AOII Eliminates Legacy Policy

[shadokat]

OK, so I first saw DG eliminated their legacy policy, and now AOPi. Can someone please tell me how this makes a sorority more inclusive? All so that legacies don't have to be placed at the top of the bid list? When did we stop educating members that if you invite a woman to preference, she absolutely has the chance to become a sister of the chapter, so get to know women prior to preference?

This whole crock of BS about inclusivity is so ridiculous, I can't even stand it. Before I get bombarded by the "predominately Southern chapters" argument, I get it, but most legacy policies state that a chapter is only required to invite a legacy to their FIRST invitational party. After that, they are free to release said woman. Are you telling me that so many legacies are getting bids that aren't "wanted" by the chapters?

This all seems like a reach for a way to sororities to stay relevant with the political climate of the country right now. Maybe I'm just cynical as hell, but the whole thing is making me laugh.

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by shadokat

OK, so I first saw DG eliminated their legacy policy, and now AOPi. Can someone please tell me how this makes a sorority more inclusive? All so that legacies don't have to be placed at the top of the bid list? When did we stop educating members that if you invite a woman to preference, she absolutely has the chance to become a sister of the chapter, so get to know women prior to preference?

This whole crock of BS about inclusivity is so ridiculous, I can't even stand it. Before I get bombarded by the "predominately Southern chapters" argument, I get it, but most legacy policies state that a chapter is only required to invite a legacy to their FIRST invitational party. After that, they are free to release said woman. Are you telling me that so many legacies are getting bids that aren't "wanted" by the chapters?

This all seems like a reach for a way to sororities to stay relevant with the political climate of the country right now. Maybe I'm just cynical as hell, but the whole thing is making me laugh.

It surely provides a better opportunity for non-legacies to make it to Round 3. If all legacies must be invited to Round 2 (or first invitational round), which was DG's policy, it's possible a chapter would have to cut women they'd prefer to have room for legacies.

Much as I like the idea of dropping the legacy policy, I am much more concerned with how we get women of color and other minority persuasions to register for rush in the first place.

[chi-o_cat]

Originally Posted by DGTess

Much as I like the idea of dropping the legacy policy, I am much more concerned with how we get women of color and other minority persuasions to register for rush in the first place.

I think required recommendation policies are probably more of a barrier in that sense than legacy policies.

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by chi-o_cat

I think required recommendation policies are probably more of a barrier in that sense than legacy policies.

Possibly true, but an incoming student is more likely to know she has to go through rush than she is to know about recommendation policies, except maybe at the top 20 US greek-life universities.

I can't speak to a large chapter, but I know we wrote recs for women we wanted. We never let a rec be an obstacle (and this was decades ago), but we didn't even have that option if she never rushed.

[carnation]

Originally Posted by shadokat

OK, so I first saw DG eliminated their legacy policy, and now AOPi. Can someone please tell me how this makes a sorority more inclusive? All so that legacies don't have to be placed at the top of the bid list? When did we stop educating members that if you invite a woman to preference, she absolutely has the chance to become a sister of the chapter, so get to know women prior to preference?

This whole crock of BS about inclusivity is so ridiculous, I can't even stand it. Before I get bombarded by the "predominately Southern chapters" argument, I get it, but most legacy policies state that a chapter is only required to invite a legacy to their FIRST invitational party. After that, they are free to release said woman. Are you telling me that so many legacies are getting bids that aren't "wanted" by the chapters?

This all seems like a reach for a way to sororities to stay relevant with the political climate of the country right now. Maybe I'm just cynical as hell, but the whole thing is making me laugh.

Yes!! The timing is awful. Virtue signaling at its worst.

I've heard that some sororities have been wanting to get rid of legacy policies for years because there are so many legacies now and the sororities have taken the brunt of alum anger when legacies were cut. Then--all this happened and WOW!, we can get rid of the legacy policy and look fabulous for doing it! And if anyone protests, we'll all jump on them and tell them how racist they are!

The thing is, any sorority is going to find a way to retain PNMs in whom they're really interested. No one is stupid enough to drop a fabulous non-legacy because they have to keep a legacy for 1 more party! They will find a way to keep Ms. Fabulous if they want her.

About recs--I guarantee that if a sorority reallyreallyreally wants a PNM, a rec will be found. They can not do this for everyone, especially in huge recruitments, but they WILL do it for a highly desired woman. Any sorority that has recently announced that they're dropping recs is, again, virtue signalling--because they are NOT used to usher socially prominent women into a chapter. If social prominence is that important to a chapter, they KNOW about prominent PNMs without a rec.

I have seen sororities use recs more often to learn about girls they don't know, like small town girls, or to find out who they DON'T want to pledge. No one wants to get a girl who will make racist videos or get freshmen drunk or haze new members. Who wants to get their charter pulled? And every case I know of in which a member did something awful like that, it turns out she was sketchy in high school too and nobody knew.

If someone truly believes that dumping a legacy policy will make recruitment more inclusive, I have some swampland I'd like to sell you.