Probation for Discrimination against Gays

[als463]

I read the article, which seemed pretty short. Maybe I'm missing something here. He cited a gay slur through social media. I'm guessing someone used a nasty term about the guy but, can we all be 100% certain that his sexuality was the entire reason he was dismissed? I'm an LGBTQI advocate but, I also recognize that there may be times, as someone mentioned earlier, when someone just does not mesh well with the members. Why does it automatically have to be because he was gay?

[Sen's Revenge]

Originally Posted by als463

can we all be 100% certain that his sexuality was the entire reason he was dismissed?

WE don't have to be 100 percent certain. The university is.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by als463

I'm guessing someone used a nasty term about the guy but, can we all be 100% certain that his sexuality was the entire reason he was dismissed?

It doesn't have to be the entire reason. If it was considered at all, it is discrimination, and that violates the university's policy. This is no different from a potential employer saying to a colleague "I think als463 was a great candidate, but she just got married. I wonder if she's planning to get pregnant soon."

[Tom Earp]

Are we at the point yet that when someone isn't offered a bid, that they are refused that they can pul the disctimination card out?

Maybe the person was gay, but a real jerk? Do we have to take jerks now? Or someone smells bad?

PCNess is getting out of hand!

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

Are we at the point yet that when someone isn't offered a bid, that they are refused that they can pul the disctimination card out?

Maybe the person was gay, but a real jerk? Do we have to take jerks now? Or someone smells bad?

PCNess is getting out of hand!

Did you miss the part where there is evidence that his sexuality was a factor in his being rejected? If there is a personality conflict, fine. But discrimination against somebody because he falls into a protected class is just wrong. It's a return to the bad old days of only rich Christian white men in fraternities.

[Sen's Revenge]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

Are we at the point yet that when someone isn't offered a bid, that they are refused that they can pul the disctimination card out?

Maybe the person was gay, but a real jerk? Do we have to take jerks now? Or someone smells bad?

PCNess is getting out of hand!

This has nothing to do with political correctness. This is a chapter that was PROVEN to have discriminated against a candidate for factors that they were NOT ALLOWED to use in the selection process.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

Are we at the point yet that when someone isn't offered a bid, that they are refused that they can pul the disctimination card out?

Maybe the person was gay, but a real jerk? Do we have to take jerks now? Or someone smells bad?

PCNess is getting out of hand!

Are you serious?

People still use the phrase "politically correct" and its derivatives?

If an applicant is a jerk, and the jerkiness is not about sexual orientation, there is no need to speak negative regarding sexual orientation. That includes slurs.

[amIblue?]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Are you serious?

People still use the phrase "politically correct" and its derivatives?

If an applicant is a jerk, and the jerkiness is not about sexual orientation, there is no need to speak negative regarding sexual orientation. That includes slurs.

LOL at the smilies at the end of each sentence.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

Are we at the point yet that when someone isn't offered a bid, that they are refused that they can pul the disctimination card out?

Maybe the person was gay, but a real jerk? Do we have to take jerks now? Or someone smells bad?

PCNess is getting out of hand!

Tom, how often in your chapter, do you think your members text each other or worse, group text each other or tweet or Facebook about why they denied someone entry into your pledge program or removed them?

I hope never. It's terrible practice.

These kids, however, did that. They gave proof positive that they were discriminating, maybe illegally.

And the punishment didn't involve the school forcing them to accept this aspirant. It placed them on "probation" for a certain period of time. Hopefully, for the next few years, they can avoid tweeting that they denied membership to someone because of their sexual orientation... maybe lesson learned?

[Sen's Revenge]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

I know this is venturing into membership selection, but how important is stuff like "fit" in NPHC organizations as compared to things like resume, service history and letters of rec?

It's important but it depends on the organization, chapter, and circumstances how important it really is. Also consider that some orgs have legacy policies and others don't.

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

It doesn't have to be the entire reason. If it was considered at all, it is discrimination, and that violates the university's policy. This is no different from a potential employer saying to a colleague "I think als463 was a great candidate, but she just got married. I wonder if she's planning to get pregnant soon."

Right. And I am really not understanding why anyone would jump to the defense of this particular's chapter's "rights."

[als463]

Originally Posted by Sen's Revenge

It's important but it depends on the organization, chapter, and circumstances how important it really is. Also consider that some orgs have legacy policies and others don't.



Right. And I am really not understanding why anyone would jump to the defense of this particular's chapter's "rights."

You both have good points and I'm not saying the university isn't 100% correct in thinking that was the case. I guess my question is how people would know outright that someone was denied for being homosexual? I mean, unless it was something like what happened at Alabama with not bidding African American women where it was outright said. My point was that sometimes, and I'm not saying it is definitely the case here, people don't get a bid because they have a bad attitude, aren't the types of people you would want in your organization, etc.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by als463

You both have good points and I'm not saying the university isn't 100% correct in thinking that was the case. I guess my question is how people would know outright that someone was denied for being homosexual? I mean, unless it was something like what happened at Alabama with not bidding African American women where it was outright said. My point was that sometimes, and I'm not saying it is definitely the case here, people don't get a bid because they have a bad attitude, aren't the types of people you would want in your organization, etc.

His sexuality was discussed in text messages.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by als463

You both have good points and I'm not saying the university isn't 100% correct in thinking that was the case. I guess my question is how people would know outright that someone was denied for being homosexual? I mean, unless it was something like what happened at Alabama with not bidding African American women where it was outright said. My point was that sometimes, and I'm not saying it is definitely the case here, people don't get a bid because they have a bad attitude, aren't the types of people you would want in your organization, etc.

You should really read all of the links, etc. before making a statement like that.

Imagine they had signed statements from multiple members saying "we discriminated here because of sexual orientation." It's like that.

The active brothers were that dumb.

[als463]

Originally Posted by Kevin

You should really read all of the links, etc. before making a statement like that.

Imagine they had signed statements from multiple members saying "we discriminated here because of sexual orientation." It's like that.

The active brothers were that dumb.

Ummmm.....I read the link that was posted. I was going by that. I'm not saying that didn't happen that people (like you gave an example about) would have signed something saying they did that. I'm asking how they knew about the discrimination. Someone mentioned that it was in text message form. Other than the short sentence that said something about social media or whatever, I did not see that. That is why I am asking.

I agree with Dubaisis. I think that, regardless of how hateful and discriminatory you want to be, why would you broadcast it? That's just dumb. Someone asked me about if someone would discriminate against me for recently getting married. I'm sure there will be people out there who would try to, especially in my field. I would hope that if they did, they would be smart enough to not broadcast it to the world. Besides, I wouldn't want to work for THAT university if they chose to discriminate based on recently getting married or potentially someday having children. I'm sure this young man feels this way about THIS particular chapter--hopefully not the entire organization as a whole.

[DrPhil]

Als463, you seem to be contradicting yourself. You say you agree with Dubai but also ask how it was known this was discriminatory. The members expressed their intolerance which is used as evidence that aspirant was denied on the basis of sexual orientation.

Sure, the aspirant could have been denied for other reasons and the members could have been expressing their ignorance as an unnecessary supplement. For instance, if a GLO denied an aspirant for good reason but after-the-fact posted on Facebook about the aspirant being a "morbidly obese bitch". If morbid obesity is a protected status and the chapter is accused of discrimination, the chapter would risk exposing member selection info to prove the aspirant was rejected for reasons that don't include morbid obesity. The chapter should shut up next time.