What would our founders of all Greek Organizations think if they saw us

[Optimist Prime]

Originally posted by Richard(SNU)
What would our founders of all Greek Organizations think if they
saw us?

My guess is that the founders of the fraternities would wonder why the
hell the badges they designed so carefully are being worn by women.

Good call

[MysticCat]

Originally posted by rosejoy
There is a difference between being of Anglo Saxon descent and being caucasian. Italians are considered caucasians, just not of Anglo descent.

True, but the founder's name in question was Lorenzo Potter. Potter is very definately an Anglo name, I would be willing to bet that Lorenzo Potter (who hailed from Wisconsin in the 1850's -- prior to the real wave of Italian immigrants) was of Anglo background.

Just my $0.02.

[MysticCat]

Originally posted by Richard(SNU)
My guess is that the founders of the fraternities would wonder why the hell the badges they designed so carefully are being worn by women.

Actually, in the 1800's, when many fraternities were founded, it was quite common for a brother to give his fraternity badge to his fiance or wife. She wore it as a sign that she was under the protection of the fraternity. My great-grandfather did it in the 1880's, my father did it in the 1940's.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by wptw


Optimist Prime, you should know that the Theta Chi constitution restricted membership only to caucasians until sometime in the 1950s. That's how you lost your Dartmouth chapter.

Theta Chi is a fine group with a lot to be proud of. But we should all be aware of the skeletons in our closets when it comes to this issue (No, not that skeleton - I'm speaking figuratively here! ). Delta Chi, Sigma Chi, Phi Sigma Kappa and many other NIC groups restricted membership only to white males well into the 1950s and 1960s, and they lost good chapters over it too.

wptw

We allowed other races but not blacks in until I *think* til around '62 or so. Not something that's exactly 'in the closet'. To judge the past by today's standards is unfair. I think we've come a long way and for the better but that's why we change. Diversity has made us better.

[Optimist Prime]

Actully I didn't know that Potter is anglo but there were Italians here in this country before the wave of immigrants. I'm all bummed out now.

[wptw]

Agreed, ktsnake. It is somewhat unfair to judge our founders by today’s standards. But you do have to at least be aware there were different standards, so you don’t get too carried away with how wonderful your founders were. In 1860 you could be an educated, moral, upstanding young man and still consider a black man inferior and unworthy of membership. In 1960 it was obviously a different story.

But this is where we disagree: I think it is still very much “in the closet”. I don’t think the average GLO member has any idea that their constitution once allowed only whites, and that the civil rights movement created some very strong dissention in fraternity ranks which resulted in the loss of several original chapters. It continues to this day. There are still plenty of old-timers around, active alums, who fiercely resent having to admit blacks.

Yes, diversity has made us better. I wasn’t saying that fraternities and sororities today are racist organizations (or at least, no more so than a sampling of the general college-educated public). My point was simply that we should be aware this happened. Clearly, many of us are not.

And, as James tried to point out, we shouldn’t elevate our founders to such an unrealistic degree as to imagine them above the more “unsavory” attitudes of their time. I agree with James that this shows “limited reasoning”.

This statement is pure fantasy:
“My founders weren't racist. They would be happy we have non-White and non-Episcapalion members. They set out to be a national fraternity and have members of lots of groups be brothers.”

I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the founders of our groups. The dedication and the hours required to assemble a group of like-minded individuals, to develop a structure of ritual and symbolism and law that endures today, is incredible. But I have no illusions about who these people were. They were simply young, educated men and women who were as much driven by the social and political forces of their time as we are by ours a century or more later.

wptw

[MysticCat]

Originally posted by Optimist Prime
I'm all bummed out now.

Don't be bummed. I think others have made a good point -- we tend to place our founders way up on pedastals, so that the they are almost bound to disappoint us at some point.

I'm all for honoring our founders -- I certainly honor mine -- but I think part of honoring them is remembering that they were human with faults and that their vision, incredible and inspiring as it was and is, was in some sense bound by the time in which they lived.

I'm sure our founders could not have foreseen the diversity we find in their fraternities or sorotities today, nor do I think they would have necessarily liked it could they have foreseen it. But I do like to think (and perhaps here I am failing to follow my own advice) that, given the ideals and values they set forth for us who follow, that -- could they see the world as it has progressed, and could they have the perspective of our time rather than the perspective of the time in which they lived -- they would approve of our diversity. Wishful thinking, maybe, but the values they set forth for us are all I have to go on, and it is those values that, I think, that encourage us to reject prejudice.

The way that we can best honor our founders is by fully living into the values of our fraternities and sororities, even if that takes us to places our founders didn't imagine.

[Kevin]

Agreed, ktsnake. It is somewhat unfair to judge our founders by today’s standards. But you do have to at least be aware there were different standards, so you don’t get too carried away with how wonderful your founders were. In 1860 you could be an educated, moral, upstanding young man and still consider a black man inferior and unworthy of membership. In 1960 it was obviously a different story.

Absolutely. The organizations (as all are) are simply products of their cultures and times. Sigma Nu's founders were former Confederate Soldiers studying Civil Engineering at the Virginia Military Institute. While I'm almost 100% sure they would not even have allowed ME in as a Roman Catholic -- or for that matter any non-WASP persuasion... I still think they got it right.

They gave us a wonderful creed to live by and some great values -- Love, Honor and Truth. These concepts don't exist in a vacuum... So I'd imagine that your concept of these would be different from mine -- mine different from my founders... etc..

This doesn't change the fact that what they did was stand up in the face of adversity (the institutionalized hazing at VMI) and stand for something they believed in.

To follow in the footsteps of such men is a true honor for me. The organization and the men running it have changed a great deal since 1869.