Quote:
Originally Posted by Hartofsec
No, I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t want to be her mother either.
And ^that’s why. I wouldn’t want my daughter to be fodder for the press, especially for those interested in manufacturing a sensational story regardless of the outcome. The article linked at the beginning of this thread is a tabloid-type example of how some continue to milk the controversy:
What exactly should have changed since last fall (that hasn’t) to deliver Bama sororities from segregation? In what ways are sororities "resisting?"
Certainly understandable, though according to the media coverage, actives in identified sororities did want a particular AA member. The other girls who accepted bids must have felt the offer was sincere, otherwise, why would they accept?
She did not elect to participate in any NPC recruitment, yet takes a swipe at the sororities offering her a bid. If anything, her assumption that she would be “criticized and ostracized” is just divisive speculation – she essentially spit on the chapters who extended an offer. And then she joined a segregated AA sorority:
I think Miss Patterson is more interested in media attention than promoting change. Her words will certainly not encourage other AA women to pursue NPC membership.
I’m still trying to figure out what “completely integrate” means. What does it mean? At what threshold will a chapter be considered integrated?
I can’t think of a more favorable situation for a minority PNM to receive a bid from a historically white sorority than UofA rush this fall. And I can’t think of a more UNfavorable situation for PNMs and chapters in terms of media and administrative attention than UofA rush this fall.
It may be a very stressful fall recruitment for all concerned. If the chapters offer a bid to an AA PNM, they face accusations of “tokenism.” If they release an AA PNM, they face accusations of racism. The AA PNMs face the prospect of scrutiny by onlookers (administrative and otherwise) and unwanted attention by those seeking a story.
|
"Completely integrate" = AA women rush and are bid in numbers representative of their percentage of the campus population. My previous point about that was that I think it's better to look at total percentages of AA women served by both NPC sororities and by historically AA sororities and multicultural societies.
Please don't bag on AKA. When white students present themselves as PNMS and are being excluded from AKA because of their race, AKA can deal with that problem then. In this case, NPC sororities at Alabama excluded AA PNMs because of their skin color. That's not fair. That's not in compliance with our current membership selection standards. We need to get into compliance with our own standards.
NOT being in compliance with our own standards is what caused this problem. If one particular AA PNM talked some stuff about our chapters, we pretty much had it coming for not living up to the standards we have set for ourselves.
Threaded Mode
