Who Has Removed Preferential Treatment for Legacies?

[NYCMS]

I support elimination of preferential treatment for legacies. There are so many legacies that chapters at schools like Ole Miss could fill an entire pledge class - which means bringing back girls they have no interest in, yet they have to - which means those legacies take the place of girls they have interest in. I've seen the argument that chapters will "find a way" to bring back those non-legacies they really want. Yes, but bringing back legacies of no interest prevents bringing back more girls of real interest. If legacies are truly a match, they'll get through; they shouldn't need the special treatment.

I hope Gamma Phi Beta follows suit. It would forward our mission which is: We build confident women of character who celebrate sisterhood and make a difference in the world around us (bold is my emphasis).

Women rocking the world are from all backgrounds, regardless of race, religion, upbringing or otherwise. I want them to have an opportunity in our organizations and not be deterred by a lack of Greek organization understanding, being the first generation to go to college or go through recruitment, or being intimated by a policy that means girls have a leg up simply due to a family connection. Compare this to the workplace: I dare say we all want to hire the best employee, not the one with special connections unless they were truly the best fit.

Time for an equal playing field.

[Sen's Revenge]

Originally Posted by NYCMS

Time for an equal playing field.

And if not yet totally equal, then at least better today than yesterday.

[shadokat]

I'd be willing to bet that the elimination of the legacy policy affects only 10% of all schools (you mention Ole Miss). Outside of that 10%, this policy elimination does absolutely nothing to support inclusion. So if we're going to govern our organizations based upon the 10%, well, we're missing the boat.

Originally Posted by NYCMS

I support elimination of preferential treatment for legacies. There are so many legacies that chapters at schools like Ole Miss could fill an entire pledge class - which means bringing back girls they have no interest in, yet they have to - which means those legacies take the place of girls they have interest in. I've seen the argument that chapters will "find a way" to bring back those non-legacies they really want. Yes, but bringing back legacies of no interest prevents bringing back more girls of real interest. If legacies are truly a match, they'll get through; they shouldn't need the special treatment.

I hope Gamma Phi Beta follows suit. It would forward our mission which is: We build confident women of character who celebrate sisterhood and make a difference in the world around us (bold is my emphasis).

Women rocking the world are from all backgrounds, regardless of race, religion, upbringing or otherwise. I want them to have an opportunity in our organizations and not be deterred by a lack of Greek organization understanding, being the first generation to go to college or go through recruitment, or being intimated by a policy that means girls have a leg up simply due to a family connection. Compare this to the workplace: I dare say we all want to hire the best employee, not the one with special connections unless they were truly the best fit.

Time for an equal playing field.

[carnation]

Originally Posted by shadokat

I'd be willing to bet that the elimination of the legacy policy affects only 10% of all schools (you mention Ole Miss). Outside of that 10%, this policy elimination does absolutely nothing to support inclusion. So if we're going to govern our organizations based upon the 10%, well, we're missing the boat.

Exactly!

[NYCMS]

Originally Posted by shadokat

I'd be willing to bet that the elimination of the legacy policy affects only 10% of all schools (you mention Ole Miss). Outside of that 10%, this policy elimination does absolutely nothing to support inclusion. So if we're going to govern our organizations based upon the 10%, well, we're missing the boat.

I don't disagree that there's much more to be done to foster a diverse membership, but I still think legacy preferential treatment is unfair. Even if a chapter just has 5 legacies to return and they know that 2 aren't a fit, then that's 2 seats taken away from girls they really like. I went to a competitive school, not SEC, back when there were fewer legacies, but still there were girls we knew from the get-go we didn't want to pledge yet they had to be brought back and took away seats from those we wanted.

I truly don't get why my Gamma Phi Beta membership should mean a daughter gets special treatment. I'm the member, I was given the opportunity to contribute and be part of a rich sisterhood, both in my chapter and on an international level, something I've taken advantage of, both as a collegiate member and an alumnae. I honestly don't believe it should mean special treatment during rush.

As I said, if my dad founded a company, I wouldn't want to be hired due to being a family member. I'd want the job because I was the best fit for the job. One can argue that that's very different from Greek membership, but the principle is the same. And by the way, we see this in politics all. the. time and it's really unfair when big money simply backs up another member of a 'legacy' family and prevents a newer candidate from having a chance. Same with those who donate huge amounts of money to get their child, sometimes with sub-par grades, into an elite school.

We'll have to agree to disagree!

[GreekOne]

Originally Posted by NYCMS

I don't disagree that there's much more to be done to foster a diverse membership, but I still think legacy preferential treatment is unfair. Even if a chapter just has 5 legacies to return and they know that 2 aren't a fit, then that's 2 seats taken away from girls they really like. I went to a competitive school, not SEC, back when there were fewer legacies, but still there were girls we knew from the get-go we didn't want to pledge yet they had to be brought back and took away seats from those we wanted.

This part I get. If a chapter does not see a fit at all, better to release a legacy after first round and let her find another home. The part I can't justify is the elimination of the spot on the first bid list. I know this was discussed on another thread.

I just can't understand why a legacy would not be given a spot on the first list if she were carried to Prefs. If they kept her that long, they do love her. I have seen numerous alumnae re-engage when their legacies were given a bid. The excitement for the mothers/grandmothers and their daughter at Initiation is so special and a beautiful thing to watch.

I don't know that collegians have the maturity to understand all this. By retaining the provision to keep legacies at the top of the bid list we are preserving more than we are forfeiting in terms of diversity.

[carnation]

Yes, yes, and yes!

[Cheerio]

Originally Posted by NYCMS

I don't disagree that there's much more to be done to foster a diverse membership, but I still think legacy preferential treatment is unfair.

In the very early 1990s NPC groups were also grappling with the issue of diversity, although not to the intense extent of today's concerns and demands. Recent readings of online-archived NPC magazines from that era confirmed what I remember of that era, when I served several area collegiate chapters.

Personally, I think many sorority chapters have long given healthy promotion to being as diverse as possible given the choice of some WOC preferring not to become members of an NPC group [as carnation and others here on GC describe].

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by Cheerio

In the very early 1990s NPC groups were also grappling with the issue of diversity, although not to the intense extent of today's concerns and demands. Recent readings of online-archived NPC magazines from that era confirmed what I remember of that era, when I served several area collegiate chapters.

You think what the NPCs are facing right now is "intense"? I beg to differ.

I would be curious to know what those NPC magazines of the 90s are confirming for you, though. Care to share?

Personally, I think many sorority chapters have long given healthy promotion to being as diverse as possible given the choice of some WOC preferring not to become members of an NPC group [as carnation and others here on GC describe].

Can you clarify this statement?

Do some chapters promote diversity and inclusion? Sure. But to pretend like most of them do is laughable, and I don't just mean in terms of welcoming different races.

Do a Google image search on "Panhellenic bid day". Scroll for a bit. How many WOC do you see? How many young women are in a wheelchair? How many young women are curvier or have a little more weight on them? How many young women aren't picture-perfect (straight) white girls?

Seriously. Look at the photos and tell me what you see. And then we're going to claim that we're welcoming to everyone, and "if those 'other' girls aren't joining, it's because they choose not to!"? Even if they're choosing not to, do you think it might have something to do with the system? With how we recruit? With some of our practices and procedures? With how we present ourselves? With who we choose to exclude?

Either way, let's not act like ALL WOC are turning away from NPCs simply because they want to join a BGLO. Let's also not pretend that WOC who join NPCs aren't experiencing microaggressions from their own sisters. It happens. I've seen it happen and I've heard people say that it's happened to them.

We could all be doing sooo much better. Acting like we don't need to is the real issue here.

[carnation]

I don't think you can speak for any chapter except your own.

[SweetHomeStL]

Replying to Cheerio’s comment about the 1990’s & not quoting because my browser stinks......

Agree 100%! Funny (or horrifying) story: I was a traveling consultant for my national organization in the the early 1990’s. We had a beautiful, amazing, super-awesome WOC on the front page of our national magazine that year. (I LOVE this woman & am SSSOOO glad she is my sister!) We met earlier in our active collegiate years at convention, and this is important to note for the story.

One of my first trips as a consultant was to a mid size southern school for rush. (Yes rush, it wasn’t recruitment yet). These very white, very sheltered girls were having a bit of a breakdown because the first WOC was registered for NPC rush on their campus, and they legitimately did not know what to do about it. Talk about a long weekend of inclusion training......When I brought up the fact that my African-American friend was on the cover of our magazine, they really and honestly thought that she was a planted model and not really my sister. I had to politely tell them that no, she is real and is YOUR sister too, not just mine.

I am proud of all of our GLO’s for continuing to evolve over the last 30 years. Do we have a long way to go? YES! But we are moving forward.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by carnation

I don't think you can speak for any chapter except your own.

That's what you got out of my post? Oh, OK.