Who Has Removed Preferential Treatment for Legacies?

[Cheerio]

Originally Posted by AZTheta

This just came in to my email. Add Kappa Alpha Theta to the list. An excerpt from the email:

Today, we share with you that, effective immediately, Kappa Alpha Theta has eliminated all preferential treatment given to legacies during the recruitment process. This means that there will no longer be an automatic invitation following the first round of recruitment or an automatic placement on the chapter’s bid list. We acknowledge that many women are not legacies because their mothers, sisters, grandmothers, and great-grandmothers simply did not have the same access to higher education or the means to join Kappa Alpha Theta. By eliminating preferential treatment for legacies, Theta ensures that PNMs are not xreceiving additional credit for things beyond their control, such as hometown, race, family connections, etc.

Originally Posted by carnation

Wow. The new Theta policy affects a Theta legacy in my extended family this school year. Will keep eyes/ears open to eventually discover/share which NPC group the young student joins.

[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.

[Sen's Revenge]

Originally Posted by NYCMS

Time for an equal playing field.

And if not yet totally equal, then at least better today than yesterday.

[shadokat]

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.

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.

[carnation]

Originally Posted by shadokat

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.

Exactly!

[NYCMS]

Originally Posted by shadokat

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.

I don't disagree that there's much more to be done to foster a diverse membership, but I still think legacy preferential treatment is unfair. Even if a chapter just has 5 legacies to return and they know that 2 aren't a fit, then that's 2 seats taken away from girls they really like. I went to a competitive school, not SEC, back when there were fewer legacies, but still there were girls we knew from the get-go we didn't want to pledge yet they had to be brought back and took away seats from those we wanted.

I truly don't get why my Gamma Phi Beta membership should mean a daughter gets special treatment. I'm the member, I was given the opportunity to contribute and be part of a rich sisterhood, both in my chapter and on an international level, something I've taken advantage of, both as a collegiate member and an alumnae. I honestly don't believe it should mean special treatment during rush.

As I said, if my dad founded a company, I wouldn't want to be hired due to being a family member. I'd want the job because I was the best fit for the job. One can argue that that's very different from Greek membership, but the principle is the same. And by the way, we see this in politics all. the. time and it's really unfair when big money simply backs up another member of a 'legacy' family and prevents a newer candidate from having a chance. Same with those who donate huge amounts of money to get their child, sometimes with sub-par grades, into an elite school.

We'll have to agree to disagree!

[AZTheta]

I'm with NYCMS on this issue, Panhellenic sisters. shadocat, I would have to see data/statistics/numbers to support your hypothesis/opinion. Seems to me that alumnae from all over the US are upset when their legacy is released. This definitely interests me, however I doubt we'll ever get any quantifiable information to investigate. Too bad. Decisions that are made based on emotion often lead to undesirable outcomes, which is my take on the legacy response by some NPC member organizations.

Many years ago I stated that (a) I have no legacies other than my sister and yes, she is a Theta; but we think she'd have been happier as a DG. She succumbed to my mother's pressure, not mine, as I was encouraging her to give very serious consideration to DG at the time, even though technically I wasn't supposed to talk to her because I knew that chapter & its members & knew they were a much better fit for her than my chapter & she really really loved them sigh (TMI?oh well) (b) I have said that I think that legacy status is not something that should be given extra weight in recruitment. (c) I was not a legacy.

The pendulum is swinging, and I'm watching this with interest. Somehow it feels like this response (eliminating legacy status) is an amputation when perhaps a judicious pruning would have been a better move. *shrug*

[AZ-AlphaXi]

I hope that on the very competitive campuses, this trend/movement is recognized and acknowledged. For many strong recruiting chapters an easy release is the release of
a legacy to another strong recruiting chapter. on the assumption that the legacy will chose to go to her legacy. It will be a shame if chapters continue to release legacies thinking that they have an "in" elsewhere when their legacy chapter has dropped them early on.

[GreekOne]

Originally Posted by NYCMS

I don't disagree that there's much more to be done to foster a diverse membership, but I still think legacy preferential treatment is unfair. Even if a chapter just has 5 legacies to return and they know that 2 aren't a fit, then that's 2 seats taken away from girls they really like. I went to a competitive school, not SEC, back when there were fewer legacies, but still there were girls we knew from the get-go we didn't want to pledge yet they had to be brought back and took away seats from those we wanted.

This part I get. If a chapter does not see a fit at all, better to release a legacy after first round and let her find another home. The part I can't justify is the elimination of the spot on the first bid list. I know this was discussed on another thread.

I just can't understand why a legacy would not be given a spot on the first list if she were carried to Prefs. If they kept her that long, they do love her. I have seen numerous alumnae re-engage when their legacies were given a bid. The excitement for the mothers/grandmothers and their daughter at Initiation is so special and a beautiful thing to watch.

I don't know that collegians have the maturity to understand all this. By retaining the provision to keep legacies at the top of the bid list we are preserving more than we are forfeiting in terms of diversity.

[carnation]

Yes, yes, and yes!

[33girl]

Originally Posted by AZ-AlphaXi

I hope that on the very competitive campuses, this trend/movement is recognized and acknowledged. For many strong recruiting chapters an easy release is the release of
a legacy to another strong recruiting chapter. on the assumption that the legacy will chose to go to her legacy. It will be a shame if chapters continue to release legacies thinking that they have an "in" elsewhere when their legacy chapter has dropped them early on.

This is what I worry about.

[carnation]

Yes to this too!

[shadokat]

AZTheta, I was not a legacy, and having no kids, I don't have a legacy. The rub here for me is that people are acting as if eliminating a legacy policy changes the landscape of inclusion. It doesn't, outside of maybe 10% of schools, which is an arbitrary number that I'm guesstimating have this huge field of legacies going through recruitment. I don't have concrete evidence of that number, sorry.

Being a member of a Greek organization is exclusive. Despite what we all believe, we exclude people for any number of reasons. And it might not even be US excluding them, but it could be economics, grades, "fit" or whatever, but it excludes women from joining. Unless we change the way we extend membership, we will always be exclusive.

NYCMS, I agree to disagree, but it doesn't mean I'm going to stop saying I think it's all a PR stunt by sororities to remain relevant during this time in our histories. The whole thing feels disingenuous to me.

[shadokat]

Found this on al.com - which is a news site in Alabama:

"In 2015, the average sorority at Auburn had 95 legacies in recruitment. A legacy is someone who has a relative in a sorority. While the majority of potential new members last year were legacies, most of them chose to join a sorority they were not a legacy to."

[SweetHomeStL]

I’m still over here in the “alumnae recommendations are mandatory to receive a bid” camp being WAY more inclusive inhibiting than a legacy policy. Can we please eliminate that instead of legacies (or at least as well)?