NALFO/NPC

[tld221]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Someone might hit me for this, but the NPC UA about once you pledge one you can't ever pledge another, is less about harmony and love and more about realizing we all have weaker and stronger chapters and if we take advantage of something at School A, we can get bitten in the ass at School B.

So what you're saying is... without the UA, weaker chapter at School B would lose folks left and right for other (stronger, better, different) chapters and stronger chapter at the same school would be forced to:

(a) rush a bunch of girls who've quit on their first orgs and looking for a new home
(b) forced to internally make their own stances on the issue, creating inconsistencies and effing up the order of tiers and statuses. Who wants the be the house that openly takes the quitters?

Even if the focus of NPC rush isn't on lifelong loyalty, this is less about NPC stealing girls. This is about protecting numbers and literally maintaining status quo(ta).

Originally Posted by PersistentDST

We read posts all the time about PNM's or initiates of NPC Sororities who decide they do not want to be in the organization that gave them a bid. GC is not very sympathetic towards the PNM the majority of the time. "That chapter saw something in you, and you didn't give them a chance." I reacted the same way when I read the OP's post. But generally, the reaction is not filled with the same disappointment and outrage despite the situation being the same. That is what I mean by "otherness."

It's deeper than agreements and paperwork. If we can first respect each other equally, then an agreement across councils would be a great idea. I am a realist (and a pessimist at times) and I don't see it happening.

Again, what I was getting at earlier. Im the same realist/pessimist and as much as I wanna be down for the kumbaya, I'd much rather folks blatantly say "no, we don't see your organizations as the same. your traditions are yours and have value to you, but we don't want or need to regard it with the same respect."

Maybe it IS unrealistic to expect that.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

We don't need a hypothetical utopian agreement across councils. That's as annoying as a diversity workshop to get people to "play nice". When people have expressed time and time again that they don't care about certain organizations, and that they need to be reminded about the relevance of those organizations (hence, the comments in this thread), it is exhausting and results in annoyance or apathy on both sides.

To hell with it.

Yeah, that.