Who Has Removed Preferential Treatment for Legacies?

[carnation]

These aren't even steps. They are totally unrelated to inclusion. I know a black DG who has a little girl, and she's majorly upset about these virtue-signaling new policies that crap on legacies.

[SWTXBelle]

I'm proud of Gamma Phi Beta's first steps. We've also had a series of table talks with our sisters who are POC, and continue to look for ways to be more inclusive. https://www.gammaphibeta.org/AntiRacismResources

Oh, and to stay on topic: we still value legacies.

[shadokat]

Unfortunately the collegiate chapter resources are all behind a firewall. If these are really good ideas, we should learn to share with all of the NPC. Just my .02.

Originally Posted by SWTXBelle

I'm proud of Gamma Phi Beta's first steps. We've also had a series of table talks with our sisters who are POC, and continue to look for ways to be more inclusive. https://www.gammaphibeta.org/AntiRacismResources

Oh, and to stay on topic: we still value legacies.

[SWTXBelle]

Sen reported they are now public.

[Theta1234]

Over this last year, DD and I have had many discussions on the issue of legacy. Each of us are involved with two different chapters and it was interesting to see how the two chapters interpreted Theta's previous policy.

DD was completely in favor of adjusting the policy--but not eliminating all "perks" of legacy. She talked about the division that occurred in her new member class between the legacies and non-legacies. It broke my heart to hear that some of the ladies felt "less-than" for not being legacies.

She brought up some very valid points that I felt needed further exploration. If that discussion had been brought to the membership--or at least chapter leadership (advisors, officers, etc.) I think the ultimate decision would have been fully embraced--and perhaps the solution would look a little different that the current one. At the same time, with the way the decision was made--by just the Grand Council--it might just as easily be adjusted in the future.

I recognize there was a problem felt at some schools. With the vast expansion of chapters and the rise of "mega" chapters, at some schools, the number of legacies was simply overwhelming. The actives want to have complete control over who their sisters might be--just as we did--and the removal of special treatment for legacies gives the actives more control. I do wonder if this wasn't more of a control issue than an inclusion issue. Several of the chapters that I am familiar with look NOTHING like the Hollywood interpretation of a sorority.

I must admit, I was a bit heart-broken when I read the decision--especially the removal of a minimum GPA (if that part isn't public, please PM me and I will remove that comment.). The Mr--in his typical cheeky self--turned to me and sang one of our old college "songs." He sang, "Theta born, Theta bred..." He then offered a sage observation:

"Our daughter has three besties in her chapter. They could all be her twins. They all share the same values and same heart for other people. Their mommas all happen to be Thetas as well. If you really believe everything you spout--about how the values Theta permeate everything you do--don't you think that rubs off on others? Don't you think that actives would recognize those values in PNMS and they will rise to the top--with or without any extra help?"

(Ok, so he didn't get the whole actives and PNM terminology exactly like this, but bear with me.).

There was a lot of truth in that and at the same time it addressed the very issue at hand--are groups made stronger when they hold shared values or are they stronger when they embrace diverse values? At my heart, I can't dream of a world where scholarship, leadership personal excellence and a heart for humanity are not shared values. We may have differing personal experiences and paths that we follow to uphold those values, but in the end, doesn't there need to be some common ground to hold a group together and help guide its direction? These were all the things we discussed this last week.

Anyway, I'm firmly torn on this issue. It will be a very different recruitment this fall and it will be very interesting to see how things play out over the next few years. DD has observed that you will have two PNM classes that really don't know "how to recruit." I wonder if that isn't a bad thing. Perhaps these new classes will come up with different ways that reflect current values and not tradition. Will door stacks and bouncing be replaced by...?

After discussing this ad nauseam, the Mr asked if we could stop talking about "the whole sorority thing" and get back to listening to Hamilton on our Great American Road Trip. I think he actually sang that request as well.

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by carnation

These aren't even steps. They are totally unrelated to inclusion. I know a black DG who has a little girl, and she's majorly upset about these virtue-signaling new policies that crap on legacies.

Wow.

I know a black DG and she supports this policy.

Which one speaks for her race?

[carnation]

Neither. Each one speaks for herself.

[GreekOne]

Originally Posted by Theta1234

Over this last year, DD and I have had many discussions on the issue of legacy. Each of us are involved with two different chapters and it was interesting to see how the two chapters interpreted Theta's previous policy.

DD was completely in favor of adjusting the policy--but not eliminating all "perks" of legacy. She talked about the division that occurred in her new member class between the legacies and non-legacies. It broke my heart to hear that some of the ladies felt "less-than" for not being legacies.

She brought up some very valid points that I felt needed further exploration. If that discussion had been brought to the membership--or at least chapter leadership (advisors, officers, etc.) I think the ultimate decision would have been fully embraced--and perhaps the solution would look a little different that the current one. At the same time, with the way the decision was made--by just the Grand Council--it might just as easily be adjusted in the future.

I recognize there was a problem felt at some schools. With the vast expansion of chapters and the rise of "mega" chapters, at some schools, the number of legacies was simply overwhelming. The actives want to have complete control over who their sisters might be--just as we did--and the removal of special treatment for legacies gives the actives more control. I do wonder if this wasn't more of a control issue than an inclusion issue. Several of the chapters that I am familiar with look NOTHING like the Hollywood interpretation of a sorority.

I must admit, I was a bit heart-broken when I read the decision--especially the removal of a minimum GPA (if that part isn't public, please PM me and I will remove that comment.). The Mr--in his typical cheeky self--turned to me and sang one of our old college "songs." He sang, "Theta born, Theta bred..." He then offered a sage observation:

"Our daughter has three besties in her chapter. They could all be her twins. They all share the same values and same heart for other people. Their mommas all happen to be Thetas as well. If you really believe everything you spout--about how the values Theta permeate everything you do--don't you think that rubs off on others? Don't you think that actives would recognize those values in PNMS and they will rise to the top--with or without any extra help?"

(Ok, so he didn't get the whole actives and PNM terminology exactly like this, but bear with me.).

There was a lot of truth in that and at the same time it addressed the very issue at hand--are groups made stronger when they hold shared values or are they stronger when they embrace diverse values? At my heart, I can't dream of a world where scholarship, leadership personal excellence and a heart for humanity are not shared values. We may have differing personal experiences and paths that we follow to uphold those values, but in the end, doesn't there need to be some common ground to hold a group together and help guide its direction? These were all the things we discussed this last week.

Anyway, I'm firmly torn on this issue. It will be a very different recruitment this fall and it will be very interesting to see how things play out over the next few years. DD has observed that you will have two PNM classes that really don't know "how to recruit." I wonder if that isn't a bad thing. Perhaps these new classes will come up with different ways that reflect current values and not tradition. Will door stacks and bouncing be replaced by...?

After discussing this ad nauseam, the Mr asked if we could stop talking about "the whole sorority thing" and get back to listening to Hamilton on our Great American Road Trip. I think he actually sang that request as well.

Sounds like a wonderful, thoughtful discussion touching on many important points. I agree that, above all else, the shared values should be what brings members together and will hold a chapter together through a lifetime.

Your husband sounds like a great sport!!

[sororanon]

My cynical side thinks that this was actually an easy "give" for most NPC orgs.

Let's face it, managing a legacy policy is a nightmare for a lot of chapters. I'm sure a lot of alums are not going to be happy about this and will raise a stink. HOWEVER ... What they aren't cancelling or speaking to is the unspoken and elitist policy of "VIP" PNMS. You know the one ... a PNM will be given VIP status if they are connected to a well-placed higher-up member. One phone call from a regional or national leader telling a recruitment advisor that they need to take Miss XYZ because she is related to muckety-muck old lady who donates money in a big way, etc. Take her even if your chapter doesn't like her, doesn't want her, doesn't fit in, whatever. We all know that this happens now. Those are going to be the only ones that get special passes into rounds and the rest of you can take a flying leap.

LET THE ARM TWISTING BEGIN!

I know. Cynical.

[kdonline]

Legacy “perks” are outdated, mostly because sorority recruitments are overrun with them, and these policies cause more headaches during recruitment.

A PNM should be invited to join a sorority on *her own* merits. If she’s a legacy, then that’s nice. But it shouldn’t be a reason why the PNM is selected. But all of our organizations want quality women: women who are academically solid, confident leaders, and volunteer in the community.

[Leora]

Typing from my phone so apologies if it's wonky, but just got this email entitled "Changes to Legacy Considerations." I'm just going to quote the most relevant portion.

"Today, we write with an important update which we felt you need to be aware. Pi Beta Phi is providing chapters flexibility as to how they implement our legacy policy. (Potential New Members whose sister, mother or grandmother is an initiated member of Pi Beta Phi is defined as a legacy).

The Pi Beta Phi Constitution and Statutes states “special consideration shall be given to legacies whose qualifications are comparable to those of other Potential New Members (PNMs).” Chapter Bylaws dictate how that special consideration is applied.

Historically, legacies participating in primary recruitment have received the following courtesies:
an invitation to the first invitational round, and if attending the Preference round, the legacy is placed at the top of the chapter’s Bid List.

After much conversation and discussion, Grand Council has decided chapters will be allowed to choose from three legacy courtesy options for the 2020-2021 academic year. Allowing chapters a choice provides the Fraternity opportunity to collect relevant information to shape future policy. These options are as follows:

1. Follow existing legacy procedures. These chapters will invite all legacies to the first invitational round and if invited to Preference, legacies will be placed at the top of the bid list.
2. Eliminate the top of the bid list courtesy but keep the first-round invitation courtesy. These chapters will invite legacies to the first invitational round.
3. Eliminate the top of the bid list courtesy and the first-round invitation courtesy. These chapters will consider legacies just as they consider any other PNM for membership. These chapters will meet the requirements of the Constitution and Statutes special consideration by identifying all legacies for members of the chapter prior to the start of recruitment.

Today, chapter officers and Alumnae Advisory Committee (AAC) members were made aware of these options and how to begin the effort of exploring what is best for their chapter. It is imperative we support our collegiate sisters and do not place pressure on a chapter to select one option over another."

Personally, I would have loved to see an "eliminate the first round courtesy invite and keep the top of the bid list" option, but I am overall thankful that the opinion of collegiate members is being asked for. I'm an alumna, so will continue to follow with interest!

[carnation]

Well, I'm glad that we're getting options. I can't imagine the explosions and amount of money withdrawn if there had been across-the-board screwing over of legacies.

I also get that some chapters have far more legacies rushing than they can pledge--my own chapter faces that this fall--but that has never prevented any chapter of any sorority from taking who they really wanted.

And I agree, that other option would have been fantastic.

[thetalady]

I agree that eliminating the invitational round, but placing on the 1st bid list is a great option. Kind of strange that that isn't one of the options. But GOOD FOR PI PHI that you got options!! This is the way an important change in policy should be done.

[SWTXBelle]

We've had a committee investigating legacy policy since October. It will be interesting to see what they come up with. I like the options Pi Phi has given chapters.

[honeychile]

Very interesting options, and I do hope that more GLOs will at least consider them.