<p>I completely agree that if there is a true problem, and students are being denied membership to any group on campus on a basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or state they live in (NJ-ha), then the admission practices should be reviewed. But only if the students that are involved in the process believes there is a problem. What I do not think is appropriate is when someone from the outside looking in makes assumptions and accusations without proof which may not be accurate. Then proceeds to publish the same accusations. If there is a problem, and there is proof behind it, then let it be known. Do not manufacture a problem where one does not actually exist.</p>
<p>^^^ And I’ll add, but I think the University could definitely be more open and vocal about its desire to move the Greeks to that desired state. If it is somehow hidden in this Greek Self Assessment that is discussed in the handbook, then those annual assessments of the system should be both identifying the deficiency and creating action plans for how they should be addressed.</p>
<p>Hey, I’m not for quotas. I’m just trying to prod the critics into proposing substantive solutions. For example, if you were the Prez of UA what specifically would you be doing to address this dynamic?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think “desired state” would need to be defined, and too hard to enforce. Equal opportunity for all regardless of ______________ (fill in blank). </p>
<p>They could state that discrimination for any reason will not be tolerated, and publish the penalty for discrimination of all groups on campus, as well as a complaint, review, and appeal procedure related to possible discrimination within student groups.</p>
<p>Malanai, Goals and Dialogue …</p>
<p>University Goal: We do not want ANY of our student organizations that we currently recognize or may recognize in the future, fraternal or otherwise, to in any way discriminate based on …</p>
<p>Greek (IFC?, etc.) Goal: We do not want any of our member Fraternity and Sorority houses at UA to in any way discriminate based on …</p>
<p>Oh … now these goals match? If we can agree on that then …</p>
<p>Let’s form a working committee of all interested stakeholders to have an open and productive dialogue on how this might be attained.</p>
<p>Follow the yellow brick road …</p>
<p>Bingo, vlines. Nice post.</p>
<p>This is a tough issue.</p>
<p>I am jewish. I wouldn’t want to be in a frat that only takes jews. And I obviously deplore frats that exclude jews.</p>
<p>But I can see the other point of view.</p>
<p>But what if a frat wants to be a brotherhood of muslim students, or jewish students, or catholic students?</p>
<p>Alas, we may ultimately have to go the route of Groucho Marx: “I’d never belong to a club that would have me as a member.” :)</p>
<p>Floridia dad, that is the other issue at hand. How about the whole male/female thing? It is very complicated. </p>
<p>But I do think that there should be a way to address the real issues. And not say “we need to integrate our greek system because it looks bad”. Rather, we want all students to feel like they are treated equally, and we will not tolerate discrimination based on _____. Here is what we will do if discrimination is PROVEN (not just accused).</p>
<p>Vlines … and those policies, reporting & redress procedures already exist for other forms of harassment (sexual and otherwise). Not a hard thing to adopt. But first, an agreed upon set of goals and expectations need to be set, discussed, and implemented. Right? Desired state is defined by the EXACT language applied to all non-fraternal orgs in the link in the Student handbook. And, addressing your previous post regarding basically don’t fix it if it ain’t broken (or unless the students believe there’s a problem). I am an attorney, and I can tell you that that is NOT they way we operate in this country. First of all, in most respects here we’ll dealing with supportive programming of a population of students that are not even of legal age. 17 & 18 year old kids (not of legal age in Alabama) are seeking admittance to these orgs which are being supported financially and otherwise from adults (alumni and University) and we CANNOT have these kids being discriminated against period … NOT EVEN ONE. Now that’s a pretty high horse from which to stand, but from the dreaded outsider looking in standpoint, I think that change is warranted … clearly and unequivocally. All I’m suggesting is that the various parties involved sit down and make it a priority.</p>
<p>I would say that the best way to deal with this is social ostracism.</p>
<p>If an all white fraternity excludes blacks or jews simply because they are blacks or jews (I am jewish), then don’t go to their parties, for example.</p>
<p>Dad2- I may have mis-spoken. And you are correct about 17 and 18 year olds. However, I still believe that it is a problem only if it is actually a problem. Just because you do not like the way it looks, does not make it a problem. I am not saying discrimination does not exist, it very well might. But there is no proof of that right now based on what was written in the editorial. And I do not think that requiring a quota of Baptists in a Jewish frat is going to prove anything, and no one will learn anything. </p>
<p>Floridadad, That goes back to an earlier post that stated that the change needed to come from within. But as Dad2 points out, at 17 and 18, that is a tougher thing to let/make happen. </p>
<p>I wonder if the Equal Opportunity office at UA gets involved in this at all? Just curious.</p>
<p>I agree, don’t exclude the Greek organizations from the language applied to all other organizations. If some want to set up organizations that are exclusive based on religion, either write an exception for such organizations or tell them that they have to operate outside of the UA organization system. As far as sitting down and making something a priority, I wonder if there was such a sit down before the non-discrimination language was applied to all the other registered organizations at UA.</p>
<p>good points Dad2IL… the reason i had posted earlier that it seems( for now a least ) Dr Witt seems happy with the status quo was his response to the questions posed to him and his response (at the bottom of the article at the beginning of this thread)…what you have posted i think opens a nice path to discussion and change </p>
<p>Questions submitted to President Witt:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Dr. Witt said in 2003 that he thought the small pool of black women, coupled with media pressure on them, was impeding the integration of sororities. Those comments were made almost 10 years ago–the university has grown to 31,000+ students since then, significantly increasing the pool of candidates. Media coverage on the issue, as well, has significantly dropped off since Melody Twilley was on campus in 2000-2001-2002. In Dr. Witt’s view, what is impeding the acceptance of minority students, specifically black students, into traditionally white sororities today?</p></li>
<li><p>Is it necessarily important for the image AND culture of the University for black students to be accepted into traditionally white sororities? Please address both separately (image: how prospective students and alumni–donors–view the University; culture: the different sentiments and opinions of students on campus as affected by the University’s history, which includes a legacy of segregation.)</p></li>
<li><p>Dr. Witt said in 2003 that he was confident “sororities would make a good-faith effort at diversity.” Does he feel they have done so?</p></li>
<li><p>Does Dr. Witt support active administrative involvement in the integration of sororities? Why or why not?</p></li>
<li><p>Does Dr. Witt agree or disagree with the sentiment, expressed in past faculty senate meetings, that segregated sororities should not be allowed to reside on campus? Why agree or why disagree?</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Response received:</p>
<p>The University offers a wide range of options for students to become involved on campus, including nearly 400 organizations that appeal to a wide range of students’ interests and needs. I encourage all students to take advantage of the many academic, social and volunteer opportunities available at the University during their time on campus.</p>
<p>Approximately 25 percent of our student body participates in the Greek system at UA, which includes traditionally African American, traditionally white and multicultural sororities and fraternities. The organizations that make up our Greek system regularly participate together in campuswide programs and co-sponsor events and initiatives. As independent social organizations, it is appropriate that all our sororities and fraternities – traditionally African American, traditionally white and multicultural – determine their membership.</p>
<p>Florida Dad, well i have some context from which to add to your point of view. I am a former protestant now converted to Judaism. While in school, I was a member of Phi Kappa Theta, a historically Catholic fraternity. I liked the guys, they liked me, and as I’ve posted before, I was a re-founding father of that Chapter of my university. We were “diverse.” Well, PKT, having been a traditionally Catholic frat, recognized in the 60s that in order to maintain membership and move ahead with the times, changed their National Constitution to eliminate the requirement that members “be” Catholic, but rather each member should be educated on the origins of the fraternity, the ideals for which it stands (leadership, education and public service), and must be comfortable with those origins and rituals which sprung from Judeo-Christian beliefs. Being the new frat on campus, we had Christians (Catholic & Potestant), Jews, and one guy from Iran … while we never asked him his religion, we all assumed he was Muslim, although not devout.</p>
<p>OK, so enough for the day (from me) since I feel the dead horse beginning to creep back in. 
I think in most respects there is a consensus for some kind of change. My original post from today was meant to show some objective (student handbook) references to what we’re talking about, and point to some “lawyerly” stuff showing that the “means” is there to to achieve the goals, if the parties are willing to undertake the challenge. I think I’ve done that.</p>
<p>^^^ agreed with all points, Dad2</p>
<p>It has been stated before that the historically black fraternities and sororities are not integrated, which has been shown false by an article in today’s CW that talks about the white members of UA’s historically black sororities. [Diversity</a> increasing in black greek organizations | The Crimson White](<a href=“YouA moves from Youtube – The Crimson White”>YouA moves from Youtube – The Crimson White)</p>
<p>Sea_Tide, thanks for posting. While avoiding the subtext message of the article “well if we can integrate, why can’t you?” … I am pleased to read that there IS in fact empirical evidence of the breakdown of the barriers. Good on them! :-)</p>
<p>I have a suggestion. Would one of the parents here consider drawing up a petition in regards to this issue? I think we would all like to see more diversity in the UA Greek system. We all seem to think incentives rather than quotas is the best solution. This petition could be circulated via the private messaging here or via email. Anyone up for it? This petition could be emailed to Witt and several administrators. Just keep it respectful and free of assumptions. Also, the incentives need to be set up in a way that avoids a push for tokenism. Thanks.</p>