Diversity in the SEC

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by HQWest

In your post at 1:04 you ended "If SEC wants more diversity, they should think about these types of things."

I was trying to counter that it can be very difficult to recruit passively, either for an organization or a university. Recruiting actively can seem like pandering.

This is why I wanted you to directly connect your post with the purpose behind my post. I don't want predominantly white GLOs doing any recruitment beyond what they already officially do. The purpose behind my first post that you quoted is that BGLOs do things how we do them for a reason. And we typically do not act shocked and baffled that outcomes such as race and ethnicity of the majority of membership is the way it is. A supposed white aspirant should know that.

I am also never giving white GLOs pointers or tips. I'm discussing the larger point of race and ethnicity that can tie into GLOs. You cannot purport ANY kind of diversity (race, religion, sexual orientation, culture, etc) if there is no backdrop to the different groups represented. The different racial and ethnic groups represented have to assimilate into your GLO identity and offer their own insights but they don't have to assimilate into whiteness disguised as colorblindness. And if some white GCers (not you) needed me to tell them this, that is proof of the larger non-GLO problem that some of us have been discussing in this thread.

[PersistentDST]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

If NPC chapters want more women of color, they should be encouraging more women of color to participate in recruitment. There are many, many, many ways this could be done. For example, the local alumnae panhellenics could reach out to high school affinity groups (black students union and so on) to include them in the pre-rush activities. You better believe, at the schools where recs are required, women of color are going to have a MUCH harder time finding them than do white women.



You should not assume that a single member of a group is authorized to speak for that entire group. That's pretty much the definition of tokenizing.

This is an interesting topic! (I've read most of the previous threads covering this.) At my suburban high school (in a college town) the Black students had a high percentage of NPHC mentors and advisors. When I got to college, I had absolutely no familiarity with the NPC recruitment system. Myself, and many of my black classmates (10% of our school system) knew plenty about the NPHC organizations, through our teachers, mentors, coaches and (in a few cases) parents. I think since NPHC organizations do have very active Alumnae/Alumni groups, the students could actively identify who was in an organization. My mentor, a member of Sigma Gamma Rho, volunteered as a track coach at my junior high and was my history teacher in high school, She also started an auxiliary group, in which participants did service. My bball coach is a member of Phi Beta Sigma who also is a motivational speaker. The local undergrad Delta chapter coached the step team at our high school (they also did community service.) We were never "recruited." When I became a Delta my SGRho mentor got me gifts and we celebrated! We had more of a familiar knowledge of basic history/cultures of the NPHC, because we watched it in action. It would've been a tough crowd of AKA, Delta, Zeta and SGRho interests asking why NPC groups don't have stepshows! (I kid...kind of .) You can only recruit the willing.

So with that, if NPC groups want "diversity," it takes a commitment to reach out to those who are not represented in their orgs. But I question how one could do so without looking like they just want these members to "diversify" their organizations. Or perhaps the concern should be less on recruitment and more on "inclusion" for those people of color who DO care to participate in NPC recruitment. (In regards to SEC schools, my midwest university has quite a few members of color in represented in NPC orgs, it's not a big deal to us, but we are a very liberal university.) Make sure that there is an opportunity for all interested ladies get a fair shot at all the houses on campus. I know that's easier said than done in many cases where Alumni control or personal biases can make equity difficult.

Just a few theories!

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

Yes...and what you look like you are doing is related to what you are actually doing. If you are a corporation, a college, etc., you want to attract the top talent wherever it may be. If some population isn't showing up in your pool, you're missing out on good students/workers/members. The same goes for GLOs. If that desire to find great young women is what is motivating the outreach of an NPC group (or the Panhellenic at a given school), they are much more likely to be successful. If the truth really is that you want dark faces to make your chapter photos look modern, then that truth will come out. But if the truth is that you think your members and the organization is missing out because of a too-narrow applicant pool, and you believe you have something valuable to offer all young women, then you may get somewhere with your outreach.

BINGO. If you want the best of the best in your organization, you should be looking for leaders and scholars and young women of high character everywhere you can find them.

[PersistentDST]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

If the truth really is that you want dark faces to make your chapter photos look modern, then that truth will come out. But if the truth is that you think your members and the organization is missing out because of a too-narrow applicant pool, and you believe you have something valuable to offer all young women, then you may get somewhere with your outreach.

Honest question: How much time is spent recruiting high school ladies who may already fit the "too-narrow applicant pool?" Does alumni go to schools or HS orgs to connect with great candidates?

One thing I did (and do) like about the university I attended is the recruiting process is done a couple of weeks into school and offers students an opportunity to learn about ALL of the organizations. I notice quite a few universities start recruitment on move in day, which may not allow great ladies with a lack of knowledge about the process the opportunity to rush (in the fall at least.) I know the competitive schools have serious traditions when it comes to that.

[Titchou]

Most schools now have freshman and transfer orientations in the summer. Alabama, Auburn, the large SEC schools have a 2-3 day orientation with parents in attendance as well. All student organizations have booths/presentations/etc so that the incoming students can see what orgs are on campus and how thaey recruit/sign up members.

[Hartofsec]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

BINGO. If you want the best of the best in your organization, you should be looking for leaders and scholars and young women of high character everywhere you can find them.

I agree with you, though the economy of PNMs in these huge SEC recruitments is an abundant supply of leaders and scholars and young women of high character.

There really is no demand for increased numbers or qualifications -- if there was, GLOs might be motivated to cast a wider net. As it is, fish jump in their boats.

[DrPhil]

That is wonderful. All of our GLOs are awesome with fish jumping in our boats.

The difference is some GLOs (or chapters of GLOs) have expressed interest in widening the net and increasing diversity. What DeltaBetaBaby said pertains to those GLOs. There is a difference between nonmembers telling GLOs they need diversity versus members, themselves, claiming their GLO needs diversity. This thread is about the latter.

[Hartofsec]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Plus, discussion is about knowledge and understanding. It is not always about changing minds and agreement. Greekchatters like HartofSEC are curious about some things. HartofSEC can use our discussion as research even if it appears as though (hint ) we are not directly answering HartofSEC's question.

If I am to use this discussion as research -- I find the conclusions regarding how white people feel to be either surprising, since I am white, or amazingly clairvoyant, if you are not:

Originally Posted by DrPhil

These discussions are not about tutorials for white people. Not every nonwhite person is going to like what you say and do. No one is obligated to be receptive and welcoming to white people. Racial and ethnic minorities (in general) are accustomed to that. Whites (in general) are not accustomed to that and feel entitled to getting unwarranted smiles and tutorials. Perhaps silently observing would work when all else fails. The need to figuratively shout your presence and flounce is the same race cliche and white privilege all over again.

The topic of this thread is Diversity in the SEC. If this issue actually is important to you (beyond an opportunity to grandstand), it doesn't make sense to whack members of the target audience who are in a position to advocate for change.

[Hartofsec]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

That is wonderful. All of our GLOs are awesome with fish jumping in our boats.

The boats in the SEC runneth over with fish. You are free to judge that reality however you wish.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

The difference is some GLOs (or chapters of GLOs) have expressed interest in widening the net and increasing diversity. What DeltaBetaBaby said pertains to those GLOs. There is a difference between nonmembers telling GLOs they need diversity versus members, themselves, claiming their GLO needs diversity. This thread is about the latter.

This thread has already slammed the door on some of the potential latter.

Which GLOs are being proactive in increasing diversity? I'm interested in seeing what these GLOs are doing.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Hartofsec

If I am to use this discussion as research

That is completely up to you.

Originally Posted by Hartofsec

The topic of this thread is Diversity in the SEC. If this issue actually is important to you....

No, as I have said a couple of times in this thread, diversity in the SEC is not important to me. As I have also said a couple of times in this thread, my posts are not about diversity in the SEC but about a larger point that is often missed.

Originally Posted by Hartofsec

The boats in the SEC runneth over with fish. You are free to judge that reality however you wish.

I feel like there is a joke or play on words that I am missing here. Either that or I am baffled as to why you think I would judge that reality.

Originally Posted by Hartofsec

This thread has already slammed the door on some of the potential latter.

If you are saying that some people will abandon the issue of diversity in the SEC because of a GC thread, those people are easily deterred fools who never wanted diversity. They wanted a quick and easy fix that required minimal effort, minimal discomfort, and minimal inconvenience. Those people are indicative of what some of us have been saying in this thread.

[Hartofsec]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

If you are saying that some people will abandon the issue of diversity in the SEC because of a GC thread, those people are easily deterred fools who never wanted diversity. They wanted a quick and easy fix that required minimal effort, minimal discomfort, and minimal inconvenience. Those people are indicative of what some of us have been saying in this thread.

That's not what I said . . .though you continue to be clairvoyant enough to proclaim what other people think, feel, and want.

But not observant enough to realize you lost your audience.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Hartofsec

. . .though you continue to be clairvoyant enough to proclaim what other people think, feel, and want.

Or you missed a generalization used to make a larger point.

Originally Posted by Hartofsec

But not observant enough to realize you lost your audience.

I am very observant which is why I typed what I posted in this thread. This was never "my audience" and you should not assume that every reader has been lost. As with other GC threads, some people hate it, some people are apathetic or ignoring it, some people like it, and some people love it. Your time would be better spent researching the answers to your previous questions.

[Hartofsec]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Or you missed a generalization used to make a larger point.



I am very observant which is why I typed what I posted in this thread. This was never "my audience" and you should not assume that every reader has been lost. As with other GC threads, some people hate it, some people are apathetic or ignoring it, some people like it, and some people love it. Your time would be better spent researching the answers to your previous questions.

Oh I see, I thought we were discussing diversity in the SEC.

You certainly have demonstrated a point though. Someone else's.

[DrPhil]

Some of you were discussing diversity in the SEC. Some of us were addressing a larger issue. Not everyone is oblivious about the points being made so do not make yourself the spokesperson for some GCers.

Rather than amusing me, I recommend you take back the thread and "your audience". Some of you do quite well when it comes to other GC topics but are easily distressed and silenced with any mention of race and diversity. That is actually evidence of what some of us are saying in this thread. The ability of most whites to quickly take off their "race hat" at any hint of inconvenience. If you have comments you want to make and questions you want answered, govern yourselves accordingly and make it happen. A thread started by NPHCers would certainly not be derailed and NPHCers silenced by some outspoken and opinionated non-NPHCers.

[carnation]

Actually, I think that the audience got bored by the rhetoric. Recruitment is going on and we have more entertaining things to do.