Sorority removes "unpretty" girls

[DarkWaters]

This article in the New York Times details how the national officers of Delta Zeta sorority interviewed the 35 members of their chapter at DePauw University. The officers then proceeded to ask 23 of the 35 girls to vacate the sorority who did not meet their standards. This included all of the girls who were overweight and several of the officers. The twelve girls who were allowed to stay were all slender and "popular" amongst the fraternity boys. Six of these dozen quit after the downsizing in disgust.

This internal filtering process was motivated by the chapter's reputation for being "socially awkward". This particular incident seems especially reprehensible since it appears as if most, if not all, of the girls with considerable academic achievements were pushed out. Furthermore, the national officers claimed that the discharges were done because all of those girls "lacked commitment to recruiting new members." Given the result, this seems unlikely to be the driving factor.

On this note, I am curious to hear what some of you have to say concerning the morality of a sorority who recruits prospective members largely based on appearance. It would be morally atrocious if a chapter only recruited girls who were visually stunning and held virtually no restrictions on the personal virtues of their members. Thus, such an organization would not discriminate against girls who were incredibly dishonest, were unnecessarily cruel or despised intellectual achievements. However, it seems unjust to describe a sorority chapter as immoral for holding fairly competitive standards for the physical beauty of their members in addition to other personal qualifications.

What do you guys think?

Needless to say, I do not think that sororities should be forced to adopt non-discriminatory policies.

Edited February 26, 2007 by DarkWaters

[mweiss]

One can probably argue that it may be 'immoral' to single out those less physically gifted, but then it depends on the criteria. If it were Miss America pagents, where the objective criteria were based on appearance, physical proportions, weight, etc., then the concept of "moral" would be in conflict with the objectives of the pagent.

However, in a scholastic environment, I would find it more difficult to defend a decision which eliminates people based on given physical appearance.

But it is a microcosm of the macrocosm. Being born ugly DOES limit your job opportunities, ability to sell yourself if you're in business for yourself, and affects your overall social relationships with everyone from the clerk at the department store to how law enforcement treats you. Believe me, it's much harder for the big, fat, bald man to get justice in a courtroom than for the man who looks like Gary Cooper.

Throughout life, these overweight dames will probably grow resentful of men in general and some will be destined for miserable and lonely lives, while others will deal with it as best they can and get on with their lives to whatever extent they can manage.

Personally, I don't think that these clubs have any important role or value in academia and should be no longer officially promoted or supported by universities. Too much crazy behavior goes on as a result.

[Seeker]

However, in a scholastic environment, I would find it more difficult to defend a decision which eliminates people based on given physical appearance.

The scholastic environment is the classroom. A principally social organization like a sorority is, well, principally a social organization, and it's not unreasonable to use sociability as an evaluative criteria for the members. To quibble with the fact that beauty is an element of sociability is to take exception, not with the Delta Zeta sorority, but with human nature itself.

Rand herself was a Romantic, not a Naturalist, and would abhor the selection of an ugly individual to fill the role of say, Dagny Taggart in a film production of Atlas Shrugged. That beauty is largely not a matter of choice is beside the point; the volitional act in question is that of the selector - the casting director in a movie, or the members of the selecting committee of a social organization seeking to achieve a beautiful and more sociable membership. The virtue for them is to accurately select on the basis of beauty as one particular discriminating factor.

Whether social organizations are valuable as such is a fair point for debate, but once that question is answered affirmatively, the use of beauty as a selection criterion is validated accordingly.

Edited February 26, 2007 by Seeker

[Bold Standard]

On this note, I am curious to hear what some of you have to say concerning the morality of a sorority who recruits prospective members largely based on appearance. It would be morally atrocious if a chapter only recruited girls who were visually stunning and held virtually no restrictions on the personal virtues of their members.

I know nothing about sororities or fraternities, but why would this be morally atrocious? Why couldn't a sorority choose its members by any criteria it pleases? Also, why isn't beauty a "personal virtue"?

I could see that it would be immoral if a sorority or some other organization chose its members based on looks, when it claimed to be judging them based on some other criteria and not that, because then it would be dishonest. But I can't understand why it would be inherently immoral to choose members based on looks.

I work in the catering industry, which is largely about presentation, and I know people in this business are often hired based on looks (it's probably not official company policy, but I know there are clients who specifically request good looking staff). Physically unattractive people who are hard workers and generally competent often get paid less [so I hear] than pretty people who don't do much besides stand around looking pretty. That's just the way it is sometimes--guests often care more that their server is sexy than that they were served from the left and had full wine glasses all night. ::shrug:: [edit: Of course, the ideal is always to have servers who are pretty *and* competent. But pretty is more important, because the other problem can usually be fixed, for one thing.] If this kind of policy can work for a profit seeking business I don't see why it couldn't be rational for some college social club.

It's definitely not the most immoral thing I've heard being associated with sororities or fraternities.

Edited February 26, 2007 by Bold Standard

[Alessa36]

This article in the New York Times details how the national officers of Delta Zeta sorority interviewed the 35 members of their chapter at DePauw University. The officers then proceeded to ask 23 of the 35 girls to vacate the sorority who did not meet their standards. This included all of the girls who were overweight and several of the officers. The twelve girls who were allowed to stay were all slender and "popular" amongst the fraternity boys. Six of these dozen quit after the downsizing in disgust.

Needless to say, I do not think that sororities should be forced to adopt non-discriminatory policies.

I don't think this is immoral but it may be illegal. If the sorority is on campus and the school has rules about non discrimination for clubs and housing, there may be legal reprecussions.

Two things come to mind right away, One, This sorority has the right to choose its members based on any criteria it wants provided there are no university restrictions. I can't imagine why girls who are intellectually inclined would want to stay there at this point and I applaud the 6 remaining girls who left voluntarily once the clubs values did not meet their own.

Two, Networking is a major part of getting ahead in business and career. Appearance can open many doors for people, so having good social skills and having the "look" is a smart tool for advancement.

I applaud the 6 girls as well, who remained and established a criteria in line with their values . I hope they don't crumble under the negative opinion that's sure to follow.

[DavidOdden]

I don't think this is immoral but it may be illegal.

Extremely unlikely. Unattractive is not a federally-protected category.

[DarkWaters]

I know nothing about sororities or fraternities, but why would this be morally atrocious? Why couldn't a sorority choose its members by any criteria it pleases? Also, why isn't beauty a "personal virtue"?

I could see that it would be immoral if a sorority or some other organization chose its members based on looks, when it claimed to be judging them based on some other criteria and not that, because then it would be dishonest. But I can't understand why it would be inherently immoral to choose members based on looks.

In that statement, I intended to emphasis that I would dislike the practice if girls were only recruited on physical appearance. Especially if this included accepting members who were moral reprobates.

Since I too see beauty as a personal virtue, I should have said "other" personal virtues as that statement in my initial post unintentionally excluded beauty.

Anyway upon reflection, I think a social organization formed around visual beauty as a primary virtue of their members and did not dismiss other personal virtues is fine. Thus, I would have any qualms with a sorority that only recruited the visually alluring but also held decent standards for other criteria such as academic achievement, integrity and ambition. Nevertheless, I was still curious to what others had to say. Thank you for your responses.

[softwareNerd]

Has anyone on the forum been a member of a fraternity or sorority? I'm curious about the usual motivations behind joining them.

[utabintarbo]

Extremely unlikely. Unattractive is not a federally-protected category.

Damn!

[DarkWaters]

According to the headline of a video on CNN.com, this sorority chapter got kicked off of DePauw University.

[Moebius]

Has anyone on the forum been a member of a fraternity or sorority? I'm curious about the usual motivations behind joining them.

Well for one thing its a great way to make social connections, especially once you're out of college. On top of that you get laid more often.

[DarkWaters]

On top of that you get laid more often.

So joining a fraternity is good for worshipping whims?

[Toolboxnj]

Extremely unlikely. Unattractive is not a federally-protected category.

Not yet..