An interesting read by a U of Michigan Recruitment Chair

[APhi2KD]

Originally Posted by beckymer92

On this thread alone, there are Alpha Phis both confirming and denying this to be a national policy, thus "she said-she said" (so we don't know). A member might have some ax to grind, so it could be sour grapes, we don't know.

I don't see the downfall of "rushing for looks" even if it is happening. Alpha Phi overall seems to do quite well. That we do know.

I can’t tell if you are trying to help or hurt APhi. Your repeated calls of “sour grapes” and back-handed compliments lead me to guess the latter.

[GreekOne]

Originally Posted by beckymer92

On this thread alone, there are Alpha Phis both confirming and denying this to be a national policy, thus "she said-she said" (so we don't know). A member might have some ax to grind, so it could be sour grapes, we don't know.

I don't see the downfall of "rushing for looks" even if it is happening. Alpha Phi overall seems to do quite well. That we do know.

Imagine if you were hiring and you had candidates that were over qualified and pleasant but not attractive. Then, there was a candidate who looked like Bradley Cooper but didn't have the necessary skills. Who gets the job?

If you are hiring fashion models, it is clear how you hire. But, if the job requires more than wearing a size 0 and walking a runway, you should think about what makes your organization stronger. What is your fiduciary responsibility to your organization?

Sure, I would love to chat up Bradly Cooper over the coffee machine every day. But, if he is not contributing to the overall goals of the organization, is he the right fit?

I would rather be a member of an organization filled with Madeline Albrights and Ruth Bader Ginsbergs than Melania Trumps. ( Ignore party affiliation. I am making a point about quality vs. substance and contribution instead of party).

I would want my chapter to be filled with athletes, scholars, student leaders AND the Homecoming Queen. But, if something had to give, I would not pick one criteria to the detriment of others. A chapter is richer and deeper by having diversity.

One of the biggest concerns, to me, about this (presumed) Alpha Phi piece is that alumnae are dropping legacies and friends of chapter members because they consider them to be "MG" based on a superficial standard of beauty. That is completely beyond the realm of my experience as a collegian or an adviser.

If we have come to a point where sororities want women who offer nothing but beauty, we should rethink our values.

[irishpipes]

I think it's safe to say most if not all chapters would like to attract attractive members. That isn't really what is being discussed here. We're talking about a total deviation from any selection criteria besides physical appearance. Even at brainy schools, there are PNMs with QRs or other barriers to entry, and there are less attractive PNMs who would greatly benefit a chapter. Additionally, it's the imposition of non-collegiate members in the selection process that is alarming.

[APhi2KD]

^^^^ this.

[beckymer92]

Rushing for looks is only a problem if you stereotype attractive women as unintelligent, unmotivated, uncaring and unkind.

Me? I'd rather be a member of an org filled with Amy Conley Barretts, Mia Loves, Lolo Joneses, Melania Trumps and Michelle Malkins any day over an org filled with the likes of Madeline Albright and RBG.

[GreekOne]

Originally Posted by beckymer92

Rushing for looks is only a problem if you stereotype attractive women as unintelligent, unmotivated, uncaring and unkind.

No one has said that attractive women can't be intelligent, motivated, caring and kind. Those traits are not mutually exclusive. We have many members in our chapters that are all of those things in addition to being stunning. However, there are also women that don't fit a stereotypical version of beauty who are research scientists, incredible athletes, legacies or simply hilarious and fun to be around. From the document originally posted, it appears that these women would not make the cut no matter how much else they could bring to the chapter.

One would hope that chapters would recognize that outward appearance is only one piece of the puzzle--not worthy of trumping all else.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by beckymer92

Rushing for looks is only a problem if you stereotype attractive women as unintelligent, unmotivated, uncaring and unkind.

Me? I'd rather be a member of an org filled with Amy Conley Barretts, Mia Loves, Lolo Joneses, Melania Trumps and Michelle Malkins any day over an org filled with the likes of Madeline Albright and RBG.

I don’t know who the hell any of those people are except MT but if you want to hang out with them OK. I think you missed the point where she said she wasn’t referring to their particular politics but rather to their accomplishments. I mean Madeline Albright totally got kicked to my personal curb after the voting for HRC remarks, but I still appreciate what GreekOne was saying.

You keep missing major points of the issue, like the woman who was a university athlete and a friend to a huge portion of the chapter and was flagged as an undesirable candidate. Or the fact that members’ evaluations in the first round were actually a sham and had nothing to do with whether or not the rushee would move on to the next round.

We all take looks into account when selecting members. That’s not a secret. It’s when looks are the ONLY thing - and worse, when a SPECIFIC look is the only acceptable one (the “silky hair” reference? Come ON) - that it veers into a territory that NPC sororities emphatically do not want to occupy. As the rush chair stated, one of the reasons she found this all so hard to deal with was that she DID find lifetime friendships with women who were intelligent, motivated, caring and kind. And I would think women with those attributes would like to think that they were part of the reason they were selected for membership - not just their looks.

[panhelrose]

Originally Posted by beckymer92

Rushing for looks is only a problem if you stereotype attractive women as unintelligent, unmotivated, uncaring and unkind.

Me? I'd rather be a member of an org filled with Amy Conley Barretts, Mia Loves, Lolo Joneses, Melania Trumps and Michelle Malkins any day over an org filled with the likes of Madeline Albright and RBG.

I know this isn't the point you're trying to make, but RBG is a member of an NPC sorority and I'm certain AEPhi members are proud to call her a sister, not in the least because if you actually google "young Ruth Bader Ginsburg," that girl is BEAUTIFUL! I'm sure she made her sisters at Cornell very proud as a member of Phi Beta Kappa and the highest-ranking female student.

Speaking of pitting individual women against each other, I think one of the biggest issues we have with this expose (if you will) is the evaluation of attractiveness of active sisters as a way of choosing who speaks to which PNMs. Whenever my sisters in other bump groups had to sit out rounds during recruitment half were glad to be getting a break, but half were heartbroken they couldn't meet more PNMs. I can't imagine finding out that your sisters, the people you're supposed to confide in and grow with, are evaluating you and your ability to recruit desirable PNMs based solely on your appearance, and deciding you aren't worthy of the top picks. That you aren't the type of sister they think future sisters would like. You already worry you're not "good enough" when you go through recruitment, and it turns out you're still not "good enough" when you're a sister.

Between that and the slideshow sent to fraternities with only photos of new members, the whole read just made me pretty sad.

[AZTheta]

I promised my friends I wasn't going to comment here because of the very obvious Arizona Alpha Phi connections to this issue. You can google it, folks. Breaking my promise to say this:

beckymer92 you aren't even an NPC member. You don't have any sort of grasp on the bigger picture or the real issues that are at stake. This isn't just about Alpha Phi and we all know it. You're clueless. You miss all the important points and keep harping on looks. Your shallow trolling is beyond obvious. Have a seat. Or not. Whatever.

On the very remote, minute chance that you are an NPC member, boy howdy and an eye roll and a sigh is all I got for you. Sure would like to know your chapter. Statistically we are going to have people like you in our membership and typically they don't prevail or last long. I looked at all your posts and I am confident that you are not one of us. At this point you're just a pathetic joke. I don't need to defend my Panhellenic sisters and our combined membership. So go back under your bridge and stay the hell out of something you know nothing about.

[SunflowerState]

Originally Posted by AZTheta

I promised my friends I wasn't going to comment here because of the very obvious Arizona Alpha Phi connections to this issue. You can google it, folks. Breaking my promise to say this:

beckymer92 you aren't even an NPC member. You don't have any sort of grasp on the bigger picture or the real issues that are at stake. This isn't just about Alpha Phi and we all know it. You're clueless. You miss all the important points and keep harping on looks. Your shallow trolling is beyond obvious. Have a seat. Or not. Whatever.

On the very remote, minute chance that you are an NPC member, boy howdy and an eye roll and a sigh is all I got for you. Sure would like to know your chapter. Statistically we are going to have people like you in our membership and typically they don't prevail or last long. I looked at all your posts and I am confident that you are not one of us. At this point you're just a pathetic joke. I don't need to defend my Panhellenic sisters and our combined membership. So go back under your bridge and stay the hell out of something you know nothing about.

Oh, AZTheta, I'm so glad you broke your promise! I always enjoy your take on things. Thank you.

[beckymer92]

Thank you guys for making my point, that picking beauties doesn't equal low-quality, high-problem members as insinuated. IF a group rushes for looks, they are likely picking girls that also encompass their values. They will likely still have a super group of women either way. Right, I was not taking any shots at AEPhi. As stated, Alpha Phi may or may not be rushing for looks (that's still debatable) but they seem very successful nonetheless so it sounds like someone is feeling insecure or left out or something. I don't know. To whoever said I wasn't in a sorority, don't assume.

[sigmagirl2000]

I'm not going to lie. I'm refrained from adding to this thread. I was a national officer for Sigma Kappa working with the chapter at the University of Michigan (as well as about 15 other chapters) regarding recruitment when this person was her recruitment chair. I'm going to say blatantly that I'm honored to know that I wasn't that person coming in as a national officer and having any chapter act or even have to question their integrity in this way. When I first read it, I was appalled and I felt so bad for the women brainwashed to think this was even marginally okay. It made me wonder if this is how certain chapters justify hazing over and over again. "It's the history of the chapter. It isn't really mean, it's in the best interest" etc. Personally, I assumed this was something just happening at this one campus. Maybe I'm naive. It hurts my heart that women and alumnae are coming out from this organization and confirming the truth. This is not the reality of 90% of NPC membership. This hurts me as a Panhellenic woman. I don't want any young women to enter into an organization that is supposed to instill personal growth, to learn that everything is appearance based. It's not my organization. I have no voice, or say. However, I am so so sad. My heart hurts for the collegiate and alumnae members who are hurting that a vow they pledged even to any degree has turned into something so much less than that. I hope for you all that the vows you pledged are restored across ALL your collegiate chapters.

I don't know what else to say.

[clemsongirl]

Beckymer92, what sorority and chapter are you a member of? I'm a member of the Zeta Nu chapter of Alpha Delta Pi at Clemson University and we do not chose our members exclusively off of looks, before you ask me.

[beckymer92]

Originally Posted by clemsongirl

Beckymer92, what sorority and chapter are you a member of? I'm a member of the Zeta Nu chapter of Alpha Delta Pi at Clemson University and we do not chose our members exclusively off of looks, before you ask me.

My chapter isn't relevant to the conversation and neither is yours nor am I asking if (or saying that) a chapter does/should rush based solely on looks.

I'm saying that rushing based on looks will still net a chapter filled with great women, APhi is doing very well no matter if they are or aren't rushing based on looks alone and we don't know if there is an APhi policy of rushing based on looks alone. I can't be any more clear and really don't have time to continue repeating myself.

[navane]

Originally Posted by beckymer92

I'm saying that rushing based on looks will still net a chapter filled with great women, APhi is doing very well no matter if they are or aren't rushing based on looks alone and we don't know if there is an APhi policy of rushing based on looks alone. I can't be any more clear and really don't have time to continue repeating myself.

I've been reading along with your posts and I get what you're saying. Really, I do.

Think where there is a disconnect is that we're not saying that, all other things being equal (GPA, accomplishments, etc), a chapter should go ahead and pick the ugliest girls in the bunch over the better looking ones. No one is saying that attractive women cannot also be intelligent and accomplished. Of course the total package is highly desired. If a chapter can filled up with beautiful AND intelligent women, awesome. I follow you on that.

I think, though, your position appears to be operating on the assumption that all good-looking women are always intelligent, talented and of good character. You may not have intended that, but that's how some of your posts come across to me. What I'm saying is that is not always the case. It is not good to over-focus on looks to the detriment of more important qualities. It would not be a good thing for a chapter to dismiss a highly qualified girl who is a 7/10 in looks in favor of a 9/10 with weaker qualifications.

I think that many of us are aghast because it appears that the sorority in the essay is being depicted as disregarding other, more important qualities in favor of a highly appearance-based system. THAT is what we object to. Do we KNOW for sure that the attractive new members who were bid at that chapter had lesser qualifications? No, you're right, I guess we don't. I get what you're saying when you say that you think whatever they're doing is working for them.

Buuuuut......there is still the matter of looks being used to unceremoniously weed out highly-qualified and well-liked women because an outsider deemed them as "less attractive" than other rushees. And the matter of looks being used to separate sisters from other sisters. Looks are important, but not to such a great extent.

I believe it's a slippery slope. That, in order to maintain the status of having the most attractive members, there could be a tendency to start dipping lower on the other qualifications in order to make sure you keep pulling in the prettiest ones. Again, attractive doesn't automatically mean the woman is also moral, kind or smart. It's just too tempting to disregard the inner characteristics in favor of the outward ones.

In short, you said, "...rushing based on looks will still net a chapter filled with great women..." and I'm saying, no, that's not always the case. If I only picked the 9s and 10s in looks and considered nothing else, then I am gambling with my chapter.

I took the time to sincerely try to understand what you were saying. Can you see where I am coming from?