Sorority Initiations Revealed, Part I
Shameless, I know, but I thought that would get some of our readers’ attention. However, this post is about an “un-initiationâ€. Read the NY Times article here.
The basic story, allegedly, is that the national offices of Delta Zeta sorority (more or less) kicked out nearly 2/3 of the members of their chapter on DePauw University’s campus.
The national offices say they were concerned with the declining membership of the DePauw chapter. The officials came to campus to conduct interviews, ostensibly concerned with the members “commitment to recruiting new membersâ€. Members were told to look their best. After the interviews were conducted, 23 of the members were essentially asked to leave the sorority, leaving only 12 members. Those asked to leave were deemed to be deficient in their “commitment to recruiting new members.â€
However, some former members allege this stated reason is a red herring, and the officials’ determination seemed to be unrelated to the members’ actual willingness to recruit. These former members suggested that national officials were worried that the reputation of the sorority, as measured by student stereotypes, was negatively affecting recruitment. (The word “socially awkward†was used by students when stereotyping members of the sorority.) These same former members claim the “commitment to recruitment†was the excuse used to purge the sorority of “undesirable†members.
As it turned out, every one of the overweight members of the chapter was deemed deficient in their commitment to recruiting, as were several minority members. Lending credibility to the former members’ allegations, half of the remaining 12 members quit the sorority voluntarily after the actions of the national office.
So why discuss this in an economics blog?
This is interesting to me for two reasons. First, it gives me a chance to discuss two economic theories – club goods and franchises, both of which you folks wouldn’t likely catch in an introductory class. Second, it gives me an opportunity to introduce you how economists think about discrimination. I’ll focus here on the clubs and discrimination, and get to the franchises another day.
As mentioned, the first of the theories is the economic theory of clubs, which applies to all clubs, not just sororities and fraternities. Believe or not, some economists sit around and try to think about what it is that a club “doesâ€, and even what is the optimal size of a club. In a nutshell, the economic function of a club is to provide a shared economic good (or experience) to its members, while often excluding those goods (experiences) from non-members.
Examples of clubs include chess clubs, sororities, Sam’s Club, writers of this blog, and season ticket holders of LSU football. The fact that people have been joining sororities for years seems to suggest there is some benefit of this club. People would not incur the costs (both monetary and time) of joining clubs if there was no benefit.
Though some groups will accept all members that are willing to pay the “dues†(do sororities?), the exclusivity is often very important. Each of my examples above has a differing requirement on membership or dues, and each provides a different experience. As an aside, I should note the initiation for new members of this blog is quite secretive, but does not involve hazing of any kind, but does include some razzing.
No discussion of clubs and exclusivity would be complete without a classic from Groucho Marx, who said, “I don’t want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member.†Think about this statement – it is a pointed commentary on exclusivity.
Before we condone or decry the actions of DZ’s national office, a bit more thinking is in order.
1. Is it fair to allow limiting membership of groups? That is, is it reasonable that clubs should be able to decide who is a member of their club?
2. If a sorority restricts its membership to people with the characteristic of being thin, is this acceptable?
3. What if “thin†is replaced with “studious� Or “socially at ease� Or “nice� Or “white†Or “female students at DePauw� Or “female students�
4. Does it make a difference if we change the word “club†or “sorority†to “kreweâ€, “country clubâ€, “professional baseball teamâ€, “collegeâ€, or “circle of friendsâ€?
5. Where is line drawn?
When it comes down to it, the formation of clubs (at least one that does not accept all comers), leads to some form of discrimination occurring. Even if one favors one group, one is discriminating against another. Isn’t purchasing a Beyonce album discriminating against Johnny Cash albums? Surely this is not immoral, nor illegal.
Is it wrong for Harvard to discriminate against people with low ACT scores? Is it wrong for the New Orleans Hornets to discriminate against slow white guys named Chad Turner (even though he has a deceptively quick first step a solid 3-point stroke) because his vertical leap is only 19 inches?
Now re-read questions 1 through 5 above? Do you pause a second longer?
The point I am trying to make is this: some of that discrimination is illegal (a positive statement), some of it is morally wrong (a normative statement), but it is all discrimination.
Where should the lines be drawn?
–CT
Some disclaimers:
I was (still am?) aptly characterized by the term “socially awkward†during my college years.
In the interest of disclosure, I was not a member of a fraternity (or a sorority), though have several friends and family members that were. I’m not anti-DZ, anti-sorority, anti-fraternity, or anti-Greek system. I realize that each chapter of a sorority (fraternity) is different.
And while I don’t personally condone the activities of DZ’s national offices, this post it is intended to be less about a particular situation, and more about the economics of clubs and the difficulty we have in delineating what type of discrimination is legal/illegal and moral/immoral.
And to head off (or at least delay) a few comments/complaints, I do realize there is a huge difference between the real world situation in the article and the scenarios I outlined above. I asked above if the members of the group have the right to choose its members in a fashion they wanted, while in the article the national organization is making the membership decisions. I’ll attempt to address this difference in part II.
February 28th, 2007 at 9:14 pm
> 1. Is it fair to allow limiting membership of groups? That is, is it reasonable that clubs should be able to decide who is a member of their club?
Yes, and Yes – but remember the expelled were Club Members excluded from the a Club (re-)selection process.
> 2. If a sorority restricts its membership to people with the characteristic of being thin, is this acceptable?
If that is the basis for their formation and under which they sought their operating charter, yes. Otherwise it is a selection factor outside of its self-declared purpose.
> 3. What if “thin†is replaced with “studious� Or “socially at ease� Or “nice� Or “white†Or “female students at DePauw� Or “female students�
See answer above to #2
> 4. Does it make a difference if we change the word “club†or “sorority†to “kreweâ€, “country clubâ€, “professional baseball teamâ€, “collegeâ€, or “circle of friendsâ€?
Potentially, as the sorority styled club has borrowed authority from a National Level sorority and had this borrowed authority endorsed by acceptance/recognition by the university. This “legitimatization” may not be a factor in evaluation another form of social organization.
> 5. Where is line drawn?
Usually in the sand. Actually a sandbox might be more the case, where the intersection of law, empowering authorities, cosumer demands (a group need to be attractive – consumer pleasing – to attract members), and the groups own wishes can be combined.
> When it comes down to it, the formation of clubs (at least one that does not accept all comers), leads to some form of discrimination occurring. Even if one favors one group, one is discriminating against another. Isn’t purchasing a Beyonce album discriminating against Johnny Cash albums? Surely this is not immoral, nor illegal.
Not at all. Selecting & applying to a given group, like a sororiety or frat, as a candidate for membership is entering into a defining relationship, a relationship that usually includes in its agreement a requirement to not join other competing groups. A simple comsumer purchase may have tasked part of the consumers buying power, reducing their ability to buy alternative products, but it has not asked them for non-economic reasons to forego ever buying alternative products.
> Is it wrong for Harvard to discriminate against people with low ACT scores? Is it wrong for the New Orleans Hornets to discriminate against slow white guys named Chad Turner (even though he has a deceptively quick first step a solid 3-point stroke) because his vertical leap is only 19 inches?
No, Universities select for complex reasons, including expect test scores as a preselector for success. They are assisting their prospective consumer (much like fitting shoes) while also rationing their limited resources. It could be argued that they are unwise not to take the money off any and all comers, but award their degrees to only those who excel. Apparently this was the process before the 19c.
Possibly on the second, if he is not selected for a non-playing attribute.
Back to the the sorority that mad ethe news, that started this blog posting. They had been in trouble in the past for improper racial discrimination. I’d like to stress the use of the word “improper” when discrimination on any axis is improperly applied. We’ve had a useful word in our language hijacked for a political cause celebrity.
Cheers,
Steve W
March 5th, 2007 at 11:31 am
1. Is it fair to allow limiting membership of groups? That is, is it reasonable that clubs should be able to decide who is a member of their club?
Yes it is fair to allow limiting memebership to groups. Bieng in a fraternity I know what it is like to only allow certain members into a group.
2. If a sorority restricts its membership to people with the characteristic of being thin, is this acceptable?
It depends, if that particular chapter set their standerds to only thin girls then it is accetable.
3. What if “thin†is replaced with “studious� Or “socially at ease� Or “nice� Or “white†Or “female students at DePauw� Or “female students�
Certain groups or clubs may have these requirements to enter their group so yes it should be accetable.
4. Does it make a difference if we change the word “club†or “sorority†to “kreweâ€, “country clubâ€, “professional baseball teamâ€, “collegeâ€, or “circle of friendsâ€?
Well this sorority endorsed its rules from the national chapter so it might make a difference if you change the word.
5. Where is line drawn?
The line should be drawn if it gets out of hand. It shoudnt matter about race because all universitys have black and white greek organizations and some greek organizations might have a group wiht just thin girls and some with not thin girls. If the standerds of the sorority gets out of hand that is where you draw the line.
March 12th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
As could be expected this Sorority has gotten the boot – to quote “beginning next fall, Delta Zeta will no longer be permitted to house students in its Greek-columned house on the DePauw campus in Greencastle, Ind. ”
So the “granting authority” of the DePauw franchise of Authority for Delta Zeta has reacted by withdrawing DZ’s “trading authority.” At DePauw DZ has lost its market access.
One wonders if DZ was naiive enough to think their actions could take place without repercussions?
Interesting the Delta Zeta National office is refusing to speak to the media, offered only some unrepentant hollow comments, and appears basically inept at handling its own affairs. Their national website is down, perhaps under media pressure.
Perhaps a managerial team with enough accomplishment to rescue Delta Zeta will restore Delta Zeta to an effective organization, but presently they are living up to the “Dizzy” nickname.
Anyone want to buy a cheap neo-Grecian house on frat row at DePauw? One just might be on the market shortly with the financial realities of stupid management decisions fully come home to roost.
Cheers,
Steve
March 12th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Just to follow up – here’s the article from cnn.com on Depauw severing ties with DZ.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/EDUCATION/03/12/troubled.sorority.ap/index.html
March 12th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Delta Zeta has got their website back up and have a long rambling response at http://www.deltazeta.org/
First blush reading it is that they feel wronged and it isn’t their reponsibility in their minds.
They are complete failures at handling the media, and seem to have no comprehension that when is a “trial by media” not handling the media well leads to conviction in the public’s eye, regardless of what the facts might be.
Darwin wrote about non-adaptive organisms being replaced by adaptive organisms. DZ may well be in its “Swan Song” through failing to understand and handle PR alone.
Steve
May 1st, 2007 at 10:38 am
I dont think it is fair to exclude any kind of person from being in your sorority/club. It should be more about someone’s interest in the organization and their personality, not their looks. Being thin or heavy doesn’t say anything about someones character, and that to me is alot more important. I dont think it makes a difference if you change the title of soroity to club or any other name. No matter what your title, you should allow interested people into your organization. Although, i can totally understand not letting people join based on their GPA. Grades are important and should make a difference on deciding to let a person join. If someone doesn’t care about their grades in school, they probably wont care about helping your organization in any way.
May 8th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
I think that it is fair to limit who is in a certain group or club. I do not think it is fair to limit people because of their appearence or body type. People should be judge upon their actions and personality. Being thin does not make you a good nor bad person so they should not be limited because of that. I don’t think it matters if the title of the organization changes. I think peolpe should be allowed in groups/clubs because they have the same intrest as the other people in the group. I think the line should be drawn depending on the common intrest of the club. That is the main point of a club, to have people with the same intrest as on another.