Diversity in the SEC

[amIblue?]

NPC groups didn't have to worry about keeping Black members out at their founding because their schools already did that for them. How many schools were racially integrated in the late 19th century and early 20th century?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Hartofsec

I would be interested in a list of things to do and say about diversity in SEC GLOs that are not considered "cliché."

There is great irony and cliche in your wanting a quick GC Diversity Training.

Your post reminds me of my "sandbox" post in another thread. White organizations tend not to play in the sandbox owned by nonwhites or tend not to be willing to create a new sandbox with nonwhites. Nonwhites, on the other hand, tend to be accustomed to having to smile and show an appreciation for even being invited to the white sandbox.

I'm all for separate sandboxes that can work together if so desired. But since some organizations seek diversity, they need to know that such diversity is not contingent upon how the majority feels. Don't invite minorities and then expect them to not acknowledge the minority identity. That serves no purpose than to make the majority feel warm and fuzzy. I have no interest in riding the rainbow pissing pony created by the majority. The majority who wishes to pretend no one cares or thinks about this stuff can form their Kumbaya circle elsewhere.

Originally Posted by amIblue?

NPC groups didn't have to worry about keeping Black members out at their founding because their schools already did that for them. How many schools were racially integrated in the late 19th century and early 20th century?

Yep and white students knew this. Many celebrated this.

I just want people to stop living in lala land. For instance, GLOs were founded at HBCUs in the early 1900s, and some of them mention being a brotherhood or sisterhood for Blacks. Race and ethnicity are intentional and detailed in some of our purposes despite being surrounded by 99% Black student population at HBCUs. Race was still not invisible and neutral to us. Our founders were thinking beyond the HBCU campus and for years to come.

The only difference is the founders of the predominantly white GLOs made no explicit mention of race. Race stood for itself despite attempts at false race neutrality.

[Hartofsec]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

There is great irony and cliche in your wanting a quick GC Diversity Training.

Your post reminds me of my "sandbox" post in another thread. White organizations tend not to play in the sandbox owned by nonwhites or tend not to be willing to create a new sandbox with nonwhites. Nonwhites, on the other hand, tend to be accustomed to having to smile and show an appreciation for even being invited to the white sandbox.

Could you give me the Cliffs Notes for your "sandbox" post too?

I guess there is also great irony and cliché in your dodge.

It's a serious question -- what should NPC chapters be striving to say or do that wouldn't be considered "cliché?"

[TriDeltaSallie]

The early NPC groups started because women were despised members of most colleges and they were seeking friendships among the other women. Men thought the women were incapable of learning because they were too delicate and emotional.

The women stuck together for survival and made a society to enjoy. Societies based on mutual interests were very common back then.

People are trying to force 21st century issues on the founding of groups in the mid to late 1800s. No, these women were not seeking to be racially inclusive. They were trying to survive personally and academically in a hostile environment. No, it was not all roses and perfect. I've read "Bound by a Mighty Vow" and from the early days groups have struggled to decide who to allow in and not (like those uncouth Midwestern girls). But to add race to the founding of the groups and early years isn't really relevant.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by TNAuburnMom

What you consider a racial cliche was our reality.

One part of reality is realizing when some experiences are less prevalent. Another part of reality is realizing that the military desegregation did not eradicate racism and racial inequality in the military. People can hang together but the real signs of inclusivity and equality is when social outcomes like military hiring and promotions are not negatively shaped by race and ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation. While you kids were playing, that is what the adults were grappling with.

That is why people need to see this from the perspective of the nonmajority. My white friends know that I love them dearly but I never want them to pretend as though we have to ignore racial identity and certain social outcomes to love each other. We discuss race and ethnicity and never pretend as though we need faux colorblind in order to survive.

[amIblue?]

They absolutely needed each other, but you can't ignore that most early NPC orgs were exclusively white and Protestant. It didn't happen in a vacuum.

[TriDeltaSallie]

Originally Posted by amIblue?

They absolutely needed each other, but you can't ignore that most early NPC orgs were exclusively white and Protestant. It didn't happen in a vacuum.

Right. But someone who is in a historically black group can come on here and say she loves it the way it was specifically founded and doesn't want it to change and no one bats an eyelash. If some of us in the early NPC groups that were historically white and Protestant said that we love it that way and don't want it to change we would be be hounded mercilessly.

There is a huge double standard here.

[amIblue?]

Originally Posted by TriDeltaSallie

Right. But someone who is in a historically black group can come on here and say she loves it the way it was specifically founded and doesn't want it to change and no one bats an eyelash. If some of us in the early NPC groups that were historically white and Protestant said that we love it that way and don't want it to change we would be be hounded mercilessly.

There is a huge double standard here.

Perhaps, but as a member of the majority, why does it bother you so much?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by TriDeltaSallie

Right. But someone who is in a historically black group can come on here and say she loves it the way it was specifically founded and doesn't want it to change and no one bats an eyelash. If some of us in the early NPC groups that were historically white and Protestant said that we love it that way and don't want it to change we would be be hounded mercilessly.

There is a huge double standard here.

You are missing the point and assuming a double standard.

It is taking pages for some of you to stop pretending that predominantly white GLOs had no consideration of race and ethnicity in their founding and membership dynamics over the years.

Delta is proud of the role of race and ethnicity in Delta's founding (despite being at a 99% Black school), overall membership dynamics, and programmatic thrust. We do not pretend that race was invisible in the early 1900s and is invisible in 2013.

In addition to what Low C Sharp said, when more NPC and IFC get to the point of acknowledging the role of race and ethnicity (if so desired), say whatever you will about race and ethnicity. I'm not mad at you. I'm also not someone who was ever concerned about diversity in the NPC and IFC.

[DGTess]

Perhaps, but as a member of the majority, why does it bother you so much?

Hole. Lee. Chit. Is the majority not to be "bothered" by injustice? That's a helluva way to dialog, discuss, and learn.

[amIblue?]

Originally Posted by DGTess

Hole. Lee. Chit. Is the majority not to be "bothered" by injustice? That's a helluva way to dialog, discuss, and learn.

I'm not seeing any injustice. Please illuminate me about how hard it is to be white in America.

[nyapbp]

Originally Posted by TriDeltaSallie

People are trying to force 21st century issues on the founding of groups in the mid to late 1800s. No, these women were not seeking to be racially inclusive. They were trying to survive personally and academically in a hostile environment. No, it was not all roses and perfect. I've read "Bound by a Mighty Vow" and from the early days groups have struggled to decide who to allow in and not (like those uncouth Midwestern girls). But to add race to the founding of the groups and early years isn't really relevant.

These were my thoughts and then they popped up on the screeen. Thank you TriDeltaSallie.

It is now; we are here. Debating about what, why, or how people did things in the late 1800s and early 1900s is a moot point. None of us is privy to any of that. We can surmise, we can ascribe, but we just do not know. We can get on with ourt lives and make the best of the situation in front of us. Wringing our hands about something over which we have no part and no control is, in my opinion, pointless.

That said, I remember having to counsel a chapter when an African American pledge was catching fire from the NPHC groups for joining an NPC group. As I recall she ended up leaving school. I admire and respect the NPHC groups, but I realize that membership in one of the organizations is closed to me. The choice would never be mine.

[Hartofsec]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

What DBB said.

NPC groups started consciously, deliberately keeping out the undesired categories very early. Witness the founding of AOII. Perhaps more importantly, they continued to do so until very recently. This is what makes "They're just sisters" problematic. History still matters, as any SEC student will tell you when we're talking about other kinds of institutional history. Celebrating Founders' Day when the Founders would likely have resigned rather than share membership with people like you is a problem. Sisterhood with alumnae who joined an explicitly segregated organization is a problem. It's a problem that many folks can deal with, but denying it doesn't make it go away. "They're just sisters" denies that facet of nonwhite (and non-Protestant) experience.

You learn what clichés are by listening and watching, especially to people whose experience is different from you.

The institutional history of my alma mater, where racial segregation/discrimination is concerned, is about as negatively high-profile as it possibly could be. The governor's doorway stand to block AA students from entering is well-known. Certainly it would be possible to have women in one's alum group (and everywhere else) whose thinking is a reflection of that period.

So in society's current tier of evolution with racial diversity, what should SEC NPC chapters be striving to say or do that would not be considered "cliché?"

(question not directed to you specifically, but to all)

[amIblue?]

Hate to burst your bubble, Nyapbp, but I have met white NPHC members.

[nyapbp]

Originally Posted by amIblue?

Hate to burst your bubble, Nyapbp, but I have met white NPHC members.

Yes, I know there have been a few, Eleanor Roosevelt for one. But the NPHC Alumnae chapters in my area do not have white members in them.