<p>The</a> Crimson White | The Final Barrier: 50 years later, segregation still exists</p>
<p>Thought this was interesting to read on the heels of the other sorority pledging thread a few weeks ago.</p>
<p>There is a huge thread on this already on the U of Alabama forum. But I agree, some in the parent community may not be aware and would be interested.</p>
<p>Oops. I am not an Alabama parent, but still found it interesting as I did follow that other sorority discussion.</p>
<p>The New York Times picked up the story and covered it this morning. When this topic first came up, I couldn’t really believe it was true. I was stunned to learn of the level of segregation that exists today in the University of Alabama’s Greek system.<br>
The Crimson White and New York Times articles both include the fact that an alumni advisor who works for the University of Alabama was partly responsible. I hope that this coverage makes a difference in allowing PNMs and active members to freely make their own choices about member selection without racist inference.</p>
<p>an edited version of my posts on the Alabama threads:</p>
<p>I’m a 57 year old southern sorority member living in the south again after years as an expat in the northeast and overseas. Last fall one of my sister-in-laws called to tell me her daughter was going to be pledging “our” sorority and invited me to join her for bid night. She is alum president in her area. Her daughter is third generation in our sorority.</p>
<p>I suggest the only real way to change the system is to change rush entirely. It would be possible to put all the names in a hat and assign houses randomly. That solves the problem of exclusivity somewhat (there are still financial exclusions) and keeps what is positive about sorority life. imho. I don’t think my proposed plan has any real chance of success, but thought I would just throw it out there. It solves a lot of sorority problems very neatly. I am willing to let go of legacy considerations to solve these problems.</p>
<p>I think the only way to solve the problem is to change the culture, since the culture is causing the problem.</p>
<p>My heart and thoughts are with all you Alabama parents and students as you deal with this going forward. Thank you for your efforts.</p>
<p>pizzagirl: thanks for calling national</p>
<p>I saw this mentioned on another message board last night. I find it telling that it’s the alumnae who wanted to exclude women of color, not the students.</p>
<p>alh - why are the alum even voting or having ANY say in who the collegians wish to pledge? The collegians are the ones who are selecting people they want to be friends with. What would an alum even know?? That part of it is insane. Absolutely insane.</p>
<p>I’ve called and written my national (not one of the ones listed, but has a chapter at the University of Alabama) and indicated that I sure hope that our alums down there don’t get to “vote” on current members. I also expressed my wish that any alum or current member who suggests that a girl shouldn’t be considered because of her race should be booted and have their membership revoked.</p>
<p>Way to go PG!!!</p>
<p>It’s the culture. Within some groups (geographic and social), the sorority a young woman pledges may matter a lot in later life. Alums who are part of those groups may want to continue the status quo. We have to change that culture and the status quo. -imho- The only way to do that, as far as I can tell, is to make rush as non-exclusive as possible. That why I’m advocating random assignments. I don’t see any other way around the issue. And I don’t see how it can be implemented unless done nationally.</p>
<p>I have been thinking about the rec letter issue since the earlier sorority recruitment thread a few weeks ago. I wonder if eliminating rec letters would level the playing field and allow everyone to actually start rush from the same point.</p>
<p>Young women would still be selected based on “likeability”, appearance, family background and income. Rush is discriminatory. The only question is one of degree. imho.</p>
<p>I must say, up front that I was in a sorority as was one of my daughters. When I went through rush Jewish girls could only pledge a Jewish house. When my daughter went through recruitment (same thing, different word) she joined a top tier house that had a AA woman as their president. </p>
<p>While a sweet suggestion pulling names out of a hat won’t ever happen. BUT kicking out alums with the mindset of what the face of their house must be is wrong on so many levels. What are alums doing in voting? What are they doing threatening (this from another thread on a different site) a house with sanctions if they pledge an AA woman? Aside from the blackmail…wrong on every level. </p>
<p>I do remember a story about another AA woman…perhaps at Auburn, or Ole Miss who was a legacy and she didn’t get a bid either. Enough.</p>
<p>It is time for the women in the house to finally take a stand be it to get alums out. Their is a whole set of ways that family assists getting a leg up, being it from Mystic Camp (a Christian upscale camp in Texas), the local church, whatever. But to do nothing, for the school to do nothing, sends a clear message that what is…is…and will be so for the next generation.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In this case, I don’t think it matters one whit. The issue here is that you have alums who are involving themselves in membership selection, and taking it upon themselves to override the collegians who as a group desire to extend a bid to a particular girl because the girl is black. This is where the nationals need to step in and say - no. Alums, back off, and if you’re going to express sentiments like that, buh-bye.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t get what kind of “sanctions” these grown women can “threaten” a house with.</p>
<p>Pizzagirl, way to go. I hope other alums express similar views.</p>
<p>I want to make sure I understand the whole situation. This young woman didn’t get a bid from any of the sixteen sororities, even though she was superbly qualified, so qualified that you can’t imagine her being more qualified. So we can then conclude that all sixteen sororities refuse to admit a black woman, no matter how qualified? There’s no trick here, where some sororities were not voting on this young woman?</p>
<p>I know it’s hard to take a moral stand. I know it’s hard to do the right thing, when you are in the sorority you love, or you’re thrilled to have just gotten a bid from the sorority you dreamed of joining. But at some point, the world throws you a stark moral test, and you get to see if you pass or fail. And every young woman who stays in one of those exclusionary sororities instead of resigning in protest has just failed the test. Maybe she didn’t make the decision. But if she stays in the sorority, she announces to the world that she is OK with the decision. There’s no “Well, it was a difficult decision, but we finally chose Miss A over Miss B.” This is announcing that you don’t want to have black people in your sorority. (The articles indicate that at least one member quit on the spot. Way to listen to your own conscience, member.)</p>
<p>Sanctions can range from removal of a charter by national, the refusal of many alums to not financially support the chapter, to the university revoking the chapter’s right to exist on the campus.</p>
<p>Bevhills, AF? Typo? Did you mean that your daughter’s house had an AA (African American) woman as President?</p>
<p>“BUT kicking out alums with the mindset of what the face of their house must be is wrong on so many levels.” Maybe they should think again about what the face of their house is. Right now, the face of Alpha Gamma Delta at Alabama is, they’re stone cold racists and not ashamed to show it.</p>
<p>These sororities are chapters of national sororities, right? Why do other chapters want to be associated with this group of racists? I assume they don’t want to be associated with them; couldn’t they boot them from the national sorority?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“Qualified” isn’t really the right set of words. I’m “qualified” to be friends with everyone on my dorm floor but that doesn’t mean everyone’s going to hit it off with me, right? </p>
<p>It is a mutual selection process - where both sides feel one another out and say - hmmm, is this someone whose friendship and companionship I am interested in taking to the next step. It’s not dissimilar to meeting new people at a party or school event and deciding that you might ask Mary for coffee sometime in the near future because you’d like to get to know her better, but you’re not going to ask Susie for coffee because you just didn’t hit it off.</p>
<p>Regarding the other sororities not mentioned - we have ZERO idea whether they just genuinely didn’t hit it off with the black girl based on whatever, or whether they decided upfront that they weren’t going to give the time of day to a black girl because she’s black. These are two very different things, IMO. </p>
<p>In my example above, if Mary is white and Susie is black, and I invite Mary to coffee and not Susie, it makes a huge difference if I just didn’t hit it off with Susie who by-the-way-is-black (but her blackness is irrelevant to our not hitting it off - she could be purple and I wouldn’t hit it off with her), or if I decided upfront I wouldn’t ever want to be friends with Susie because she’s black and I couldn’t imagine having a black friend.</p>
<p>in this case, the young ladies seem to have the normal set of attitudes – let’s meet these women, decide if we like one another or not – and their alums seem to have overruled them. I applaud them for standing up to this kind of bigotry.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly. That’s why I want a statement from my national house as to what’s going on at the chapter in Alabama. Though it sounds like it’s the alums who need to have membership revoked, not the current students. The current students seem to be doing the right thing – meeting girls and extending bids as they see appropriate without regard to race.</p>
<p>Cardinal Fang: Consider this a typo, a brain booboo…yes, I meant to say AA. Yes, my daughter’s house had an African American as president. No, she was not the only minority in the house. I am not going to go to the Name The Minority game, and I do know you aren’t trying to push this there, Yes, nationals can always revoke a charter. I know this happens when the numbers are too low to maintain a house. Schools suspend charters (usually fraternities) for bad behavior.</p>
<p>It hadn’t occurred to me to contact national for my sorority, so thank you for that inspiration, Pizzagirl.
I’ve read the relevant thread on the Alabama subforum and I found especially interesting what one poster said on that thread: when a football recruit chooses not to come to Alabama because of this issue, then change will happen. Has this issue already made a recruiting difference in the yield for athletes or top scholars?</p>