Biggest Rush Mistakes at any institution

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

At some campuses, the BGLO are so strong that there is not much, if any, interest in minorities in pursuing membership in a traditionally white GLO. If you look at composites, they might be lily white, and you might assume they are racists.

I don't think anyone should assume racism because a chapter is "lily white." The absence of something doesn't equal racism unless certain practices are found that attempt to deter nonwhites from participating in chapters' events or going through recruitment.

And, yes, every fraternity and sorority has chapters that go out of their way to keep certain people (whether that's based on race, social class, hair color, etc.) from programs or recruitment activities.

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I'm reminded of when cries of "Racism!" were leveled against the SMU Panhellenic. Turns out, no minorities(specifically, blacks) had gone through recruitment. (!!!) Once some did, some did indeed receive bids.

Makes sense. But, keep in mind that this still goes back to the many factors that contribute to why some minorities do not go through recruitment.

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

There are so many variables to why someone might not be given a bid. In fact, a very non-racist member might chose NOT to give a minority a bid if they felt their brothers would not be as accepting or positive about his pledgeship. Be very careful of making gross generalizations.

So instead of questioning the status quo, these people go right along with it.

That's actually STILL racism at the individual-level and reinforces the racist structure.

[SWTXBelle]

"So instead of questioning the status quo, these people go right along with it.

That's actually STILL racism at the individual-level and reinforces the racist structure. "
__________________


So, in my hypothetical situation what do you think is the proper response for a non-racist brother to one who is racist? Our hypothetical minority pnm is up for a vote. The non-racist knows that if he is given a bid, the pnm will not be treated equally. What do you think would be the best way to not reinforce the racist structure - to question the status quo?

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

So, in my hypothetical situation what do you think is the proper response for a non-racist brother to one who is racist? Our hypothetical minority pnm is up for a vote. The non-racist knows that if he is given a bid, the pnm will not be treated equally. What do you think would be the best way to not reinforce the racist structure - to question the status quo?

The "nonracist" brother isn't really nonracist if he not only can't figure out how to handle the situation but would also continue to associate with racists within a racist structure. If you believe your brothers are bigoted and racist morons who use chapter policies inappropriately, why's that okay for YOU to associate with but not for certain pnms?

Racism (and sexism) exist because of the prejudiced racists (and sexists) and the nonprejudiced (racists and sexists). This is one way in which racist (and sexist) structures and practices continue eventhough the average person will claim that they aren't prejudiced or racist (or sexist) when you ask them.

I acknowledge that's it difficult to make things change and that people often won't vote for someone because they want to "protect" that person. But when it boils down to it, it's still the same -ism.

[SWTXBelle]

Well, it's not as though you go through rush asking "Are you a racist?". (Talk about "biggest rush mistakes"!) It's entirely possible the subject never came up until this specific example. So let's say the non-racist member quits - "I won't associate with you racists!" and storms off. What has changed? By quitting, how has he advanced the cause of equality? I think it entirely possible that by remaining a member he is in a much better position to change the group culture - even if it means waiting to become an officer or an alumni and scheduling programming to try and open up some minds.

I guess my point is that I am always perplexed by those who call "racist!" but don't offer concrete suggestions on how to overcome it. Changing hearts and minds isn't, I realize, the work of an hour or a day. I think members can do more IN an org than OUT, and that sometimes one strong leader can make a difference.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Changing hearts and minds isn't, I realize, the work of an hour or a day.

My concept of racism isn't about changing hearts and minds, anyway, because that would be in the realm of "tolerance and diversity training for Archie Bunker."

[SWTXBelle]

Okay, I am truly trying to make sure I am clear about your views - you don't think people can change? I think often racism is a form of ignorance - you simply don't know enough to think beyond a stereotype.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Okay, I am truly trying to make sure I am clear about your views - you don't think people can change? I think often racism is simply a form of ignorance - you simply don't know enough to think beyond a stereotype.

On a structural level, racism isn't about "people changing" and it isn't a form of ignorance.

However, prejudice is a form of ignorance and people can learn and change their prejudiced or bigoted ways. But you don't need to be prejudiced to be racist and that's why I discussed prejudiced and nonprejudiced racists.

(We've had this discussion on GC about once a year. )

To bring it back to rush mistakes, I do know of aspirants who have verbalized some discontent with the present GLO system (for example, I know of aspirants who were going to "diversify and teach" certain chapters about their bigoted ways regarding race, sexual orientation, etc.) and claimed that they would be the ones to change it. That pissed a lot of people off, of course, not just because some of the actives didn't want to change but because the actives didn't like know-it-all aspirants. It took forward-thinking and compassionate actives to get these aspirants a vote. Some aspirants didn't get a vote.