|
I attended the convention that banned Little Sisters in 1985. The problem was purely legal and we took the step to protect our legal right to a single-sex membership. There was another fraternity with a lawsuit pending at the time.
The LS were rushed, just like the men. They had a pledge program, just like the men. They had officers, paid dues, had meetings, an initiation, even pins; just like the men. They were known as "Daughters of the Nile"; the men were "Sons of Sphinx." Under these circumstances, what was the difference between the "membership" of the "sisters" versus the "brothers"? To the unitiated, it could look as if they had done just as much and were equal members.
We did not do away with female affiliates or sweethearts--as they are most commonly known. We did ban anything which could be construed as equal to the membership of the brothers. The issue now is one of language and execution of the program. I think the basic premise of a female support organization still applies.
|
Threaded Mode