Lawsuit: Sorority Membership a "Human Rights" Issue?

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by lulutnl3

Question: So if a child IS a legacy, should they not put that down on the "application" (I'm not sure the correct terminology)? Is it better for them to apply on their own merits rather than of their legacy status?

I'm sure the daughters put their "legacy"* status on the application.

I'm also sure the chapter knew they were "legacies" before they actually applied.

I'm certain they applied on their own merits, but the moms feel that since the daughters are "legacies", just that alone should have allowed their daughters automatic acceptance to the chapter.


* legacies used in quotes since each daughter is technically not a member.

[Wolfman]

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/b...ith-witnesses/

[Old_Row]

Can someone help me with a question? When the article says that they cancelled the mothers' sorority privileges does that mean they deactivated them or whatever it is called in AKA and they claim it was witness tampering because that makes all the other actives worry that the same will happen to them if they get involved with the case?

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by Old_Row

Can someone help me with a question? When the article says that they cancelled the mothers' sorority privileges does that mean they deactivated them or whatever it is called in AKA and they claim it was witness tampering because that makes all the other actives worry that the same will happen to them if they get involved with the case?

Based on the article, I would say 'yes' and 'yes' to both of your questions.


Membership is a privilege, not a right.