Talk:Alpha Xi Delta

NPOV and peacock language

Rather than a superficial edit war, I wish to bring the discussion of racial bans here to the Talk page to hash it out. The issue just happened to come up here; this is NOT to be read as a pointed critique of AXiD, specifically. The issue is a hot button for all fraternal groups.

I thank Originalmess for her concern over this, as WP articles can often be overly-promotional. In fairness though, the very real contributions of these organizations can also be overshadowed by an undue focus on the misdeeds of individual members or individual chapters, as if these indicated a systemic problem. I think it is clear that if one of these organizations endorsed a systemic culture of hazing or alcohol abuse, the entire national organization would be unwelcome on its campuses.

As a participant of the Fraternities and Sororities project I've encountered numerous pages that were edited with a negative bias by detractors -- as I surmise. One oft-occurring example is the bloated "Controversies" section that crops up on many of these pages. Sometimes taking up fully half of the page itself they might list dozens of local incidents of alcohol abuse, suspensions, mild or egregious or even tragic hazing, and closures. But are any of these controversial? When a member of one of these societies breaks the law or abuses someone in contravention of the ideals of the society there is then nothing 'controversial' (i.e: "salvagable" or having two sides to weigh) about it. While there may be half-assed excuses offered, the incident itself is clearly an abuse. But again, these are not generally systemic from the perspective of the national body condoning such behavior. Hence, I have been renaming these sections as "Local chapter misconduct" as a more apt title.

Here on the AXiD page, an earlier version of the text framed the issue of mid-Century racial bans as if the entire sorority had been lined up in opposition of the entry of Blacks. While this narrative may be a conventional understanding or a popular trope in today's highly-charged political climate, I believe it is woefully incorrect, compressed and would lead to a fraudulent conclusion. I therefore re-wrote the section to show the broader issue in how racial (and sectarian bans) evolved and were soon challenged. I also noted that the active members of the sorority itself, like many Greeks nationally, were on the forefront of change, of opening their societies to a more diverse population.

Because that is the truth.

Yes, some national leaders in the 1950s were rather vocal about maintaining the bans, within AXiD and even more aggressively among the other societies. Yes, there remain today a few hold-out chapters or members of all such societies who are racist. But it is fraudulent to minimize the enormous contributions to pluralism and diversity that were driven by the majority of active members and chapters. THEY were the ones who won the battle for inclusion, and did so within a matter of a few years, well prior to adoption of Civil Rights legislation nationally. Without noting this, do you see how it would lead one to a compressed, anti-Greek perspective?

I first became aware of this as I researched sectarian bans, often informal, that kept Jews out of the historically WASP fraternities and sororities. I wrote a piece about this, after reading a terrific historical study by Dr. Sanua on the history of Jewish fraternalism. See, society itself was quite insular in the years leading up to WWII, and people of various religious backgrounds and racial groups kept to themselves. Few Blacks attended college outside of the historically Black institutions, and of those who did, these were often graduate students or hand-picked athletes whom, with few exceptions, weren't knocking on the doors of the traditionally white chapters for admission. What I clarified in the article here on the AXiD page was that WWII abruptly changed this. The armed services were the first to integrate, in an awakening of a broader worldview by servicemen and women who then flooded back to the US and entered colleges and universities on the GI Bill. "They" became "us", as they, especially the returning men, eagerly joined fraternities. Especially in the North and Midwest they brought with them a willingness to initiate prospective members outside of the narrow bands of 'only Protestant' or 'only white' that in most cases were unwritten policies. Within a few short years, these students integrated their chapters, their schools and their nationals, most of them prior to the landmark Civil Rights act of 1965.

I want to give them well-deserved credit for this, and not allow Greek detractors to frame our success in this matter as if we were the ones who were dragging our feet. The history of this situation is much more nuanced, and Greeks generally did a great job, especially active members in those evolving times. On this basis, I am reverting the peacock label that my fellow editor, Originalmess, had placed on this article in good faith. Jax MN (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jax MN: Hmm, I hear you on renaming the sections and can see why that could be a good idea. As I'm sure we both know very well, a lot of organizations have been moving away from anything that could pose the slightest risk discrimination or hazing. I hadn't seen the earlier text or framing, so thank you for explaining. I think the language used in the article could still be edited for weasel words/neutrality while still giving the full context of collegiate members' push for inclusion (good to see that's a historical constant!).

Overall, I like your perspective a LOT and want to thank you for giving such an in depth explanation. Some editors have completely removed the "controversies" sections instead of giving context on how things have changed or expanding the near-empty history sections (if you'd like to check the edit history/talk page for AOII, you can see me there a year or a few ago just giving up). Your approach seems more helpful – and historically accurate. What are your thoughts on moving towards this as a standard (at least for the sorority pages, I don't touch most of the others)? originalmess^{busta rhyme} 16:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I agree that we ought to continue to police for weasel words, etc. I thought the lengthier explanation of this racial bans subject would be better than just a simple revert and a one-line explanation. This is an adjustment for me in my own editing efforts, as I have shifted toward cleaning up the Fraternity and Sorority Project on the project level, and not just individual articles. It's my hope that these efforts attract more participants and help mentor newer editors along. I know that I've learned a hell of a lot from this process. And yes, where it crops up, especially for the fraternities, I've been adjusting the Controversies title... Jax MN (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I've noticed the cleanup, and trust me it is so appreciated lol. Glad to finally have a balanced perspective about these sections, I'll start doing the same. originalmess^{busta rhyme} 16:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)