I'd be willing to bet that the elimination of the legacy policy affects only 10% of all schools (you mention Ole Miss). Outside of that 10%, this policy elimination does absolutely nothing to support inclusion. So if we're going to govern our organizations based upon the 10%, well, we're missing the boat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYCMS
I support elimination of preferential treatment for legacies. There are so many legacies that chapters at schools like Ole Miss could fill an entire pledge class - which means bringing back girls they have no interest in, yet they have to - which means those legacies take the place of girls they have interest in. I've seen the argument that chapters will "find a way" to bring back those non-legacies they really want. Yes, but bringing back legacies of no interest prevents bringing back more girls of real interest. If legacies are truly a match, they'll get through; they shouldn't need the special treatment.
I hope Gamma Phi Beta follows suit. It would forward our mission which is: We build confident women of character who celebrate sisterhood and make a difference in the world around us (bold is my emphasis).
Women rocking the world are from all backgrounds, regardless of race, religion, upbringing or otherwise. I want them to have an opportunity in our organizations and not be deterred by a lack of Greek organization understanding, being the first generation to go to college or go through recruitment, or being intimated by a policy that means girls have a leg up simply due to a family connection. Compare this to the workplace: I dare say we all want to hire the best employee, not the one with special connections unless they were truly the best fit.
Time for an equal playing field.
|