Diversity in the SEC

[Titchou]

Originally Posted by amIblue?

So what did you mean by posting the thread?

I'm not sure that it's relevant any longer! This thread had gotten way too difficult to deal with as some have admittedly gone afield on purpose. I think I'll just do like Dr. King, decide to stick with love as hate is too great a burden to bear.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by carnation

No Phil, you yacked your butt off and the eyes of GreekChat collectively glazed over. This thread has pretty much lost its audience; next time, you could tone it down.

My eyes have not glazed over at all.

Many good points have been raised in this thread—by you, by DrPhil and by others. The problem is that not everyone is talking about the same thing, so responses are couched in terms of what people think they're hearing or expect to hear, not what others are actually saying.

And seriously, anyone who hadn't caught on by now that when DrPhil "responds" to someone, she often isn't as much responding to that specific point as using it as a springboard to make a broader point—fairly standard among academics, in my experience—is either new or just not paying attention.

Originally Posted by Titchou

Two interesting things:

1) No one has asked me, as the OP, what I meant/intended by the question

and

2) At least one person has admitted to purposely not answering the questions but providing answers to questions which were not asked.

Seems counterproductive to me.

Actually, I think it's anything but counter-productive. It highlights that the majority may perceive and define what constitutes "diversity" quite differently from how members of minority groups might perceive and define it. Understanding that, and attempting to see what diversity might mean and look like from others' perspectives, is essential for any meaningful conversation about diversity.

[DrPhil]

Did you need people to beg you or wait for you to explain what you meant? GC threads sometimes go on even without the OP because people see a general topic(s). Why should this thread be different? Every GC thread contains comments that may or may not directly or indirectly pertain to the OP. LOL.

[Titchou]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Did you need people to beg you or wait for you to explain what you meant? GC threads sometimes go on even without the OP because people see a general topic(s). Why should this thread be different? Every GC thread contains comments that may or may not directly or indirectly pertain to the OP. LOL.

I simply said it was "interesting." Perhaps it was not "interesting" to you - or others.

[DrPhil]

LOL. Did she quote "Jesus loves the little children"?

If only humans were so simplistic.

What does an Alaskan tour featuring Intuits and Eskimos have to do with the military being different and/or the issue of racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity?

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

LOL. Did she quote "Jesus loves the little children"?

If only humans were so simplistic.

What does an Alaskan tour featuring Intuits and Eskimos have to do with the military being different and/or the issue of racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity?

I think she was saying that the military experience isn't representative of the whole, as someone earlier was trying to allude to.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

I think she was saying that the military experience isn't representative of the whole, as someone earlier was trying to allude to.

I didn't think TNAuburnMom was claiming it to be representative of the whole. I thought TNAuburn was saying the military is different as though demographics and inequalities have no bearing.

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

Can everyone at least agree that it's "Inuit"?

Yes, ma'am. I apologize to the Inuit.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by rockwallgreek

As a mom who raised 4 daughters, all members of an NPC, and two of those daughters who are looking to adopt, and both are totally welcoming to a child in need, the military lifestyle is different. To quote a song, "red and yellow, black and white" plus we learned about Intuits and Eskimos during a tour in Alaska, the military lifestyle is different.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

LOL. Did she quote "Jesus loves the little children"?

If only humans were so simplistic.

What does an Alaskan tour featuring Intuits and Eskimos have to do with the military being different and/or the issue of racial, ethnic, and cultural diversity?

Can everyone at least agree that it's "Inuit"?

[DrPhil]

Yet Zeta Phi Beta is non-coincidentally predominantly women of the African diaspora. I wonder how that happened. That founder who made that statement was probably not pushing diversity as a must have in order to sustain or improve Zeta. If that was her goal, some would argue that a predominantly African diaspora GLO has defied the founders' visions. That Zeta founder was perhaps stating an unofficial anti-discrimination clause and expressing the value and potential membership of women across race and ethnicity. Zeta is not the only NPHC GLO with an unofficial or official anti-discrimination clause. And Zeta is not the only NPHC GLO that remains non-coincidentally predominantly Africa diaspora even with that clause.

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Yet Zeta Phi Beta is non-coincidentally predominantly women of the African diaspora. I wonder how that happened. That founder who made that statement was probably not pushing diversity as a must have in order to sustain or improve Zeta. If that was her goal, some would argue that a predominantly African diaspora GLO has defied the founders' visions. That Zeta founder was perhaps stating an unofficial anti-discrimination clause and expressing the value and potential membership of women across race and ethnicity. Zeta is not the only NPHC GLO with an unofficial or official anti-discrimination clause. And Zeta is not the only NPHC GLO that remains non-coincidentally predominantly Africa diaspora even with that clause.

Most of the NPC groups had official non-discriminatory clauses--even from the beginning. BUT--so much segregation is implied. For example--many of the 26 NPC sororities were founded in the late 1800s/early 1900s when there wouldn't be any black women at a PWI in the south or Midwest.

I'm not pushing for diversity for either council. People will hang out with who they want to hang out with.

[Titchou]

I was not taking it as a push for diversity but rather as Panhellenic and/or Pan-Hellenic statement of a broader sisterhood...somewhat along the lines of the Kipling verse that reads "for the Colonel's lady and Judy O'Grady are sisters under the skin."

[DrPhil]

@ Titchou: I understand what you're saying.

When I say the NPHC national bodies are not pushing diversity across race, that means we have unofficial and official anti-discrimination clauses and practices. But we do not pretend our racial demographics are by accident and we do not pretend we want our racial demographics to substantially change such that our membership is overwhelmingly non-African diaspora. Individual chapters can have different demographics but most chapters of all NPHC GLOs are predominantly African diaspora.

That isn't by accident. We can love everyone and welcome non-African diaspora members without pretending we envision true racial and ethnic diversity. The non-African diaspora members are still the minority in NPHC GLOs. After 50+ years of that, it is safe to say that is not coincidental.

@ Munchkin: I agree 100%.

[amIblue?]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

Amen. There also needs to be an acknowledgement of the racial exclusion that the chapter and national organization practiced for decades. This ought to be included in NM education about the history of the group. Ignoring that history is the same as denying it, especially in the context of an SEC school where tradition and history have great importance.

Good luck getting that to fit into a 6 week NM program. I'm not saying it shouldn't be there, but pointing out that there isn't sufficient time for them to learn much beyond the basics.

[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.

[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.