Rejected black rushee starts "multi-cultural" GLO at AL

[FuzzieAlum]

I personally wasn't arguing with the use of HWGLO and HBGLO. I was addressing AlphaXiDiva's use of HBGLO and WGLO, because it implies that only the historically black fraternities and sororities have opened their membership rolls to other races. I do understand that, particularly in the case of the NIC, the conference is not composed exclusively of groups that used to be white. I personally find that using the umbrella conferences as a way to refer to organization is handy and generally understood, but it is problematic, and I also understand your desire not to use those phrases.

Even referring to the conferences is not entirely inclusive. There are some newer, growing organizations that are not specifically multi-cultural but that never have used race as a factor - and they are not members of NPC, NIC, or NPHC. Some of these groups, such as Phi Sigma Rho, Ceres or Sigma Alpha are modeled on what we might call HWGLOs; others are modeled on what we might call HBGLOs. Then there are new groups such as alpha Kappa Delta Psi and Sigma Lambda Upsilon that are I guess are "culturally focused" but that do not limit membership to (in their cases) Asians or Hispanics, and never have. I don't feel comfortable calling them multi-cultural, since their focus is on one race. But they are not "historically" anything since their membership has not changed over their lifespans in terms of what sort of women are eligible to choose. But to call them, say, AGLOs is to miss that their membership is not limited to Asians. Perhaps these groups are best compared to the many "historically" white GLOs such as Delta Phi Epsilon that never used race as a factor for admission, but in fact have been primarily one race, even if they have strived for diversity.

But I think all this hair-splitting misses the important fact that MOST GLOs, excluding the newer ones founded on the principles of multi-culturalism, were in the past and are to a lesser extent today divided on racial lines. Whether it has been by intention or by the reality that much of America is segregated, I know of no sorority or fraternity that is actually as diverse as the campus it is on. Things were worse in the past, I think. AEPhi and DPhiE were founded because not all of their members, mostly Jewish, were welcomed into any of their campus' sororities. Theta Phi Alpha was founded by Catholic women. Today, who would trumpet their chapter's diversity based on having Jews and Catholics as members? And even those groups that never prohibited non-white from joining - look back at your GLO's old composites and you'll see a sea of white faces (or vice versa for the HBGLOs).

There was a rushee on here recently concerned about one chapter because they were mostly Jewish, and she wasn't. She said she wouldn't be comfortable there and didn't want to be in the minority. I think that is true for a lot of rushees, even if they don't voice it. That's why we tend to continue to join groups where we are the majority. The non-white gals in my chapter were used to being in the minority - they had grown up in white communities. I would bet that many of the white people in HBGLOs grew up in primarily black communities.

I think to pretend that we are not HISTORICALLY black or white is dishonest. I hope we are all striving for diversity today, but I don't believe we are really there yet in most cases. When I hear someone say, "We're diverse, we have one black member (out of 100)," I'm willing to bet good money that well more than one percent of the campus is African American.

[Munchkin03]

If I'm not mistaken--AOPis correct me on this--but weren't they founded because, of the founders, one was rejected from the sorority they all wanted to join because of her faith?

In my thesis research this summer, I learned that a lot of schools forced their fraternities to give up their national charters if the nationals refused to give up discriminatory clauses. Almost every major NIC group was targeted.

[FuzzieAlum]

I realize I sounded as if I'm being awfully hard on all of us for not being more diverse. I don't mean it that way exactly. The question is, how important should diversity be to an organization?

I think almost everyone on here agrees it is a bad thing if a chapter says, "We don't want Susie because she is black/Asian/Hispanic/white/Swedish/Zulu." It is a bad thing if rushees feel pressure NOT to rush a certain group because she's of a "different" race from most of their members. That is, I think we agree that ideally (and in some chapters, in reality), a woman of Korean heritage and a woman of German heritage and a woman of Namibian heritage should have the same chance in rushing any group she is sincerely interested in.

But if multi-culturalism or diversity is not a founding principle or a basic tenet of organization XYZ, how much further is XYZ obligated to carry it? Should XYZ be satisfied with the rushees that come to it? Should XYZ actively recruit sisters who would be in the minority in that chapter? More specifically, even if every member of a sorority at Bama is perfectly open-minded (which may or may not be the case of course), they can't pledge girls who don't rush them. So ought they be seeking ought black rushees? Do they have an obligation to do so? Do the HBGLOs have a similar obligation?

I'm sort of rambling here, but the question is, while exclusion based on race=bad, should diversity merely be something we are satisfied to have be possible, or ought we actively work for it?

[aopirose]

Your AOII information is correct. One of our founders was a Jewish woman from New Orleans. Their loss our gain!

Originally posted by Munchkin03
If I'm not mistaken--AOPis correct me on this--but weren't they founded because, of the founders, one was rejected from the sorority they all wanted to join because of her faith?

In my thesis research this summer, I learned that a lot of schools forced their fraternities to give up their national charters if the nationals refused to give up discriminatory clauses. Almost every major NIC group was targeted.

[Tom Earp]

I know when I started my Local, I petitioned many of the OLE Line Nationals! I had a chance to present my petition to a National Fraternity who was having Their National meeting in Kansas City!

At the Same time, the State of Kansas Edicted that any Greek Org. that had an Ethnic clause would never be able to add a new Chapter in the state of Ks.

Well shot that to hell for joing them! Am to this day am I ever glad!

As to KTSNAKES response, I am glad that he brought it up! He is one Good Greek Man! Not for being Greek But for Stateing an opinion while may be Politically not right? Is still Right!



There should really be no difference between cross joining but to be realist it does happen still today! Do not say No as I know better and so do you!

Peer preasure by an ethnic group can be feirce! Do you dissapear if more Ethnics so to say join the WGLOS? NO!

People are people and will join with the People they feel most comfortable with, is that not right!?

I and many others of Different Greek Orgs feel that if the individaul is right and feels right, then he/she is right!

If that is the Case, then why put them down because they did not join who you thought they should join!?

Is that racisism or not?

We are all trying for equallity but what I see is not! Hell, ASK NEICY!

[KSig RC]

This is a huge hijack of the thread, but . . .

I see no trouble with the terms "historically white" or "historically black" or "historically [anything]" if it is a true statement.

You said it yourself, ktsnake - your fraternity had a long and storied history of being primarily white. Many NPHC fraternities have a long and storied history of being primarily black.

It is not an offensive term - it is not saying "All white fraternity" - it is simply accurate in this case, and isn't meant with any bad connotation I am sure (any more than HBGLO).

[Kevin]

The thread was hijacked loong ago

I think this topic isn't at all bad to discuss.

I don't think HWGLO is something that describes an organization RIGHT NOW. It is misleading. We are comprised of more than white folks. It is still a small percentage but the percentage is growing.

Am I trying to rewrite history? Nope.

I even acknowledged that my fraternity didn't allow blacks in until 1969 (passed by 1 vote).

I'm simply stating that if we fall into calling our GLO's one race or another (unless we are specifically created and still operate for the betterment of a certain culture or people) is wrong, it gives the wrong impression.

Most fraternities and sororities operate for the betterment of ALL people. In Sigma Nu for example our virtues of Love, Honor and Truth are certainly not racially bound.

We don't refer to certain restaurants as "historically segregated". Why label our own organizations as such? It misses the point of what we're all about. Brotherhood (or sisterhood) should know no race.

[librasoul22]

Okay, you say this...

Originally posted by ktsnake
I don't think HWGLO is something that describes an organization RIGHT NOW. It is misleading. We are comprised of more than white folks. It is still a small percentage but the percentage is growing.

Then you say this...

I'm simply stating that if we fall into calling our GLO's one race or another (unless we are specifically created and still operate for the betterment of a certain culture or people) is wrong, it gives the wrong impression.

Actually if your organization is still predominately white (by a large margin as you have indicated), then would you consider it inaccurate to call it a PWGLO? I don't understand your logic as to why you disagree with the term HWGLO? It IS a HWGLO. Are you trying to deny it in order to attract minorites who might not otherwise know that you are a HWGLO? If so, you might want to reconsider. What percentage of your own chapter is non-white? If it mirrors the national body of your org, then it is visually OBVIOUS that your org is HW, PW, etc. No matter what letters you use in front of GLO, whether it be B, HB, W, HW, PW, ABCDEF... the numbers speak for themselves. The labels just serve as reminders.

We don't refer to certain restaurants as "historically segregated". Why label our own organizations as such? It misses the point of what we're all about. Brotherhood (or sisterhood) should know no race.

Well, restaurants are not exclusive brother/sisterhoods are they? You don't have to pledge to get into a restaurant, do you? The two aren't really fit to be compared.

Brotherhood/sisterhood SHOULD know no race, but that just isn't reality. People are naturally drawn to groups where they feel comfortable and accepted. This is the main factor in self-segregation, and it continues today.

[zchi2]

I think that in the context of this thread, it is ok to say HWGLO and HBGLO because we are talking about the racial make up of certain organizations. Like what was said before, it would be accurate to say all of NIC and PHC because not all groups that are associated with these organizations are historically white organzations. You can't change the past and sometimes the present for certain chapters.


I would like to know if there are any developments with the multicultural sorority at UA. It seems like whenever someone speaks of the group in any negative way, the members of that group defend themselves, but no one is giving an update. I'm just curious.

[Tom Earp]

Well I guess I am the Dumb one!

Heck all of a sudden weeee get it, have All of the Glos thing!?

Maybe that a Black women does not want to join a AA Group! What if a WW does not want to join with a w goup!

What if a person that does not feel comfortable with either then they start their own!

Damn, the Nigers and the Honkeys dont get along, well maybe the Chinks dont want to join either and do their own things!

Well maybe that tells all of us that there may be a problem!

I have one thing to say, get over you alls self importance and look at people as they should be looked at!

I have to many Brothers and Freinds on this site and life to put up with some of the Crap that some want to put out!

Those that do not want to put up with me may kiss my rosey red whaterver!

[starang21]

Originally posted by Tom Earp
Well I guess I am the Dumb one!

Heck all of a sudden weeee get it, have All of the Glos thing!?

Maybe that a Black women does not want to join a AA Group! What if a WW does not want to join with a w goup!

What if a person that does not feel comfortable with either then they start their own!

Damn, the Nigers and the Honkeys dont get along, well maybe the Chinks dont want to join either and do their own things!

Well maybe that tells all of us that there may be a problem!

I have one thing to say, get over you alls self importance and look at people as they should be looked at!

I have to many Brothers and Freinds on this site and life to put up with some of the Crap that some want to put out!

Those that do not want to put up with me may kiss my rosey red whaterver!

i understand what you're saying, but as an asian man, i'm really not trying to get offended at the use of the word chink. so try not to use it next time.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by librasoul22
Actually if your organization is still predominately white (by a large margin as you have indicated), then would you consider it inaccurate to call it a PWGLO? I don't understand your logic as to why you disagree with the term HWGLO? It IS a HWGLO. Are you trying to deny it in order to attract minorites who might not otherwise know that you are a HWGLO? If so, you might want to reconsider. What percentage of your own chapter is non-white? If it mirrors the national body of your org, then it is visually OBVIOUS that your org is HW, PW, etc. No matter what letters you use in front of GLO, whether it be B, HB, W, HW, PW, ABCDEF... the numbers speak for themselves. The labels just serve as reminders.

I agree - and I'll even take it another level:

Regardless of the make-up of my chapter currently (which actually pretty closely mirrors the overall campus population), I am still a member of a historically white GLO. This is because the members of my fraternity were, for a long period in history, white - not because we are currently 'white' as nothing could be further from the truth.

There shouldn't be an issue here - we're not saying it's a historically racist GLO . . . these are value-neutral words here, it's only personalizing it that gives negative connotation.

[VirtuousErudite]

Originally posted by Tom Earp
Well I guess I am the Dumb one!

Damn, the Nigers and the Honkeys dont get along, well maybe the Chinks dont want to join either and do their own things!

Please please please don't do this. I know you were only "kidding" but it's just not cool.

[Tom Earp]

Yes it was Obnoxious and it should be!

I for one get very tired of hearing about the Raicist thing on site!

Is that what this site is about? NO!

Does this site give us a chance to voice oppenions and ask questions? Yes!

Some do abuse the heck out of it and they are gone!

Please do not judge me by some of the things I put on here, as I am trying to give a wake up bell to the rest of you!

If you have been on here very long, you will thennow me!

I cannot stand Racist Crap from anyone!

We have to many Great People on this site who are willing to talk about any thing! Key Word Is Discuss, not be derogitory or name calling!

Yes, I find falut with some people, I look at the thread and try to treat impartially! But sometimes it gets over Board! I am not a virgin on this site and Hope I a have many Great freinds here!

Please stqy tuneed to the rest of the site and look around!

you are most welcome to come and sit with us! Enjoy, it is a Hoot! Remember, some of the Best People in the World are here!

Other than that, no one knows what to do with me! I am insane, well yes, I am not crazy!

Welcome to the Site! Da Have you been on long? I am Old and have short retention span! My Sorry!

[VirtuousErudite]

I've been on the site for almost a year. I know your posts well. I know you were, kidding, trying to make a point, whatever, but it is STILL NOT APPROPRIATE IN ANY WAY SHAPE OF FORM.

Just don't!!!! Please .