legacy policies would have been received with far less acrimony if it had been explained that after 150 years of sorority membership, there were so many legacies coming through some chapters that the actives had no agency as far as being able to choose women other than legacies. I think everyone would have related to that, sympathized and understood and been supportive of a change. Instead it’s turned into a big virtue signalling moment to the point that some women in those threads actually APOLOGIZED FOR THEIR MEMBERSHIP. It makes it sound like the only thing holding back sororities from being bastions of diversity were these antiquated policies. (Psssst: there’s lots more than that.)

The chapters whose members are diverse in race, sexual orientation, physical appearance and economic status will continue to be so, and those that are homogeneous will continue to be so. The only thing that will change is who will be the new superstar as far as national headquarters and chapter awards are concerned.

[carnation]

Originally Posted by 33girl

The last two didn’t come up. I certainly had some favorites in these, though.
I’ve come to the conclusion that a scuttling of legacy policies would have been received with far less acrimony if it had been explained that after 150 years of sorority membership, there were so many legacies coming through some chapters that the actives had no agency as far as being able to choose women other than legacies. I think everyone would have related to that, sympathized and understood and been supportive of a change. Instead it’s turned into a big virtue signalling moment to the point that some women in those threads actually APOLOGIZED FOR THEIR MEMBERSHIP. It makes it sound like the only thing holding back sororities from being bastions of diversity were these antiquated policies. (Psssst: there’s lots more than that.)

The chapters whose members are diverse in race, sexual orientation, physical appearance and economic status will continue to be so, and those that are homogeneous will continue to be so. The only thing that will change is who will be the new superstar as far as national headquarters and chapter awards are concerned.

33, you have made some fine posts!

[33girl]

Thanks. It’s just the utter hypocrisy that gets me - these populations we are trying so hard to attract were referred to as “undesirable” a couple decades ago.

If these changes actually lead to chapters full of women who love each other and relate to each other regardless of their deepest differences, it may be worth it. However, if it leads to tokenism, I’ll puke.