|
|
Post by Julie Art on Jul 16, 2009 14:45:14 GMT -5
someone explain the problem with seeking out the best and brightest for your org? If you owned a business, you'd recruit the best and brightest. but since it's a BGLO this is taboo? please explain. honorary members are chosen for the HONOR based on thier body of work in life. Which carries more weight: having a 3.5, active on campus and the community or a life's body of work that is filled with successes and accomplishments that distinguish one from Joe the junior mass comm major? if you're gonna place expectations on the honorary member just be sure that you're holding the same members who came in the "regular" way to that same standard. We all have dead weight in our orgs. Dead weight who came in the "regular" way. So I hope those that are cryin' the blues about honoraries and their requirements or lack thereof for membership are singing just as loudly about the dead weight niggas in their orgs. OK, so with your line of thinking, how can we boost about being organizations that are full of college trained men and women, but yet we have members (regardless if they are honoary) who are not? When ALL orgs were founded, this was/is a mandate for ALL (regular Joe and Susy it seems now-a-days)! Created by college students for college students, correct? I mean, to even go graduate MIP, you still have to have a degree. It's just going against the core prinicples that the orgs. was built upon, IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by ACES on Jul 16, 2009 14:51:08 GMT -5
Its about them not meeting the BARE requirements that we hold everyone else to that applies for membership that isn't rich and famous (i.e. they did not go to college, or went and dropped out- which we all know that if a student went to school and dropped out before they pledged, they could not go grad because they don't have a degree. Don't care if they went to school 80 years ago. No degree, no grad MIP for you, if you are a regular Joe). That is the point Aces. If they are gonna be honoary, at least let them meet the bare requirements. ok. they dropped outta college and don't have a degree. but they've managed to emass a fortune, have consistently been philanthropic, have been recognized by other organizations and institutions as being a humanitarian & having a positive impact on their community and will throw in winning the nobel prize for kicks. Buuuuuuut because they don't have a degree and the GPA, they aren't qualified. Any org who stated that would look just as ridiculous as ASU did when they refused to give Obama an honorary degree. Life experience can trump grades, gpa's and degrees. |
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Jul 16, 2009 14:54:55 GMT -5
someone explain the problem with seeking out the best and brightest for your org? If you owned a business, you'd recruit the best and brightest. but since it's a BGLO this is taboo? please explain. honorary members are chosen for the HONOR based on thier body of work in life. Which carries more weight: having a 3.5, active on campus and the community or a life's body of work that is filled with successes and accomplishments that distinguish one from Joe the junior mass comm major? if you're gonna place expectations on the honorary member just be sure that you're holding the same members who came in the "regular" way to that same standard. We all have dead weight in our orgs. Dead weight who came in the "regular" way. So I hope those that are cryin' the blues about honoraries and their requirements or lack thereof for membership are singing just as loudly about the dead weight niggas in their orgs. So honorary dead weight is better? I would think ideally we all would only want to initiate members who are interested in supporting the org's principles and platform financially and through works. Do you agree? Too often honoraries get initiated and then fall off the radar except when we start listing "who's who" in our orgs. Are they active? Are they affiliated? I for one would love to only initiate honoraries who meet basic membership requirements, are truly interested in advancing the org's mission, and would have pledged MY ORG had life not intervened. Sheryl Lee Ralph is an excellent example....meets requirements, accomplished, and she co-chairs a national committe and I see her at every convention since her initiation. We aren't just some plaque on her wall amongst her numerous honors. She's truly an active Soror. This is the ideal but not common scenario. I acknowledge the dead weight among the regularly initiated ranks but one is not better than the other, unless your goal is to increase high profile membership by any means necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by ACES on Jul 16, 2009 14:56:59 GMT -5
someone explain the problem with seeking out the best and brightest for your org? If you owned a business, you'd recruit the best and brightest. but since it's a BGLO this is taboo? please explain. honorary members are chosen for the HONOR based on thier body of work in life. Which carries more weight: having a 3.5, active on campus and the community or a life's body of work that is filled with successes and accomplishments that distinguish one from Joe the junior mass comm major? if you're gonna place expectations on the honorary member just be sure that you're holding the same members who came in the "regular" way to that same standard. We all have dead weight in our orgs. Dead weight who came in the "regular" way. So I hope those that are cryin' the blues about honoraries and their requirements or lack thereof for membership are singing just as loudly about the dead weight niggas in their orgs. OK, so with your line of thinking, how can we boost about being organizations that are full of college trained men and women, but yet we have members (regardless if they are honoary) who are not? When ALL orgs were founded, this was/is a mandate for ALL (regular Joe and Susy it seems now-a-days)! Created by college students for college students, correct? I mean, to even go graduate MIP, you still have to have a degree. It's just going against the core prinicples that the orgs. was built upon, IMO. we are orgs filled with college trained men and women. And hopefully, with that training, we would have the ability to recognize when an individual's life achievements and accomplishments merit honorship and are worthy credentials for membership. Honorary membership isn't bestowed to every tom Dick, and jamal. It's an honor; a thing granted to exceptional individuals for exceptional work in the field of LIFE. It's not given everyday nor to everyone. . |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Jul 16, 2009 15:29:02 GMT -5
someone explain the problem with seeking out the best and brightest for your org? If you owned a business, you'd recruit the best and brightest. but since it's a BGLO this is taboo? please explain.
I know we all have honorary members but it is with pride that I note how many of the most of high profile men of Omega are not honorary. And if we are to bestow honorary membership - let it be to honor THAT person for what they have done for OTHERS. I'm afraid that the perception (not reality but perception) is becoming that we are honoring OURSEVLES by giving membership to people for what they can do for US. |
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Jul 16, 2009 15:36:27 GMT -5
Its about them not meeting the BARE requirements that we hold everyone else to that applies for membership that isn't rich and famous (i.e. they did not go to college, or went and dropped out- which we all know that if a student went to school and dropped out before they pledged, they could not go grad because they don't have a degree. Don't care if they went to school 80 years ago. No degree, no grad MIP for you, if you are a regular Joe). That is the point Aces. If they are gonna be honoary, at least let them meet the bare requirements. ok. they dropped outta college and don't have a degree. but they've managed to emass a fortune, have consistently been philanthropic, have been recognized by other organizations and institutions as being a humanitarian & having a positive impact on their community and will throw in winning the nobel prize for kicks. Buuuuuuut because they don't have a degree and the GPA, they aren't qualified. Any org who stated that would look just as ridiculous as ASU did when they refused to give Obama an honorary degree. Life experience can trump grades, gpa's and degrees. Not all honoary members have been to college and dropped out Aces. Some have NEVER been. If that is the case where Life experience trump grades, gpa's, degrees, if you ever been to college, then there are civic organizations, not a fraternity/sorority whose foundation is higher education. Now ASU and President Obama is a bad analogy. This man has been to college, has a law degree from an Ivory League school, has written two books, has done a lot of grass roots work for society, monumental in government, not to mention the first African American President and the first African American editor of the Harvard Law Review, and the reason why they didn't want to award him an honoary doctorate was because of skin color period. Especially when I'm sure you got colleges out here who are awarding honoary degrees to folks who are no where near the scholatistic achivement as well as humaitiarian efforts as Obama. Can't compare the two. |
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Jul 16, 2009 15:41:55 GMT -5
OK, so with your line of thinking, how can we boost about being organizations that are full of college trained men and women, but yet we have members (regardless if they are honoary) who are not? When ALL orgs were founded, this was/is a mandate for ALL (regular Joe and Susy it seems now-a-days)! Created by college students for college students, correct? I mean, to even go graduate MIP, you still have to have a degree. It's just going against the core prinicples that the orgs. was built upon, IMO. Honorary membership isn't bestowed to every tom Dick, and jamal. It's an honor; a thing granted to exceptional individuals for exceptional work in the field of LIFE. It's not given everyday nor to everyone. . Underlined, shouldn't they be the ones initally to feel that way about us, and therefore beseech us and not the other way around? I'm just saying. We harpp all the time that XYZ doesn't need you to an aspirant, shouldn't the same mind set be held for famous folks too? Just cause you have millions of more dollars in the bank then Tom Jones, now we gonna chase you to make ourselves look good? |
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Jul 16, 2009 15:43:16 GMT -5
someone explain the problem with seeking out the best and brightest for your org? If you owned a business, you'd recruit the best and brightest. but since it's a BGLO this is taboo? please explain.
I know we all have honorary members but it is with pride that I note how many of the most of high profile men of Omega are not honorary. And if we are to bestow honorary membership - let it be to honor THAT person for what they have done for OTHERS. I'm afraid that the perception (not reality but perception) is becoming that we are honoring OURSEVLES by giving membership to people for what they can do for US.co-sign. Co-sign with you too '91. |
|
|
|
Post by No Screen Name on Jul 16, 2009 15:43:32 GMT -5
Now ASU and President Obama is a bad analogy. This man has been to college, has a law degree from an Ivory League school, has written two books, has done a lot of grass roots work for society, monumental in government, not to mention the first African American President... Are you the poster that originally said "Julie Art" for Juliard?  |
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Jul 16, 2009 15:45:47 GMT -5
Now ASU and President Obama is a bad analogy. This man has been to college, has a law degree from an Ivory League school, has written two books, has done a lot of grass roots work for society, monumental in government, not to mention the first African American President... Are you the poster that originally said "Julie Art" for Juliard? LOL! Yes, leave me alone, you know what I mean, lol! It doesn't thwart my point! *throws popcorn at Z* |
|
|
|
Post by T-Rex91 on Jul 16, 2009 15:49:27 GMT -5
Now ASU and President Obama is a bad analogy. This man has been to college, has a law degree from an Ivory League school, has written two books, has done a lot of grass roots work for society, monumental in government, not to mention the first African American President... Are you the poster that originally said "Julie Art" for Juliard?  <------ tries to hold it but can't HAA HAA HAAHAAAAAAA!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Post by No Screen Name on Jul 16, 2009 15:50:43 GMT -5
Are you the poster that originally said "Julie Art" for Juliard? LOL! Yes, leave me alone, you know what I mean, lol! It doesn't thwart my point! *throws popcorn at Z* I love you to pieces, e-twin, I really do...but I couldn't sit idly by and let that one slide, even for you! ;D |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Jul 16, 2009 15:54:42 GMT -5
LOL! Yes, leave me alone, you know what I mean, lol! It doesn't thwart my point! *throws popcorn at Z* I love you to pieces, e-twin, I really do...but I couldn't sit idly by and let that one slide, even for you! ;D
Julie Art
Ivory League
There are others too but to protect her idenity we won't reveal them until she does. |
|
|
|
Post by ACES on Jul 16, 2009 15:56:37 GMT -5
ok. they dropped outta college and don't have a degree. but they've managed to emass a fortune, have consistently been philanthropic, have been recognized by other organizations and institutions as being a humanitarian & having a positive impact on their community and will throw in winning the nobel prize for kicks. Buuuuuuut because they don't have a degree and the GPA, they aren't qualified. Any org who stated that would look just as ridiculous as ASU did when they refused to give Obama an honorary degree. Life experience can trump grades, gpa's and degrees. Not all honoary members have been to college and dropped out Aces. Some have NEVER been. If that is the case where Life experience trump grades, gpa's, degrees, if you ever been to college, then there are civic organizations, not a fraternity/sorority whose foundation is higher education. Now ASU and President Obama is a bad analogy. This man has been to college, has a law degree from an Ivory League school, has written two books, has done a lot of grass roots work for society, monumental in government, not to mention the first African American President and the first African American editor of the Harvard Law Review, and the reason why they didn't want to award him an honoary doctorate was because of skin color period. Especially when I'm sure you got colleges out here who are awarding honoary degrees to folks who are no where near the scholatistic achivement as well as humaitiarian efforts as Obama. Can't compare the two. you're making an assumption about ASU's motivation for not granting O a degree. Not sayin' you're assumption is wrong, but based on what ASU said, O's "body of work" was too shallow to bestow an honorary degree on him. my point is O's body of work, however short, qualified him for an honorary degree. Just like those honorary members whose life work has qualified them for honorary membership. |
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Jul 16, 2009 15:57:58 GMT -5
I love you to pieces, e-twin, I really do...but I couldn't sit idly by and let that one slide, even for you! ;D
Julie Art
Ivory League
There are others too but to protect her idenity we won't reveal them until she does. This made me laugh out loud! damn you Damie! damn you! |
|
|
|
Post by DamieQue™ on Jul 16, 2009 16:02:31 GMT -5
Not all honoary members have been to college and dropped out Aces. Some have NEVER been. If that is the case where Life experience trump grades, gpa's, degrees, if you ever been to college, then there are civic organizations, not a fraternity/sorority whose foundation is higher education. Now ASU and President Obama is a bad analogy. This man has been to college, has a law degree from an Ivory League school, has written two books, has done a lot of grass roots work for society, monumental in government, not to mention the first African American President and the first African American editor of the Harvard Law Review, and the reason why they didn't want to award him an honoary doctorate was because of skin color period. Especially when I'm sure you got colleges out here who are awarding honoary degrees to folks who are no where near the scholatistic achivement as well as humaitiarian efforts as Obama. Can't compare the two. you're making an assumption about ASU's motivation for not granting O a degree. Not sayin' you're assumption is wrong, but based on what ASU said, O's "body of work" was too shallow to bestow an honorary degree on him. my point is O's body of work, however short, qualified him for an honorary degree. Just like those honorary members whose life work has qualified them for honorary membership.
Aren't college degrees a little less exclusive than fraternity memberships? I mean I get your analogy but to me this is where it runs into problems. |
|
|
|
Post by ACES on Jul 16, 2009 16:14:55 GMT -5
someone explain the problem with seeking out the best and brightest for your org? If you owned a business, you'd recruit the best and brightest. but since it's a BGLO this is taboo? please explain.
I know we all have honorary members but it is with pride that I note how many of the most of high profile men of Omega are not honorary. And if we are to bestow honorary membership - let it be to honor THAT person for what they have done for OTHERS. I'm afraid that the perception (not reality but perception) is becoming that we are honoring OURSEVLES by giving membership to people for what they can do for US.1) When you're the best, you can call your shots and do both; choose and be chosen. The best schools, business, etc are engaged in both. You don't become the best and stay the best by limiting your options. 2)Change is inevitable. Our orgs were started in a different day, age and time. And our orgs are not married to the norms, mores, and folkways of the time period in which they were created. There have been NUMEROUS changes and innovations that have been made to each and every org. From the advent of grad chapters to the changes in the ways we initiate members. Our orgs were created by college men and women but clearly have evolved to the point where they're not JUST for college men and women. 3) I agree with you on your last point. The perception that we're honoring ourselves through honorary members is indeed a latent effect of bestowing honorary membership. |
|
|
|
Post by ACES on Jul 16, 2009 16:26:44 GMT -5
we are orgs filled with college trained men and women. And hopefully, with that training, we would have the ability to recognize when an individual's life achievements and accomplishments merit honorship and are worthy credentials for membership. Honorary membership isn't bestowed to every tom Dick, and jamal. It's an honor; a thing granted to exceptional individuals for exceptional work in the field of LIFE. It's not given everyday nor to everyone. . Underlined, shouldn't they be the ones initally to feel that way about us, and therefore beseech us and not the other way around? I'm just saying. We harpp all the time that XYZ doesn't need you to an aspirant, shouldn't the same mind set be held for famous folks too? Just cause you have millions of more dollars in the bank then Tom Jones, now we gonna chase you to make ourselves look good? if you recognize someone as being the best at what they do and has the potential to be an outstanding member, why would you NOT recruit them? I don't get it. To me, that's the membership thinking that they're bigger than the organization. All of our orgs NEED aspirants - new blood. Without it, we die out. Period. If you got people trippin over themselves to get into your org, great. I commend you. However, there is no garuntee that this phenomenon will ALWAYS be a constant. If one day, by some minor miracle, people stop seeking out your org, whatcha'll gon' do? Close up shop cuz you don't recruit? |
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Jul 16, 2009 16:49:33 GMT -5
Underlined, shouldn't they be the ones initally to feel that way about us, and therefore beseech us and not the other way around? I'm just saying. We harpp all the time that XYZ doesn't need you to an aspirant, shouldn't the same mind set be held for famous folks too? Just cause you have millions of more dollars in the bank then Tom Jones, now we gonna chase you to make ourselves look good? if you recognize someone as being the best at what they do and has the potential to be an outstanding member, why would you NOT recruit them? I don't get it. To me, that's the membership thinking that they're bigger than the organization. All of our orgs NEED aspirants - new blood. Without it, we die out. Period. If you got people trippin over themselves to get into your org, great. I commend you. However, there is no garuntee that this phenomenon will ALWAYS be a constant. If one day, by some minor miracle, people stop seeking out your org, whatcha'll gon' do? Close up shop cuz you don't recruit? Sorry, I don't recruit. My ug chapter didn't/doesn't recruit. For grad, you gotta have a sponsor within my org and if you don't know a soror of the chapter you are seeking intitation into, you outta luck. With hearing and seeing of lines in the "area code" digits (and that is because of mandated caps. Wasn't for this, they could be as long as teleophone numbers, lol), my org. does not need to recruit, period. And because of these large lines that my org. sees (which is another beef all in its own with me), 9 times out of 10, we won't recruit. So since my org. has high numbers of new members and aspriants, regardless if we want them or not, "recruiting" just isn't in our vocabulary and until it is, I just can't fathom this theory. Sorry  |
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Jul 16, 2009 16:55:22 GMT -5
Underlined, shouldn't they be the ones initally to feel that way about us, and therefore beseech us and not the other way around? I'm just saying. We harpp all the time that XYZ doesn't need you to an aspirant, shouldn't the same mind set be held for famous folks too? Just cause you have millions of more dollars in the bank then Tom Jones, now we gonna chase you to make ourselves look good? . All of our orgs NEED aspirants - new blood. Without it, we die out. Period. If you got people trippin over themselves to get into your org, great. I commend you. However, there is no garuntee that this phenomenon will ALWAYS be a constant. If one day, by some minor miracle, people stop seeking out your org, whatcha'll gon' do? Close up shop cuz you don't recruit? Nope, it's recognizing that this person actually has an interest in this org. and has done some type of research to actually SEEK OUT MEMBERS to say they want to join, as suppose to going up to someone where there is a strong possibility they have NO IDEA what you are about and asking them to join because "they will make us look good". |
|
|
|
Post by ACES on Jul 16, 2009 17:35:39 GMT -5
if you recognize someone as being the best at what they do and has the potential to be an outstanding member, why would you NOT recruit them? I don't get it. To me, that's the membership thinking that they're bigger than the organization. All of our orgs NEED aspirants - new blood. Without it, we die out. Period. If you got people trippin over themselves to get into your org, great. I commend you. However, there is no garuntee that this phenomenon will ALWAYS be a constant. If one day, by some minor miracle, people stop seeking out your org, whatcha'll gon' do? Close up shop cuz you don't recruit? Sorry, I don't recruit. My ug chapter didn't/doesn't recruit. For grad, you gotta have a sponsor within my org and if you don't know a soror of the chapter you are seeking intitation into, you outta luck. With hearing and seeing of lines in the "area code" digits (and that is because of mandated caps. Wasn't for this, they could be as long as teleophone numbers, lol), my org. does not need to recruit, period. And because of these large lines that my org. sees (which is another beef all in its own with me), 9 times out of 10, we won't recruit. So since my org. has high numbers of new members and aspriants, regardless if we want them or not, "recruiting" just isn't in our vocabulary and until it is, I just can't fathom this theory. Sorry 1000 years ago people hunted for their food. 500 years ago leeches were used to treat illness. 100 years ago black folk were second class citzens and treated as such. 50 years ago the primary medium for music was a record album. 10 years ago people could board planes with a cursory security check. Because something IS does not mean it will remain as such. My question to you was what happens when/if people stop seeking out your org? what will your org do? Step outside your comfort zone the sophistic mindset that things will remain as they are and answer the question.  |
|
|
|
Post by Julie Art on Jul 16, 2009 19:13:23 GMT -5
We would address it IF that time comes. Since the time has never been such for 101 years everthing I say would be STRAIGHT hypothetical. And truthfully based on our membership numbers now we could go 10 years without any new members and we would still be supreme in service to all mankind cause we just that thick.
|
|
BLAC-A-MUS PRYME
OOA Interest
Grow in the knowledge of self[C01:0000FF]
Posts: 33
|
Post by BLAC-A-MUS PRYME on Jul 16, 2009 19:32:10 GMT -5
blah blah blah......everyone in every org came in DIFFERENTLY. True, there are common themes and threads that run through everyone's process, but each is inherently different from the next. You cannot possibly know how EVERY member you've met/will meet has come into your org. You have a general idea about how they came in, but the details - and the devil's in the details - you prolly won't have access to or won't want to expend the energy/resources to find out. So are you gonna treat 'em different or acknowledge them as your frat/soror? Or are you and your process bigger than your org? quit cryin' about honorary membership. So you had to grind for yours. So what? Does that make you better than those who you perceive as having an easier time getting in? What about those that came well before you who possibly hold YOU in contempt because they KNOW you ain't grind as hard as they did? Should they throw shade on you? 'course not. We, as BGLO members, spend 80 % of the time worryin' about this mere 20% of the entire BGLO experience. Smarten up, quit cryin and show me and your members how your grind for your org after initiation is 20 times harder than your grind to be initiated. That's the shit that matters.... Well said ACES. My question is will such induction of celebrities bring a better light to the org or will we continue moving the same way if they were not members. I was never one for trophies! |
|
|
|
Post by Southie on Jul 16, 2009 19:51:55 GMT -5
In regards to this thread... <<<interesting  In regards to some of the comments... <<double interesting <<<time to go have have some Merlot... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
|
BLAC-A-MUS PRYME
OOA Interest
Grow in the knowledge of self[C01:0000FF]
Posts: 33
|
Post by BLAC-A-MUS PRYME on Jul 16, 2009 19:55:18 GMT -5
Hey Southie!
|
|
|
|
Post by Southie on Jul 16, 2009 19:56:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by ACES on Jul 16, 2009 23:39:13 GMT -5
We would address it IF that time comes. Since the time has never been such for 101 years everthing I say would be STRAIGHT hypothetical. And truthfully based on our membership numbers now we could go 10 years without any new members and we would still be supreme in service to all mankind cause we just that thick. C'mon AKAD. Of course it's a hypothetical. I didn't think I needed to preface the question with "hypothetically speaking yadda yadda yadda" but.........hypothetically speaking homie, as a college educated woman, how do you believe your org would respond if the climate changed and the number of aspirants seeking membership noticeably declined ? Ok so I have some questions and I'm NOT tryin' to be an asshole. Rather, I am tryin' to illustrate a point. does AKA have honorary members? If so, did they seek out AKA or was an invitation extended? I submit that if invites were extended, one can make the argument that AKA recruited those honorees, challenging your assertion that AKA does not recruit. Just sayin'.... |
|
|
|
Post by ACES on Jul 17, 2009 0:24:36 GMT -5
blah blah blah......everyone in every org came in DIFFERENTLY. True, there are common themes and threads that run through everyone's process, but each is inherently different from the next. You cannot possibly know how EVERY member you've met/will meet has come into your org. You have a general idea about how they came in, but the details - and the devil's in the details - you prolly won't have access to or won't want to expend the energy/resources to find out. So are you gonna treat 'em different or acknowledge them as your frat/soror? Or are you and your process bigger than your org? quit cryin' about honorary membership. So you had to grind for yours. So what? Does that make you better than those who you perceive as having an easier time getting in? What about those that came well before you who possibly hold YOU in contempt because they KNOW you ain't grind as hard as they did? Should they throw shade on you? 'course not. We, as BGLO members, spend 80 % of the time worryin' about this mere 20% of the entire BGLO experience. Smarten up, quit cryin and show me and your members how your grind for your org after initiation is 20 times harder than your grind to be initiated. That's the shit that matters.... Well said ACES. My question is will such induction of celebrities bring a better light to the org or will we continue moving the same way if they were not members. I was never one for trophies! MAB I'ma respond to the last part of your question first. Of course we'd continue to move in the same direction if they weren't members! Our cause speeds on its way. Always has. Always will. It is perpetual and doesn't need honorary members to drive it. To your first point, I like to think that, to SIGMA, I'm just as important as any member, honorary or otherwise. As Brothers we're equal, with the same rights and privileges (sp?) thereof. It just so happens that the honoraries came in one way, I another and they have some measure of noteriety. My hope is that I've brought a better light to SIGMA through my work and deeds, both for her and in my daily life. And I ain't famous. It's all about the work they do for the org now that they're members, just as it is for me and you. That's the litmus test for determining if they bring a "better shine" to the org, not their celebrity per se. |
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Michelob Lite on Jul 17, 2009 0:33:40 GMT -5
I don't think Mo'Ke'lly's editorial was even really about honorary membership. It was supposed to be about the bigger issues...such as the future and relevance of BGLOs. The main idea is in the last sentence: "It says, it won’t be long before all of us are irrelevant and then extinct." So shouldn't the real discussion be what are we doing to keep our orgs positively relevant and viable...as individuals, as separate oranizations, and as a collective of college educated fraternity and sorority members? But in regards to HM, I like what Damie said...but I can't agree that it's all perception cuz in some cases, it might just be the reality of things. I'm afraid that the perception (not reality but perception) is becoming that we are honoring OURSEVLES by giving membership to people for what they can do for US. |
|
|
|
Post by Bathroom Model on Jul 17, 2009 9:10:02 GMT -5
I don't think Mo'Ke'lly's editorial was even really about honorary membership. It was supposed to be about the bigger issues...such as the future and relevance of BGLOs. The main idea is in the last sentence: "It says, it won’t be long before all of us are irrelevant and then extinct."So shouldn't the real discussion be what are we doing to keep our orgs positively relevant and viable...as individuals, as separate oranizations, and as a collective of college educated fraternity and sorority members? But in regards to HM, I like what Damie said...but I can't agree that it's all perception cuz in some cases, it might just be the reality of things. I'm afraid that the perception (not reality but perception) is becoming that we are honoring OURSEVLES by giving membership to people for what they can do for US. i do see this happening. Not part about being extinct but definetly not being relevant. I think the college experience /social aspect will live on but the service/civic duty could possibly die out. |
|
{=}http://s2.images.proboards.com/cool.gif{/=}
I will honor and defend.. 
