Do you know someone who's Executive Director material?

[NutBrnHair]

It truly amazes me that it is not a requirement, or at least preferred, that the successful candidate would be a member of Delta Gamma.

[Always AlphaGam]

Originally Posted by NutBrnHair

It truly amazes me that it is not a requirement, or at least preferred, that the successful candidate would be a member of Delta Gamma.

Alpha Gamma Delta has had 2 Executive Directors who were not members -- an Alpha Delta Pi (Joan Rauen) and, most recently, a Kappa Alpha Theta (Kathryn Kish).

Hat tip to AGDAlum for that information here: http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/showpost.php?p=1762643&postcount=6

[WhiteRose1912]

Originally Posted by NutBrnHair

It truly amazes me that it is not a requirement, or at least preferred, that the successful candidate would be a member of Delta Gamma.

It is preferred. From the provided pdf:

"Greek affiliation is strongly preferred; Delta Gamma membership is desired but not required."

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by NutBrnHair

It truly amazes me that it is not a requirement, or at least preferred, that the successful candidate would be a member of Delta Gamma.

Can you actually require that? Wouldn't that be gender discrimination?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Can you actually require that? Wouldn't that be gender discrimination?

No, it's not gender discrimination if membership in the org is a reasonable requirement for the job.

Originally Posted by NutBrnHair

It truly amazes me that it is not a requirement, or at least preferred, that the successful candidate would be a member of Delta Gamma.

It truly amazes me when people feel the need to publically critique the operating decisions of organizations to which they do not belong.

[NutBrnHair]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

It truly amazes me when people feel the need to publically critique the operating decisions of organizations to which they do not belong.

Well, we both have an opinion then, don't we?

(and I know you meant to say publicly)

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

No, it's not gender discrimination if membership in the org is a reasonable requirement for the job.

Interesting. Are they better off writing "strongly preferred" and not even opening themselves up to having to defend what is a "reasonable requirement"?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Interesting. Are they better off writing "strongly preferred" and not even opening themselves up to having to defend what is a "reasonable requirement"?

I don't necessarily think so, and I probably should not have used the word "reasonable." Employers can have what are called "bone fide occupational qualifications" even if those qualifications result in what would otherwise be discrimination. For example, a religiously-affiliated school can limit the presidency/headmastership of the school and pehaps faculty positions to members of the religion with which the school is affiliated, because that could be seen as necessary to the school's purpose.

What would be determinative, I think, are the responsibilities and expectations of the ED position. If part of the ED's job is to engage in certain activities for which membership is a requirement (such as participating in chartering rituals), then membership in the org would, I think, be a bone fide occupational qualification. On the other hand, if the ED is mainly supposed to run the office and will have little if anything to do with the "fraternal" side of the organization, then membership may not be a bone fide occupational qualification.

Originally Posted by NutBrnHair

Well, we both have an opinion then, don't we?

I have lots of them, and I know that sometimes I should keep them to myself.