Has someone of the opposite sex ever tried to pledge to your chapter?

[Gusteau]

Composite bingo made my day! If only abolishing auxiliary groups stopped that from happening!

I thought that I had read that Delta Chi banned auxiliary groups because of Title IX, but now I cannot for the life of me find the Fraternity's Statement of Position on the issue. This is the first time my Cornerstone has failed me...

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Gusteau

Composite bingo made my day! If only abolishing auxiliary groups stopped that from happening!

I thought that I had read that Delta Chi banned auxiliary groups because of Title IX, but now I cannot for the life of me find the Fraternity's Statement of Position on the issue. This is the first time my Cornerstone has failed me...

I think it was a combination of Title IX, risk management and NPC pushing it and passing rules (by group) that said if you're an XYZ sorority member you can't be an ABC little sister. Truth be told, as far as my experience went, the best little sister groups had rules that you couldn't be in a sorority - so kind of a reverse "bite me" going on there. (And most of those girls did NOT play composite bingo, either.) But there were some little sister groups that practically all the little sisters were members of the same sorority. (Those girls did play composite bingo. Just saying is all. LOL.)

As far as Chaz Bono showing up to convention, I find it very doubtful that most people who go through the operation would do that. I think they just want to live their lives in a way that makes them happy, not do things that they know would make others uncomfortable.

[Gusteau]

Originally Posted by 33girl

As far as Chaz Bono showing up to convention, I find it very doubtful that most people who go through the operation would do that. I think they just want to live their lives in a way that makes them happy, not do things that they know would make others uncomfortable.

LOL.

I definitly agree that there is probably a low chance of the situation occurring. Additionally, I feel that many organizations aim to promote a higher form of manhood/womanhood and these values would probably no longer resonate with the individual - and consequently translate into zero alumni involvement.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Gusteau

Composite bingo made my day! If only abolishing auxiliary groups stopped that from happening!

I thought that I had read that Delta Chi banned auxiliary groups because of Title IX, but now I cannot for the life of me find the Fraternity's Statement of Position on the issue. This is the first time my Cornerstone has failed me...

I did a little digging and found a resource on why our fraternity, at least, banned little sister groups. These were the reasons:

1. The formation of auxiliary groups can (and has proven to) adversely affect the relationship between the local chapters of Sinfonia and local chapters of existing music fraternities for women.
2. Women's organizations and female faculty members often consider these auxiliary groups to be demeaning and sexist because the women involved in such groups are faced with the responsibilities of membership without the reward of full membership status in the fraternity.
3. The existence of such groups extends the already-broad range of chapter and national liability.
4. The functioning of a fraternity chapter and little sisters as a common unit at social and other events could jeopardize the Fraternity's single-sex membership, as suggested by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case involving the Jaycees.
5. The existence of another chapter-sponsored group results in the diverting of time, effort, and money, which are needed for chapter operation and programming.
6. Because of the relationship between the groups, brothers sometimes share fraternity secrets with members of the auxiliary group, either knowingly or unknowingly.
7. Many individuals outside the Fraternity world view these organizations as formalized dating services. They are critical also because the women's focus in such groups is totally on the men rather than on their own personal development.

Item # 4 would indicate that a concern for losing single-sex status was indeed involved, but it was not related to Title IX. So I would repeat, I don't think Title IX had anything to do with it -- I frankly don't see how it would. I think it's just that so many people associate single-sex status with Title IX that there is an assumption the two are always related, and they're not.

[Gusteau]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Item # 4 would indicate that a concern for losing single-sex status was indeed involved, but it was not related to Title IX. So I would repeat, I don't think Title IX had anything to do with it -- I frankly don't see how it would. I think it's just that so many people associate single-sex status with Title IX that there is an assumption the two are always related, and they're not.

I still, to increased consternation, cannot find Delta Chi's official position on it. However, after reading your post I've realized that I know the wording is something along the lines of "jeopardizing single sex status" and the Title IX connection was probably a mental connection on my part.

[KD4Me]

I was in college when auxiliary groups were banned, and there was definite concern on the part of NPC groups (maybe fraternities as well, I don't remember that) that allowing them to continue could jeopardize the single-sex status of both fraternities and sororities. There may have been other factors as well, but that is the reason that we were given.