Title IX and gendered prerequisites

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AlwaysSAI

And, some non-social GLOs chose to loosen their membership requirements to challenge the Title IX ruling and were ultimately deemed a social GLO under the federal guidelines. They were allowed to maintain their academic focus and remain single sexed on college campuses.

I know of two groups that did more or less that.

But for at least one of those groups, "non-social GLO" that "chose to loosen [its] membership requirements" and was "allowed to maintain [its] academic focus" isn't quite accurate. We didn't change our membership requirements and we didn't have any "academic focus" as such, as we were never limited to music majors or minors.

[AlwaysSAI]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I know of two groups that did more or less that.

But for at least one of those groups, "non-social GLO" that "chose to loosen [its] membership requirements" and was "allowed to maintain [its] academic focus" isn't quite accurate. We didn't change our membership requirements and we didn't have any "academic focus" as such, as we were never limited to music majors or minors.

SAI went through many phases of membership - originally being named a musical sorority and for a time, considered (though never officially named) a professional music fraternity. Originally, MiTs had to be female music majors (what I referred to as an "academic focus"). To comply with Title IX, our MiT requirements were changed to one music course and ladies with a sincere interest in music. The federal government ruled that we existed to foster social relationships among women musicians as opposed to advancing the music profession and ruled that we were, in fact, a social organization and could remain single sexed on college campuses.

I knew Phi Mu Alpha went through an uncertain period circa Title IX and decided to challenge it after we [SAI] were successful. All the other details - I wasn't totally sure of.

I feel like we've had this conversation before here on GC.