Quote:
Originally Posted by irishpipes
Are you suggesting that a no-rec prohibits a chapter from pledging a PNM? This is not the case, at least not across the board.
|
This is why, I believe, people are asking for some transparency in membership selection when situations like this occur. Like I said, it was the belief of two different women I know that this is absolutely how it occurs in their particular GLOs. Obviously things vary, but both seemed to indicate that in their orgs, if an alumna had a red-flag about a potential PNM that she had the ability to write a "do not pledge" type of no rec that meant the chapter would not take the girl, with no discussion. Whereas if a sister had a problem with a PNM that she wanted to keep private, she could go to the membership team or head or whatever and make her case discreetly, and the woman could similarly be automatically dropped without discussion from the chapter. In both situations, it seems like there were avenues for one woman, either an alumna or a collegian, to go past the chapter membership and ensure a PNM was cut on Day 1, and that discussion was not allowed and that the adviser or membership chair or whatever would simply say something to the effect of "she will not be invited back". All hearsay, sort of...both members were close to the procedure, and the procedure seemed to line up almost identically between their two GLOs. I'm just saying, where there is smoke...
I don't even have a problem with this policy, but from reading in between the lines of that article, it seems like this may have been the case for some of those GLOs.
I'm sure it's not across the board. I bet every sorority is different. But I've also heard enough rumblings from collegians and recent alumnae that this seems like it may indeed exist in at least a couple of GLOs. I understand nobody here is going to comment on this.
