Who Has Removed Preferential Treatment for Legacies?

[navane]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

At this point, which organizations still have preferential treatment for legacies during recruitment? From what I've found, the following still have theirs intact (or there was no announcement of a change of policy easily found):

Alpha Delta Pi
Alpha Epsilon Phi
Alpha Sigma Tau
Chi Omega
Delta Phi Epsilon
Delta Zeta
Kappa Delta
Sigma Delta Tau
Theta Phi Alpha

And these orgs have clearly eliminated their policy:

Alpha Chi Omega
Alpha Gamma Delta
Alpha Omicron Pi
Alpha Phi
Alpha Sigma Alpha
Alpha Xi Delta
Delta Delta Delta
Delta Gamma
Gamma Phi Beta
Kappa Alpha Theta
Kappa Kappa Gamma
Phi Mu
Phi Sigma Sigma
Pi Beta Phi
Sigma Kappa
Sigma Sigma Sigma

If any part of this is incorrect, please feel free to clarify.

I counted 25 orgs and then realized Zeta Tau Alpha isn't listed. I believe their policy is still that a legacy will be invited back to one invitational event. Maybe a ZTA can confirm. See here:

In 2019, ZTA reviewed the Legacy Policy, which currently states a legacy will be invited back to one invitational event provided she meets the membership requirements of the chapter. Should she not meet the requirements (e.g., GPA, good standing with the university, connection with the chapter, etc.), the chapter is not required to invite her back after the first round. An appointed task force will continue to evaluate the policy to remove barriers for potential new members who are first-generation college students and for those who come from families with no ties to fraternity and sorority life.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by navane

I counted 25 orgs and then realized Zeta Tau Alpha isn't listed. I believe their policy is still that a legacy will be invited back to one invitational event. Maybe a ZTA can confirm. See here:

Thank you! I added them. Through a quick search, it seems they haven't made a more recent change to their legacy policy.

[33girl]

Reading through this and the rec thread, does anyone else think it’s bat guano crazy to be doing all this in the middle of a worldwide pandemic?

I mean - the people who are pushing all these changes through have probably picked an optimum time to do so as most of us are occupied with other more pressing things or in the throes of depression. When everyone snaps out of it and wakes up, will these policies really stay? How many national convention throwdowns will result?

I also wonder how the national leadership of so many groups has come to be so far out of touch with the rest of the membership.

[carnation]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Reading through this and the rec thread, does anyone else think it’s bat guano crazy to be doing all this in the middle of a worldwide pandemic?

I mean - the people who are pushing all these changes through have probably picked an optimum time to do so as most of us are occupied with other more pressing things or in the throes of depression. When everyone snaps out of it and wakes up, will these policies really stay? How many national convention throwdowns will result?

I also wonder how the national leadership of so many groups has come to be so far out of touch with the rest of the membership.

YES! YES! YES!

[Cheerio]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Reading through this and the rec thread, does anyone else think it’s bat guano crazy to be doing all this in the middle of a worldwide pandemic?

I mean - the people who are pushing all these changes through have probably picked an optimum time to do so as most of us are occupied with other more pressing things or in the throes of depression. When everyone snaps out of it and wakes up, will these policies really stay? How many national convention throwdowns will result?

I also wonder how the national leadership of so many groups has come to be so far out of touch with the rest of the membership.

In answer to your final thought: Consultants, both the legal kind and the operational kind.

Some national sorority boards have been under the spell of consultants for too many years. Consultants stand as middlemen between the sorority boards and sorority constituents.

Consultants sometimes ask the wrong questions of boards and constituants. This can result in poor sorority decisions being made and incorrect actions being taken.

Consultants are sometimes tasked to encourage policies passed by a board but considered unnecessary and discouraging to the constituants because constituants feel they have not been properly consulted or heard.

Another thread spoke about members of sorority boards needing to make high yearly monetary bequests to their orgs in order to even be on said boards. That denies some people from becoming a major decision maker for their org.

[33girl]

Oh yeah, we got us one of those. I wonder how much she’s being paid and if that money couldn’t have been better used for things like scholarships at the many campi we’re on where first gen college students predominate. Or maybe even competitive housing.

[TXDG]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Reading through this and the rec thread, does anyone else think it’s bat guano crazy to be doing all this in the middle of a worldwide pandemic?

I mean - the people who are pushing all these changes through have probably picked an optimum time to do so as most of us are occupied with other more pressing things or in the throes of depression. When everyone snaps out of it and wakes up, will these policies really stay? How many national convention throwdowns will result?

I also wonder how the national leadership of so many groups has come to be so far out of touch with the rest of the membership.

I don’t think the national offices are “so far out of touch with the REST of the membership.” On my group’s Facebook page, there are regularly posts from members thanking EO for the positive changes being made, especially from women who wouldn’t have been eligible to be in a sorority 60 years ago and have sometimes felt marginalized even as full members.

Even myself, a white girl from a “good” family and a strong high school but no legacies...when I was deciding between two colleges, I definitely considered the fact that one school had a 100+ year old Greek system with more legacies than spots in many chapters. And the other school had a younger Greek system where the first chapter legacies would start to come through the year I graduated. My rush was competitive - sororities were still selective and I had cuts - but our chapter had maybe 2-5 legacies pledge each year. The last time I saw our chapter’s stats, legacies were about 40-50% of the pledge class with many legacy cuts. That’s a huge difference in 25 years and represents many fewer opportunities to pledge for PNM’s like me (who literally was born on life’s “3rd base”), not to mention other PNM’s who have as much or more to give but don’t know the ropes.

Are members grumpy and even outraged about these changes? Sure. But they seem to be the same kind of people screaming “make America great (white) again” and fighting tooth and toenail against America becoming more diverse,, ignoring the huge “leg up” in life they had by being (mostly) white, college educated women. I won’t be so ignorant to think my daughter would be a better DG than a non-legacy just because of her family name. All legacy relatives should strive to raise their legacies in a way that every sorority is interested in her because her character, kindness, morals, service, and intellect radiate on their own.

[33girl]

I know with our org, part of the problem was that this change was announced after a convention during which it had been neither brought up nor discussed.

Also, some women of color were the loudest critics of eliminating the legacy policy. They wanted their sisters or future children to get an extra look if they attended a school that was more homogeneous than where they had gone.

I know that everyone’s policy is different but I think there are ways other than throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Chi Omega has been very smart in confining who is a legacy to mothers and sisters. Once again, this is something that would be served better by being handled on a chapter level rather than nationally.

[carnation]

Originally Posted by TXDG

Are members grumpy and even outraged about these changes? Sure. But they seem to be the same kind of people screaming “make America great (white) again” and fighting tooth and toenail against America becoming more diverse,, ignoring the huge “leg up” in life they had by being (mostly) white, college educated women. I won’t be so ignorant to think my daughter would be a better DG than a non-legacy just because of her family name. All legacy relatives should strive to raise their legacies in a way that every sorority is interested in her because her character, kindness, morals, service, and intellect radiate on their own.

I know a black DG who would be infuriated if she read that. She is extremely upset because her daughter's legacy status won't be honored when she rushes.

ETA: I can think of a lot of women who are angry about this who do not fit that MAGA picture.

[Cheerio]

Originally Posted by TXDG

I don’t think the national offices are “so far out of touch with the REST of the membership.” On my group’s Facebook page, there are regularly posts from members thanking EO for the positive changes being made, especially from women who wouldn’t have been eligible to be in a sorority 60 years ago and have sometimes felt marginalized even as full members.

Even myself, a white girl from a “good” family and a strong high school but no legacies...when I was deciding between two colleges, I definitely considered the fact that one school had a 100+ year old Greek system with more legacies than spots in many chapters. And the other school had a younger Greek system where the first chapter legacies would start to come through the year I graduated. My rush was competitive - sororities were still selective and I had cuts - but our chapter had maybe 2-5 legacies pledge each year. The last time I saw our chapter’s stats, legacies were about 40-50% of the pledge class with many legacy cuts. That’s a huge difference in 25 years and represents many fewer opportunities to pledge for PNM’s like me (who literally was born on life’s “3rd base”), not to mention other PNM’s who have as much or more to give but don’t know the ropes.

Are members grumpy and even outraged about these changes? Sure. But they seem to be the same kind of people screaming “make America great (white) again” and fighting tooth and toenail against America becoming more diverse,, ignoring the huge “leg up” in life they had by being (mostly) white, college educated women. I won’t be so ignorant to think my daughter would be a better DG than a non-legacy just because of her family name. All legacy relatives should strive to raise their legacies in a way that every sorority is interested in her because her character, kindness, morals, service, and intellect radiate on their own.

Originally Posted by carnation

I know a black DG who would be infuriated if she read that. She is extremely upset because her daughter's legacy status won't be honored when she rushes.

ETA: I can think of a lot of women who are angry about this who do not fit that MAGA picture.

The newer policy also makes me grumpy, and please count me as not fitting the TXDG-described MAGA picture.

My small sorority chapter (mumble) years ago when I was initiated was PLENTY diverse as far as nationalities, sexual orientations and religious affiliations among our members, too, and we LIKED IT that way!

[shirley1929]

Originally Posted by TXDG

Are members grumpy and even outraged about these changes? Sure. But they seem to be the same kind of people screaming “make America great (white) again” and fighting tooth and toenail against America becoming more diverse,, ignoring the huge “leg up” in life they had by being (mostly) white, college educated women. I won’t be so ignorant to think my daughter would be a better DG than a non-legacy just because of her family name. All legacy relatives should strive to raise their legacies in a way that every sorority is interested in her because her character, kindness, morals, service, and intellect radiate on their own.

Holy generalizations, Batman! I’m grumpy and voted for Biden. I’m grumpy that a triple XYZ legacy could get taken to Pref round and put at the bottom of the bid list. I’m grumpy that fantastic small town girls will get overlooked, and I’m grumpy that weak chapters will likely get weaker. I’m grumpy that this was shoved down the members throats with very little input/discussion. All the while...none of this is doing anything to change diversity in our groups.

[GoldenAnchor]

Originally Posted by shirley1929

I’m grumpy that this was shoved down the members throats with very little input/discussion.

If we’re still specifically discussing DG there was plenty of input and discussion before this change was made, this change was the direct result of a large outcry of members asking for this change and many others last summer. The discussion around legacy’s was happening for years and it finally was pushed to its breaking point when a chapter wrote an incredibly well thought out proposal to council for the removal of the policy and they listened to member input and that proposal was backed and supported by dozens of other chapters. (It was Beta - Washington if I’m not mistaken)

Just because others chose to ignore the conversation doesn’t mean it wasn’t happening.

[shirley1929]

Originally Posted by GoldenAnchor

If we’re still specifically discussing DG there was plenty of input and discussion before this change was made, this change was the direct result of a large outcry of members asking for this change and many others last summer. The discussion around legacy’s was happening for years and it finally was pushed to its breaking point when a chapter wrote an incredibly well thought out proposal to council for the removal of the policy and they listened to member input and that proposal was backed and supported by dozens of other chapters. (It was Beta - Washington if I’m not mistaken)

Just because others chose to ignore the conversation doesn’t mean it wasn’t happening.

Not specific to DG at all. Several other groups have had issues with this being thrown at them.

The policy some have had of "leaving it up to the chapters" (who, incidentally, likely all conduct recruitment/membership selection differently depending on the size and scope of their recruitments) made the most sense to me.

[carnation]

Originally Posted by shirley1929

Holy generalizations, Batman! I’m grumpy that a triple XYZ legacy could get taken to Pref round and put at the bottom of the bid list. I’m grumpy that fantastic small town girls will get overlooked, and I’m grumpy that weak chapters will likely get weaker. I’m grumpy that this was shoved down the members throats with very little input/discussion. All the while...none of this is doing anything to change diversity in our groups.

Yes! Yes! Yes! And they're claiming that they're doing it in the name of diversity but we all know it won't change anything, except to make the chapters less diverse because now the girls will only be voting for PNMs whom they know.

[shirley1929]

Originally Posted by carnation

Yes! Yes! Yes! And they're claiming that they're doing it in the name of diversity but we all know it won't change anything, except to make the chapters less diverse because now the girls will only be voting for PNMs whom they know.

Bolded to make things louder for those in the back!!!!