God Love Barbara Walters & The View

[_Q_]

Has anyone seriously considered the idea that at least some of the book might be fabricated? A lot of it is completely unverifiable, and parts of it don't make any sense. For example, an alleged conversation with a plumber about the pipes eroding due to the members' bulimia. How likely is this? And how is it possible for her to accurately reconstruct casual conversations word for word? If you're concerned about the book, it might be more useful to examine it more skeptically. If you can show that even some parts are bogus, that will do a lot more to discredit the book than getting angry or protesting.

[33girl]

Originally posted by _Q_
If you can show that even some parts are bogus, that will do a lot more to discredit the book than getting angry or protesting.

I did, in the Pledged thread in Entertainment. She quotes a source from an ASA chapter in Nevada - too bad there aren't/never were any. If the dumb shit would have said "the West" rather than a specific state she could have pulled it off.

[amycat412]

Originally posted by _Q_
For example, an alleged conversation with a plumber about the pipes eroding due to the members' bulimia. How likely is this?

This does happen. I've seen it. You have an old house w small pipes and 60 girls living in...between bulimia and drunken puking...

[angelove]

I agree with Q, and given Robbins' sources, this would be easy to do. A bigger question is, why isn't the media doing this? Why isn't Matt Lauer or Soledad O'Brien grilling Robbins during one of the morning shows about the bogus sources? I realize that there are bigger issues in the world, but think about the way the media has scrutinized "The DaVinci Code" (okay, except for that ABC show) - surely this would make a good scoop for some interviewer to make Robbins sweat a little under the stagelights.

[AOIIBrandi]

Originally posted by angelove
I agree with Q, and given Robbins' sources, this would be easy to do. A bigger question is, why isn't the media doing this? Why isn't Matt Lauer or Soledad O'Brien grilling Robbins during one of the morning shows about the bogus sources? I realize that there are bigger issues in the world, but think about the way the media has scrutinized "The DaVinci Code" (okay, except for that ABC show) - surely this would make a good scoop for some interviewer to make Robbins sweat a little under the stagelights.

If only someone would give me my own show

[greencat]

Originally posted by 33girl

greencat, Robbins advocates eliminating a pledge period, quota/total, and live-in requirements; giving a bid to every girl who rushes; and not allowing a chapter to terminate a member unless "responsible adults" are involved (she doesn't specify that these adults need to be sorority members). Do you agree with these recommendations?

I DID read the book. I believe that in order to sound credible in a debate, you should examine all the facts before you.

I agree with her recommendations completely. The entire system is completely antiquated.

And CaSigKap, the philanthropy the chapters do is dwarfed in comparison to the social problems that greek life represents.

So again, I say, instead of attacking the book, attack the problems that exist. They DO exist. It doesn't matter where she got the information from. I don't approve of the undercover method myself, but the point is, this stuff is happening. As Greeks, there is an obligation to recognize it. Continue to support your charities and campus life, but help your members eliminate these problems.

[_Q_]

Originally posted by AOIIBrandi
If only someone would give me my own show

But you don't really need your own show for this. There are a lot of resourceful and articulate people on GC. A previous poster already made a good point about an anomaly in the book. What I'd suggest is that interested GC'ers work together to find more things like this - a dedicated thread might help. When you have enough information, someone who's a good writer could put it together and hand it over to the media. It sounds like it would definitely be interesting enough to publish.

[DeltaSigStan]

Originally posted by _Q_
But you don't really need your own show for this. There are a lot of resourceful and articulate people on GC. A previous poster already made a good point about an anomaly in the book. What I'd suggest is that interested GC'ers work together to find more things like this - a dedicated thread might help. When you have enough information, someone who's a good writer could put it together and hand it over to the media. It sounds like it would definitely be interesting enough to publish.

Not a bad idea. It's like that person doing the documentary on Michael Moore.

I like this now-random...she looks at both sides, and at least tries to give both sides the BOTD

[KellyB369]

Originally posted by moe.ron
First rule of GC Mafia, we do not exist.

Oh, right, how stupid of me!

[33girl]

Originally posted by greencat
I agree with her recommendations completely. The entire system is completely antiquated.

Fine, that's your opinion. I just wanted to make sure you knew what you were agreeing to. As I said in the other thread, I do agree with some of the things she says, but the concept of complete elimination of selective membership is going too far IMO.

[Peaches-n-Cream]

I have not read the book. Did Robbins give any constructive suggestions on what to do instead of recruitment? Just have open admission?

[NutBrnHair]

Originally posted by 33girl
As I said in the other thread, I do agree with some of the things she says, but the concept of complete elimination of selective membership is going too far IMO.

Ditto! If that happens we can kiss goodbye to our single-sex status.

[33girl]

She advocates "assigning" everyone an affiliation who wants to be in a sorority - according to what she says, this is what literary societies did. She also advocates getting rid of any live-in rules, which in many cases would result in getting rid of the house.

[greencat]

Originally posted by 33girl
Fine, that's your opinion. I just wanted to make sure you knew what you were agreeing to. As I said in the other thread, I do agree with some of the things she says, but the concept of complete elimination of selective membership is going too far IMO.

I respect your opinion as well. However, I feel the system would gain greater credibility and support if it selective membership were eliminated, or the criteria lessened. I know that is an alien idea, and one that is not popular within the Greek Community, but from an objective standpoint, making it non-exclusive makes it less of a subject of scrutiny and disdain. I know the selective membership factor is a huge component to membership, as is live-in membership, but both have caused major rifts within the organizations, and increased hostility from the non-Greek community.

Also, rather than assign affiliation or go through a selective membership process, it would be more welcoming to be able to attend informal open house sessions with the chapters, determine your best fit and provided you meet the basic criteria, you would become a member.

The reason Greeks are subject to such scrutiny is that we are the official cliques of the university community. Let's eliminate the suspense. Then our fundraising and service efforts will be better received and we will receive more positive support and a positive image from the rest of the community. There is a reason those movies of the week on Lifetime TV have been made.

[Peaches-n-Cream]

I didn't have a live-in requirement since we didn't have sorority houses. I think that assigning an affiliation sounds like a housing lottery for the dorms or like Harry Potter when they were told they will live in Gryffindor.

I think that I should read this book, but I don't want to contribute my money to this woman's coffers. I'll see if they have it in the library.