<p>While having an anonymous hotline is a good idea, unless statistics are tracked and results are measurable, there is still little accountability. </p>
<p>There are 5 complaints this year… is that good? is that bad? is there an improvement over last year? are the complaints even related to the ones from last year? without being able to track results, there is no way to determine if any progress is occurring.</p>
<p>The people who donate to Bama, do it because they love the school. They don’t donate because their Greek House is mostly one color. If that were the case, they’d only donate to their House, and not to their integrated school.</p>
<p>Besides, if people want to be that petty, then let them. Bama can find other donors to replace them…easily.</p>
<p>Again…let’s keep this to positive strategies…</p>
<p>Anytime a PNM is dropped without a vote the details must be reported to a central University group (Panhellenic council?). The reasons given for the drop would be bogus in some cases however the info might help identify patterns worth investigating … certain houses avoid votes, AA students get dropped without votes more often, etc. This also might highlight other process issues to consider updating … for example, if the lack of recommendations is given for the reason for a lot of drops.</p>
<p>I’m not interested in perpetuating that behavior either. I’m just getting angry at all of this over-the top finger wagging, preaching from people who think they are doing us such a massive favor by considering to accept the generous UA merit money and sending their kid here to school.</p>
<p>All fraternities and sororities who have been evaluated by the University to be in measurable compliance with their action plans for three consecutive years will designated as Best Practices organizations. The University will create a cool Best Practices seal or logo that awardees can prominently display on their letterhead, website, promotional materials, etc.</p>
<p>Those awardees who lose their Best Practices designation will be required to rack up a year of compliance to reacquire their status for first-time offenders, two consecutive years for the second-time offenders, and three consecutive years for third-or-more-time offenders.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>All of the leadership from each house meet and have a workshop to sort thru ways to improve the entire rush experience. How they are going to not discriminate against any PNM be it race, sexual pref, where they are from, etc. Empower these students that have to be there 24/7 to become true leaders in finding solutions. This way each house has the same understanding and guidelines to adhere to in the rush process when it comes to any way a PNM could possibly be discriminated against. </p></li>
<li><p>Have a panic button of sorts available during rush for the leaders of each house to use if they have anyone in their house trying to discriminate against a PNM be it a current active or alum. As soon as the panic button is pushed (it could be a hotline number to the UA Panhellenic office or liason) a member of the UA Panhellenic would respond immediately to the house and seperate the person from the group and listen to them first, then discuss the issue with them and see if they understand that what they are doing is discrimination. If they do and understand the err of their ways, great. If they don’t, then they are dismissed from being in a leadership position in that house. If it is an alum they are escorted out and asked to never return to the house for any visits at all. </p></li>
<li><p>Discriminating Alums. As mentioned in #2, if they are in a advisory position for rush and start to discriminate they are asked to leave the house and are forbidden from being able to be in any advising position for the chapter. </p></li>
<li><p>For the PNM Packet, a seperate resume is included that has no mention of the PNM’s hometown or state. No pictures are included with this. This is the information given to the advising alums for rush. This way they have no idea where the PNM is from, race, etc. All they have are the PNM’s qualifications. Again, any advising alum that tries to discriminate in any way, shape or form against a PNM is asked to never return and escorted out of the house that night. </p></li>
<li><p>I like the hotline idea to have available to any person at UA to use if they feel they are being discriminated against in any way, shape or form. They may already have this. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>Next, the new guidelines would go in effect for Spring rush. Yes, it is small and not as big of a deal as Fall rush, but it is the next time that rush occurs. If all houses have the same guidelines then it is much easier across the board and they have empowered each other and support each other in cases of discrimination by an alum. </p>
<p>Now, for the young lady that rushed this year that was denied due to race. If this was my daughter I’m not so sure I’d really want to her to accept a bid NOW, this late in the game. Instead I would encourage her to see about starting up an advising council for UA that is made up of peers to help those that feel they have or are being discriminated against in any way, shape or form. If she wishes to rush in the Spring or next Fall, great! However, I think she could use this event to catapult her into a very strong position to be a true leader and make great strides towards ending discrimination for all students. To empower them to be able to confront the person that is discriminating. I am sure that more students would be open to talking with a peer. </p>
<p>I do not like any “solution” that penalizes the current students that are in sororities that have nothing to do with the discrimination. Just because they joined a sorority does not mean they are supportive of what happened. Raising the leases on them would actually make it worse and even more “exclusive”. They would lose the girls that are there to make a difference that may not have come from a very wealthy family. Let us not penalize the actives that had nothing to do with this. These are the girls that are going to be the ones to make the changes. Don’t penalize them.</p>
<p>seems like the machine is at the core of many of the problems. rigging elections (SGA and otherwise), rigging outcomes of homecoming, etc., penalizing groups who do not do what the machine wants …</p>
<p>I do not like any “solution” that penalizes the current students that are in sororities that have nothing to do with the discrimination. Just because they joined a sorority does not mean they are supportive of what happened. Raising the leases on them would actually make it worse and even more "exclusive</p>
<p>I don’t think so. </p>
<p>The current Actives wouldn’t be paying the higher lease, the bossy Alums would have to pay. If they refuse to pay, then they no longer have the power to wield over the Actives. </p>
<p>If those Alums are crazy enough to pay six figure lease penalties, then let them. The money would go to the integrated Houses who will become more popular as time goes on. The “exclusive” Houses will fall apart eventually because their members will become known as the students who belong to “those houses”…and that won’t be cool.</p>
<p>Some of the fixes won’t be “quick”. Some will occur over time as the stubborn Houses/Alums feel the long-term affects of holding onto silly notions.</p>
<p>Another addendum to my suggestions in Post #14:</p>
<p>The composition of the University committee reviewing/auditing/approving fraternity and sorority action plans must, at minimum, consist of minority representation at a percentage no lower than the percentage of minority students in the UA population.</p>
<p>This information SHOULD be public. We should not be trying to hide anything. And a judicial governing board made of persons associated with the Greek system is not the same as having an outside contact to UA management that can help intervene immediately.</p>
<p>aeromom, I wonder how available they are during the late hours of rush? They need to. There needs to someone available 24/7 that can deal with these actions asap.</p>
<p>It is not about the money to the alums that are discriminating. That won’t hurt them. They will continue to pay any amount that they could if they are allowed to continue this practice. Where it will hurt is if they are forbidden from being allowed to be involved in any way at all with their chapter if they discriminate. That is what is important for these alums with this mindset. You have to get into their mind. They like being involved, it is ingrained in them. If they are removed is where the biggest changes will be made.</p>
<p>“If those Alums are crazy enough to pay six figure lease penalties, then let them.”
I find the idea of allowing people to pay extra money so that they can maintain racist practice pretty reprehensible. I hope UA doesn’t make the mistake of taking such an approach.</p>
<p>“The money would go to the integrated Houses who will become more popular as time goes on.”
UA shouldn’t throw more money at the Greek system, which has allowed racist practices to exist for far too long. If there is extra money, it should go to reward the many organizations at UA that don’t have the same racist problem as the Greek UA system.</p>
<p>“The “exclusive” Houses will fall apart eventually because their members will become known as the students who belong to “those houses”…and that won’t be cool.”
Let the “exclusive” (I guess that is the kinder word here for “racists”) change now or become completely disassociated from UA.</p>
<p>“Some of the fixes won’t be “quick”. Some will occur over time as the stubborn Houses/Alums feel the long-term affects of holding onto silly notions.”<br>
This doesn’t need to take a long time, especially if the stubborn Houses/Alums are made to feel very harsh short term affects right away. The idea that the racist behavior should be tolerated until “stubborn Houses/Alums feel the long-term affects” is unacceptable in my view.</p>
<p>My D was on the Judicial Board mentioned earlier. It is comprised of several girls from each house, chosen through an interview process. They are disassociated from their houses during rush and stay together in a hotel. They are not privy to conversations held within the confines of the houses to which they are assigned (i.e. voting sessions after parties or any conversations with alumni). So I’m not sure how you could expect them to have lodged a complaint. Their purpose is to monitor conversations between PNMs and current members before and after parties. If any of the young women in question had concerns during rush they did have the option of reporting it to a JBoard member or their RhoChi. I think the conversations that took place between the alumni in question and the current members were most likely private in nature. </p>
<p>That said maybe JBoard should take a more involved role – even as far as attending the voting sessions and the work parties before rush. I do know that a lot of conversations about PNMs go on outside of formal voting so it would be difficult to police everything. But it puts the girls back in charge of the process, which seems important given the fact that it was alumni who seemed to cause the problems here.</p>