Race & Sororities

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by libramunoz

I beg to differ. Racism, especially in the South, is as big a factor as people DO and TEND TO presume. I went to school in the South, the Heart of Dixie, and lemme tell you, it wasn't easy, pretty, or damn right at times! When you can still go into courthouses in the south, and if you look hard enough (which sometimes isn't too hard) and you can still see a door that says "Colored Only" then you'll KNOW that racism is still an issue and it's still a HUGE factor in the SOUTH.
Why do you think that MOST HBCU's are in the south? I don't know of many on the West Coast and very few on the upper East Coast.
Racism will always be a factor and it depends on HOW the person makes a choice to deal with it when a) it's presented to them overtly, b) it's presented to them covertly, c) their constantly reminded through daily actions of others, and d) it's a factor within the persons surroundings and enviornment.
So to say that it's not a true factor DOWN SOUTH, you are presuming very much. Sometimes, they saying of "Walk a mile in my shoes" turns out to be more true than what a person tends to "want" to think.

Most of the HBCUs are in the south because at the time of their founding black students could not attend HWCUs in the south. That is no longer the case. So to argue that most HBCUs are in the south because of continuing racism is wrong - these same HBCUs are now struggling. Is that because racism is no longer an issue? If they go under, does that mean racism is dead?

I know of ONE courthouse that had a sign that could be seen and which was in the news a few years back - it is of course no longer there. Where are these others?

My point - and others - is that it is wrong to assume that racism is more of a problem in the south, or that the other parts of the country are free from them. By arguing that it is the south that has a problem, you give everyone else a free pass. Some sociologists have said that the south is in many ways more in touch with the problem of racism because of its past problems - that other areas of the country have a more "hidden" racism, that it can be argued is more toxic and damaging. In the context of this OP - you can ASSUME that racism means a bi-racial woman would never get a bid at Ole Miss, but until you go through recruitment you won't KNOW - and even then, you wouldn't know that it was because of race. It may be that at a school which has no blacks in the NPC sororities it isn't because of racism, but because of a strong NPHC system.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

Most of the HBCUs are in the south because at the time of their founding black students could not attend HWCUs in the south. That is no longer the case. So to argue that most HBCUs are in the south because of continuing racism is wrong - these same HBCUs are now struggling. Is that because racism is no longer an issue? If they go under, does that mean racism is dead?

Exactly, especially when you consider that at some HBCUs, the majority of graduate students are white because of programs in architecture, pharmacy, and agriculture.

A lot of people are saying that there are diverse chapters all over the country. No one is denying that. Again, private colleges and smaller state schools in the South with less of an entrenched native population are more open to integrating their chapters than others. The greek systems at Emory and Tulane are integrated--but that's probably because the schools pull a good chunk of their populations from the Northeast and West Coast.

But, what the OP needs to know is that at many of the flagship universities in the South, an African-American female who rushes may not be considered an "attractive" prospect by some of the top chapters (regardless of how awesome her personality, grades, and extracurrics are), and may end up being relegated to the bottom tier of chapters in her school. Now, we can be all kumbaya about that and say that maybe the bottom tier chapters would be more willing to look past race and see sisterhood. Or, we could go with a much more likely explanation--those lower tier sororities have much less to "lose" because their numbers are pretty low. I've seen this in play at some SEC and Big 12 schools.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

Exactly, especially when you consider that at some HBCUs, the majority of graduate students are white because of programs in architecture, pharmacy, and agriculture.

That can actually be used as an example of social exclusion, since the leadership and funding for most HBCUs don't come from Blacks. This would be based on outcome and not intent, so folks (not you) shouldn't respond with "they might not mean for it to be that way."

The higher up in HBCU faculty rankings and in the organizational structures, for some of the more esteemed HBCUs, the more nonBlacks you find than Blacks. I have actually been told by faculty that having more whites and other nonBlacks brings up their prestige ranking (which is arguably an informal/unwritten component of accreditation).

On the other hand, you will be hard pressed to find PWIs where a large proportion of the higher ranking faculty, higher ranking administrators, and most of the graduate students are Black. Even Research 1 PWIs with 20,000 students and lots of faculty only have a relatively few esteemed tenured "sprinkles." That's why there are still minority faculty and graduate student associations. Even PhDs with years of awards and recognitions know the deal. As for grad students, a large % may be nonwhite, but usually not Black.

(Of course, much of this also has to do with population sizes for whites as compared to Blacks, which is another reason why the larger universities are PWIs)

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

That's why there are still minority faculty and graduate student associations. Even PhDs with years of awards and recognitions know the deal. As for grad students, a large % may be nonwhite, but usually not Black.

Do you think this has anything to do with region or discipline, or even Masters programs over PhD programs? Granted, my individual graduate school (Architecture) was overwhelmingly majority white and Asian, but there were other schools (ex. Social Work and Public Health) within the University that had more blacks and Latinos than whites and Asians.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

Do you think this has anything to do with region or discipline, or even Masters programs over PhD programs? Granted, my individual graduate school (Architecture) was overwhelmingly majority white and Asian, but there were other schools (ex. Social Work and Public Health) within the University that had more blacks and Latinos than whites and Asians.

The general pattern exists across region, discipline, and graduate program. General patterns aren't meant to apply to 100% of the cases.

Let's take disciplines like social work and the social sciences, in general, which had a sharp increase in minorities and women over the last 30 years. Social work, for example, is now considered a non-traditional field for men, which now translates to it being one of the lower paying specializations for women depending on the research, teaching, and practitioner base.

Even with the increase in women and minorities, there are (women and racial and ethnic) minority faculty and student organizations to serves as networking tools, and to address concerns. Many of these faculty feel they are unable to climb the ranks in white and/or white male dominated field and/or department. Part of that is because most of these women and racial and ethnic minorities aren't the key decision makers. Students often don't notice that a lot of the diverse faces they see are either adjunct, nontenured full-time faculty, and are overworked and underpaid in comparison to the other faculty in the department and/or university. Even the tenured minority faculty often don't become department heads and graduate directors--unless the departments have no other alternatives--they often don't have a voice in the department and are on the sidelines doing research/teaching/mentoring.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Even with the increase in women and minorities, there are (women and racial and ethnic) minority faculty and student organizations to serves as networking tools, and to address concerns. Many of these faculty feel they are unable to climb the ranks in white and/or white male dominated field and/or department. Part of that is because most of these women and racial and ethnic minorities aren't the key decision makers. Students often don't notice that a lot of the diverse faces they see are either adjunct, nontenured full-time faculty, and are overworked and underpaid in comparison to the other faculty in the department and/or university. Even the tenured minority faculty often don't become department heads and graduate directors--unless the departments have no other alternatives--they often don't have a voice in the department and are on the sidelines doing research/teaching/mentoring.

Oh, this is absolutely true. I just wondered if it was a national trend. I know that I'm in an extremely white, extremely male-centered field (hi, 200 black female architects in the US!), so when I look at friends in B-school, law school, and especially PhD programs in the social sciences, their cohorts seem infinitely more diverse than any of my classes were. I guess it's all relative.

[KSUViolet06]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

Oh, this is absolutely true. I just wondered if it was a national trend. I know that I'm in an extremely white, extremely male-centered field (hi, 200 black female architects in the US!).

Interesting, I didn't know that.

[libramunoz]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

The general pattern exists across region, discipline, and graduate program. General patterns aren't meant to apply to 100% of the cases.

Let's take disciplines like social work and the social sciences, in general, which had a sharp increase in minorities and women over the last 30 years. Social work, for example, is now considered a non-traditional field for men, which now translates to it being one of the lower paying specializations for women depending on the research, teaching, and practitioner base.

Even with the increase in women and minorities, there are (women and racial and ethnic) minority faculty and student organizations to serves as networking tools, and to address concerns. Many of these faculty feel they are unable to climb the ranks in white and/or white male dominated field and/or department. Part of that is because most of these women and racial and ethnic minorities aren't the key decision makers. Students often don't notice that a lot of the diverse faces they see are either adjunct, nontenured full-time faculty, and are overworked and underpaid in comparison to the other faculty in the department and/or university. Even the tenured minority faculty often don't become department heads and graduate directors--unless the departments have no other alternatives--they often don't have a voice in the department and are on the sidelines doing research/teaching/mentoring.

I'd beg to differ with you on this. Within the Social Work field when you state, "...which now translates to it being one of the lower paying specializations for women depending on the research, teaching, and practitioner base. " it's acutally very misleading to say such a statement. For the simple fact, that when you are within this field and a private practitioner base, you actually set your own prices as to what it is that you specialize in. Moreover, research within this field is done on a daily basis, particularly by minority men and women within this field. As far as teaching, it depends on where you go, if you are at a Liberal Arts school or if you are at a Private or Public School setting. Believe me, if you are at a school that specializes Social Work, you will see a variety of professors, from a variety of backgrounds teaching you your Social Work courses.

Furthermore, Social Work was never a high paying job in certain sectors of society to begin with. This was always considered a "woman's job" the same as let's say nursing or teaching. However, for those who got into Social Work, they know from the jump, expecting to make $100,000 a year really isn't a reliable way of thinking and you'll be surely dissapointed by your first paycheck. If you ask any Social Worker why they jumped into this type of job, and you'll have varying answers, however, the primary answer that you'll hear is "I love to help people."

Depending on what field you are working with in Social Work, it will determine what you are going to make. Depending on where you live, it will determine what you are going to make. Depending on what you are specializing in, it will again, determine what you are going to make. Depending on what you wanna do with your degree, what you're licensing is, etc., it will all determine what it is that you'll make. Further, the biggest dependence is if you are working for a NPO, FPO, State agency, Private agency, self. Things all depend.

Moreover, when you state, "Many of these faculty feel they are unable to climb the ranks in white and/or white male dominated field and/or department. Part of that is because most of these women and racial and ethnic minorities aren't the key decision makers. Students often don't notice that a lot of the diverse faces they see are either adjunct, nontenured full-time faculty, and are overworked and underpaid in comparison to the other faculty in the department and/or university." again, it's not necessarily true.

Social Work was NEVER a field that was white and male dominated to begin with. It was started as a "Do-gooder Society" in the late 1900's by Jane Addams. It was started as a philothranthapy (?) service organization to specifically help those orphans that were in the NY, Boston, and Chicago sides that were stemming from immigrants that died and left children behind. Moreover, it was specifically started in order to help the children and either place them with families that would "take them in" or within an orphanage setting that would continue to aid the children while teaching them a vocation through apprenticeships (?) which was primarily based off of the Elizabethan Poor Laws of 1608.

When you state, "Students often don't notice that a lot of the diverse faces they see are either adjunct, nontenured full-time faculty, and are overworked and underpaid in comparison to the other faculty in the department and/or university" it's hard to say that this is true or not unless you have specifically gone to schools that deal with Social Work or have Social Work within their cirriculum. Having seen this from both perspectives, believe me, when you are going to these schools, you don't care who is teaching you what, you're just trying to finish reading the ton of crap they give you, do your paper, and graduate before you blow something up. Yes, you know that you have crazy as hell professors that you just wanna slap the stuffing out of, but you always realize that this is true wherever you go.
And actually at a school of Social Work, again, you will see, tenured, non-tenured, full-time, adjunct faculty that are there within a diverse ethnical background. A lot depends on where you are going to school.

When you stated, "Even the tenured minority faculty often don't become department heads and graduate directors--unless the departments have no other alternatives--they often don't have a voice in the department and are on the sidelines doing research/teaching/mentoring" it's not necessarily true. I've seen department heads that were of all colors, races, and backgrounds. It wasn't necessarily to do "no other alternatives" but due to the fact that they had the expertise and that was what the school was looking for. Because Social Work is usually within a broader scope of the "Humanities Division" of some schools, those within the department do have to stick together. Of course, people will have disagreements, however, within such a small department, their voice can be heard and it usually is.

[DrPhil]

Woman, here's how you quote particular parts of a post without torturing everyone with in-text quotation marks.

Originally Posted by libramunoz

For the simple fact, that when you are within this field and a private practitioner base, you actually set your own prices as to what it is that you specialize in.

Yes, for private or practitioner base and it will be based on a "going rate," which can still be lower paying in relation to other more-male dominated fields. As you said later, it was never a high paying field and many were drawn to it to "help people."

Beyond that, the field of social work encompasses a wide range of overworked and overpaid occupations beyond private and practitioner base.

Originally Posted by libramunoz

As far as teaching, it depends on where you go, if you are at a Liberal Arts school or if you are at a Private or Public School setting. Believe me, if you are at a school that specializes Social Work, you will see a variety of professors, from a variety of backgrounds teaching you your Social Work courses.

I am talking about trends that aren't erased depending on where you go. As I said, general patterns aren't meant to apply 100%, but more often than not. Apply that to every instance that you consider makes my statements "not necessarily true" or "depends...."

Originally Posted by libramunoz

Furthermore, Social Work was never a high paying job in certain sectors of society to begin with.

So, it didn't become that way with the increase in women in various occupations that employ social workers. It was always that way. Gender implications for female dominated fields and certain job types, perhaps?

Originally Posted by libramunoz

This was always considered a "woman's job" the same as let's say nursing or teaching. However, for those who got into Social Work, they know from the jump, expecting to make $100,000 a year really isn't a reliable way of thinking and you'll be surely dissapointed by your first paycheck. If you ask any Social Worker why they jumped into this type of job, and you'll have varying answers, however, the primary answer that you'll hear is "I love to help people."

Regardless of whether you are a social worker, if you haven't done so, skim through "Women in Social Work" by Ronald Walton. The perceived need for a (insert minority group) book for a field means there's something to discuss even if a large % (and the more visible) social workers are women. Again, social work encompasses a lot of occupations and range of salaries. In many organizations that employ social workers, the higher ranking persons are male. That may be correlated with the disctinction between administrative capacities versus practitioners; academicians and researchers versus (insert occupation); or where you work, such as in a state prison versus in public school system (which can also have gender implications).

I don't feel that you really disagree with me. But, when all else fails, just remove "social work" from my post and see the general point regarding the social sciences.