Phi Sigma Sigma discontinues legacy policy.

[33girl]

Or we could get rid of national organizations altogether, as local groups are way cheaper.



Like I said on someone’s Facebook the other day, when you support or are an ally in a way that is comfortable and doable for you, instead of in a way that truly helps the group in question, you’re doing it wrong.

[DGTess]

I think you've hit on something. WHY on this planet of the gods would someone want to buy new clothes just to get others to look at them? The idea this is required simply boggles my mind, and further reinforces my belief that many policies/procedures/"how it's done" come from a couple of dozen big campuses. The rest of the greek world knows better.

Of course, you seem to be equating money with inclusion, and I can't fight that.

Originally Posted by shadokat

OK, so I went to Phi Sigma Sigma's website to hopefully understand WHY eliminating this legacy policy is so prudent for NPC organizations. And again, the explanation is that

"continuing to offer any preferential treatment perpetuates and upholds a system of privilege within our membership and does not meet our responsibility to promote inclusivity."

I'm sorry, but sorority and fraternity membership is exclusive, whether we like it or not, and changing a legacy policy isn't going to change that. Being in a greek organization requires several things that signal "exclusivity", one being you have to PAY to be a member. That item, in and of itself, is a HUGE reason limiting women who may be fabulous from joining. Are our national organizations now going to offer scholarship assistance for dues to these fabulous women who can't afford to pay dues?

Let's move on to the recruitment process, which in some places means that a PNM has to buy an entire week's worth of new clothes to "look the part" of a sorority member on their campus. If she can't afford that, is she going to be given a "clothing allowance"? My pledge sister and best friend's daughter is going to be going through recruitment at Alabama in the fall, and let's just say she spent QUITE A BIT of money to get her what she needs to "be competitive". On top of that, you charge a woman at least $250 to GO THROUGH recruitment, with no guarantee that she gets a bid. Should we refund the registration fees if she isn't successful? In-house fees at Alabama average $7,200 PER SEMESTER and out-of-house fees are nearly $3,600 PER SEMESTER. How is THAT not limiting the women who can join a sorority?

I do believe that economics is the first thing that would need to change for sorority membership to stop limiting women from joining. No amount of legacy policy changes are going to change the fact that the cost of joining a sorority or fraternity is the number 1 limiting factor against inclusivity.

Here's a thought. Let's stop the madness with all the fees and nickel and diming that national organizations love to do. Hell, let's get rid of the ridiculous mansions that chapters live in, which cost millions of dollars to build and maintain. Let's have the national organizations find ways to lower their costs, and pass that savings on to the chapters, who can then lower their dues to allow for inclusivity. That makes a WHOLE LOT more sense than removing a legacy policy.

OK, rant over...sorry if I've offended anyone.

[shirley1929]

Originally Posted by DGTess

I think you've hit on something. WHY on this planet of the gods would someone want to buy new clothes just to get others to look at them? The idea this is required simply boggles my mind, and further reinforces my belief that many policies/procedures/"how it's done" come from a couple of dozen big campuses. The rest of the greek world knows better.

Of course, you seem to be equating money with inclusion, and I can't fight that.

To the bolded: I get what you're saying. The correlation/argument is buying a new suit for the job interview of your life. Feel good, feel confident. Not saying it's the right thing to do, but that's why people do it.

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by shirley1929

To the bolded: I get what you're saying. The correlation/argument is buying a new suit for the job interview of your life. Feel good, feel confident. Not saying it's the right thing to do, but that's why people do it.

An "interview suit" is not an entire new wardrobe, though.

But I'm betting outside the biggest, say, 20-30 greek schools in the nation, this doesn't happen.

Originally Posted by shadokat

Right! Look at most campus's recruitment booklets or websites or social interactions about recruitment, there's a HUGE focus on what should I wear.

Where are the advisors who are creating these? For literally decades we (sororities) have been claiming to concentrate on a woman's character, but we've been playing these kinds of games, making liars of ourselves.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by DGTess

Where are the advisors who are creating these? For literally decades we (sororities) have been claiming to concentrate on a woman's character, but we've been playing these kinds of games, making liars of ourselves.

Ding ding ding!

We always seem to be contradicting ourselves... we don't care about looks, but we do. We're inclusive, but we're exclusive. It doesn't matter where you come from, but it does. It doesn't matter how much money you have, but you need a lot.

We do all of these wonderful things to empower women, but the world outside Greek life generally doesn't see it or believe it. Should we be surprised by this?

[shadokat]

Right! Look at most campus's recruitment booklets or websites or social interactions about recruitment, there's a HUGE focus on what should I wear. Of course PNMs are going to focus on having the right look based off of what the CPC is putting out there.

Breaking down economic barriers to membership certainly makes our organizations less exclusive. How many stories on here have a PNM saying an active member asked what her dad did for a living? I think that's insane, but it happens all the time!

Originally Posted by DGTess

I think you've hit on something. WHY on this planet of the gods would someone want to buy new clothes just to get others to look at them? The idea this is required simply boggles my mind, and further reinforces my belief that many policies/procedures/"how it's done" come from a couple of dozen big campuses. The rest of the greek world knows better.

Of course, you seem to be equating money with inclusion, and I can't fight that.

[Cheerio]

NPC sororities: housing since 1872; tough nut to eliminate unless the new Covid19 economy continues to shrink the $$$ pool living in-house (and we all know BIG financial changes are coming here).

Not all NPC housings are owned by an NPC group. Among the existing options, a chapter may rent their land but own their house on said land, or pay rent to a college for dorm floor usage.

There are already NPC groups offering collegiate scholarship assistance for dues to members in need; some groups are more circumspect about them than others. Not everyone in a chapter need know who receives help.

[shadokat]

My point is that eliminating the economic barriers to membership, which is quite frankly what makes membership exclusive, makes a whole lot more of an impact than eliminating a policy that doesn't guarantee anyone a spot. If our organizations are going to tout change, make it meaningful. That's what I'm saying.

Originally Posted by Cheerio

NPC sororities: housing since 1872; tough nut to eliminate unless the new Covid19 economy continues to shrink the $$$ pool living in-house (and we all know BIG financial changes are coming here).

Not all NPC housings are owned by an NPC group. Among the existing options, a chapter may rent their land but own their house on said land, or pay rent to a college for dorm floor usage.

There are already NPC groups offering collegiate scholarship assistance for dues to members in need; some groups are more circumspect about them than others. Not everyone in a chapter need know who receives help.

[AngelPhiSig]

Originally Posted by shadokat

My point is that eliminating the economic barriers to membership, which is quite frankly what makes membership exclusive, makes a whole lot more of an impact than eliminating a policy that doesn't guarantee anyone a spot. If our organizations are going to tout change, make it meaningful. That's what I'm saying.

I know that the change in legacy policy was explained to us as this - a legacy obviously has a parent that has been to college. This puts them at an advantage in life.

Taking more legacies means you’re not leaving a lot of spots for women who are first generation college students. I was kind-of one of them (well, my grandparents went to college... but my parents? No.) I do feel that all women should have the chance to go Greek, not just ones who’s parents went to college.

However, would I be sad if my daughter got cut from Phi Sig? Yes. (Granted now they’re 22 and 23 and the likelihood of them actually being a Phi Sig is next to none....)

[shadokat]

I was also a first generation college student. And at my university, legacies were few and far between, so it wasn't an issue. I wonder how many chapters said, "hey, we need to get rid of the legacy policy, because we want to take all of these women over here, but we can't because there are so many legacies." I can't imagine outside of the large Southern universities and Indiana that this is the case. Maybe I'm being naive.

To me, this is a feeble attempt to look relevant in terms of what is going on in the world today. And I'm not saying it just about Phi Sigma Sigma, because DPhiE is talking about it too. I just don't think it does enough to make relevant change.

Originally Posted by AngelPhiSig

I know that the change in legacy policy was explained to us as this - a legacy obviously has a parent that has been to college. This puts them at an advantage in life.

Taking more legacies means you’re not leaving a lot of spots for women who are first generation college students. I was kind-of one of them (well, my grandparents went to college... but my parents? No.) I do feel that all women should have the chance to go Greek, not just ones who’s parents went to college.

However, would I be sad if my daughter got cut from Phi Sig? Yes. (Granted now they’re 22 and 23 and the likelihood of them actually being a Phi Sig is next to none....)

[carnation]

Originally Posted by shadokat

I was also a first generation college student. And at my university, legacies were few and far between, so it wasn't an issue. I wonder how many chapters said, "hey, we need to get rid of the legacy policy, because we want to take all of these women over here, but we can't because there are so many legacies." I can't imagine outside of the large Southern universities and Indiana that this is the case. Maybe I'm being naive.

To me, this is a feeble attempt to look relevant in terms of what is going on in the world today. And I'm not saying it just about Phi Sigma Sigma, because DPhiE is talking about it too. I just don't think it does enough to make relevant change.

See, that's what I'm saying. I think that these groups are just trying to look relevant and cool, while their HQs are possibly congratulating each other on cutting down the number of screaming mom calls they get every year. I haven't heard of a sorority being forced to take legacies for years. I also have not heard of a sorority who admitted to dropping a fantastic PNM in order to keep a subpar legacy. It just doesn't happen!

[APhi2KD]

Okay...

Legacy--It's tough for alumnae to lose the status that is *sometimes and not uniformly* afforded to their legacies. Legacy status has been decreasing over the years anyway. It also can be devastating to the alumna when their legacy gets cut.

Appearance- Yes, many chapters are too focused on looks. However, if PNMs could ask one question going into recruitment, my guess would be over 90% would ask, "what do I wear?"

A new business suit for an interview is a good analogy, but this is a SERIES of interviews requiring different classes of attire, from very casual to formal/cocktail. AND "interview" clothing for women can also bring a variety of results. For men, "Dockers, collar and khakis, business suit, suit and tie, etc." are much more definitive.

MANY girls opt to get new clothing for each event, but many of them have most of the requirements already in their closet. Just as they could do their own nails or put their belongings in a large ziplock or market bag, many OPT for manicures and Kate Spade/Tori Burch bags and sandals.

Dues- It would be wonderful to make dues more affordable for all and yes, having to pay dues does create exclusivity. But that is a larger barrier/step and one that would take more time.

Recommendations- I have mixed emotions. First choice would always be someone that knows the PNM personally. Not always possible, which brings us to the way many are done now. This is because "they are required". Yes, some sororities require them prior to granting a bid, but the larger issue of needing a rec for each house on SEC campuses, etc., has created an environment of meaningless recs that actives do not even read. It checks a block.

If we want to truly encourage inclusion, recs either need to be done away with OR accepted from non-alumnae, if necessary. In many cases a good letter of recommendation from a teacher would mean much more than the ones that are submitted today. But that would mean a return to actually READING the recommendations and that makes me cringe for the recruitment committees at large greek schools. Having to read, absorb, and prioritize them would be an enormous undertaking. Perhaps NPC alumnae groups should venture into less exclusive high schools to recruit and meet girls and set them up with recs.

These are all tough issues, but I am hearing a lot of what sounds like a blanket resistance to change. And if you want to maintain exclusivity in terms of QUALITY, some barriers need to go because race is NOT an accurate predictor of quality -- as some current NPC members are showing us daily.

[Cheerio]

Originally Posted by APhi2KD

Perhaps NPC alumnae groups should venture into less exclusive high schools to recruit and meet girls and set them up with recs.

Is there any intimidation or resistance felt by students from less exclusive highschools when they are asked to meet with women from NPC Alumnae Groups? How often does this type of potential PNM end up an initiated NPC member?

[shadokat]

OK, so do you think PNMs are so focused on what to wear because chapters are too focused on looks or vice versa? Do you honestly believe that a woman at say Georgia could roll into recruitment with a large ziplock or market bag and not be immediately eliminated from consideration? I personally witnessed a woman get laughed at and ridiculed because she had a fake Kate Spade bag in the early 2000s, and the "fake label" was becoming unstuck due to the extreme heat of the Georgia weather.

As an Alpha Phi, you've likely experienced some backlash with the Alpha Phi membership selection "scandal." What's Alpha Phi's stance on all this?

The whole point of this is that meaningful change is about more than eliminating a legacy policy. And if NPC groups are going to hang their hat on inclusion by eliminating legacy policies, then all of our groups need changes in leadership quickly.

I personally have a little resistance to change, but I understand that change is necessary to evolve. Legacy policy elimination is change for PR/image sake, and it's baffling why it's being celebrated. Again, my opinion alone. Not the opinion of my chapter or my organization that I know of.

Originally Posted by APhi2KD

Okay...


Appearance- Yes, many chapters are too focused on looks. However, if PNMs could ask one question going into recruitment, my guess would be over 90% would ask, "what do I wear?"

MANY girls opt to get new clothing for each event, but many of them have most of the requirements already in their closet. Just as they could do their own nails or put their belongings in a large ziplock or market bag, many OPT for manicures and Kate Spade/Tori Burch bags and sandals.

Dues- It would be wonderful to make dues more affordable for all and yes, having to pay dues does create exclusivity. But that is a larger barrier/step and one that would take more time.

Recommendations- I have mixed emotions. First choice would always be someone that knows the PNM personally. Not always possible, which brings us to the way many are done now. This is because "they are required". Yes, some sororities require them prior to granting a bid, but the larger issue of needing a rec for each house on SEC campuses, etc., has created an environment of meaningless recs that actives do not even read. It checks a block.

If we want to truly encourage inclusion, recs either need to be done away with OR accepted from non-alumnae, if necessary. In many cases a good letter of recommendation from a teacher would mean much more than the ones that are submitted today. But that would mean a return to actually READING the recommendations and that makes me cringe for the recruitment committees at large greek schools. Having to read, absorb, and prioritize them would be an enormous undertaking. Perhaps NPC alumnae groups should venture into less exclusive high schools to recruit and meet girls and set them up with recs.

These are all tough issues, but I am hearing a lot of what sounds like a blanket resistance to change. And if you want to maintain exclusivity in terms of QUALITY, some barriers need to go because race is NOT an accurate predictor of quality -- as some current NPC members are showing us daily.

[Sororitysock]

Originally Posted by shadokat

OK, so do you think PNMs are so focused on what to wear because chapters are too focused on looks or vice versa? Do you honestly believe that a woman at say Georgia could roll into recruitment with a large ziplock or market bag and not be immediately eliminated from consideration? I personally witnessed a woman get laughed at and ridiculed because she had a fake Kate Spade bag in the early 2000s, and the "fake label" was becoming unstuck due to the extreme heat of the Georgia weather.

As an Alpha Phi, you've likely experienced some backlash with the Alpha Phi membership selection "scandal." What's Alpha Phi's stance on all this?

The whole point of this is that meaningful change is about more than eliminating a legacy policy. And if NPC groups are going to hang their hat on inclusion by eliminating legacy policies, then all of our groups need changes in leadership quickly.

I personally have a little resistance to change, but I understand that change is necessary to evolve. Legacy policy elimination is change for PR/image sake, and it's baffling why it's being celebrated. Again, my opinion alone. Not the opinion of my chapter or my organization that I know of.

I just had a conversation with some Panhellenic sisters about the changes and how they're being celebrated. We wondered if everyone would have been so positive if it were Alpha Phi leading the charge. Would the perspective be different? Would we look at them as only changing their Legacy Policy so they could avoid being forced to bring legacies who don't meet their "standards" into the first invitational round instead of inviting only women who meet those "standards." We came to the conclusion that there would be a lot more pitchforks and torches if that were the case.