About the Interviewee
Dr. Stephanie M. Wright (she/her) has worked in higher education for 20 years and counting. Her commitment to service, leadership, and excellence has primed her to be an innovator in the areas of Student Conduct, Fraternity and Sorority Affairs, and Student Development. In 2013, Wright founded the Cultural Greek Leadership Conference, a Northeast-based conference for Culturally Based Fraternal Organizations. Wright holds a doctorate in Organizational Leadership from Stockton University, master’s degrees in administration and supervision from Montclair State University and in journalism and communications (public relations) from Kent State University, and a bachelor’s degree in communications (public relations) from Ramapo College of New Jersey. She is a member of Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority, Inc.
Transcript
Dr. Rafael Matos (RM): Welcome to our Perspectives listeners. We are super excited to bring you this edition because it is a collaboration with ASCA, which is the Association of Student Conduct Administration. And so this month we have someone who is near and dear to my heart. We’ve known each other since our days in Jersey dealing with fraternity and sorority life. She is literally like my sister, like she is my sister. We argue, we laugh, we cry together, but we have built such a great relationship, and I’m just proud of who she has become in her journey. So I am going to turn it over to the incomparable, the incredible Dr. Stephanie M. Wright so she can introduce herself, and then we’ll get started with what we came to do.
Dr. Stephanie M. Wright (SMW): Well, I think that was all the intro that I needed, friend, that was it. But, thank you so much for inviting me to do this with you. My name is Dr. Stephanie Wright. I am a member of Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority, Incorporated. I have been working in higher education for almost 21 years. January will be 21 years. I have served in a variety of roles, most notably, or connected to this work at least, serving as a fraternity/sorority life advisor, and the past almost 10 years working strictly in student conduct. I am the founder of the Cultural Greek Leadership Conference, which we just had our 11th annual conference at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, and that was a wonderful coming together of—woo—, almost 200 folks throughout the East Coast, celebrating and educating culturally-based fraternal organizations. I do a little consulting, policy editing, hazing prevention work through my business SMW Services, and I am also a part-time lecturer at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. I’m booked and busy. I just added a new role too. I’ll be assisting Delta Epsilon Psi with their conduct work as well. So, that’s coming — breaking news —soon.
RM: So listen. Dr. Wright is here today because we’re going to talk about sort of the world of conduct as it relates to culturally based fraternities and sororities. And one of the things that I’ve enjoyed about working with Dr. Wright is that she is really focused on making sure that both the campus side and the organization side really understand how to provide our students in culturally based fraternities and sororities — whether it’s NPHC, your NALFO’s, your NMGC’s, your NAPA organizations, and maybe those that are not affiliated with a council — so they can have the best experience possible. Right. We want to talk about accountability, but also accountability that makes sense to the organization. So we’re going to get into it. Dr. Wright, can you tell us, what do you see as the primary challenges that culturally based fraternities and sororities face today in relation to student conduct?
SMW: That’s an excellent question. And I’ve talked about this a lot in presentations that I’ve done [for] ASCA or AFA as well. This is also in my dissertation, which will be public in October 2025. But really there’s two challenges. Part of it is that our culturally based fraternities and sororities are forced to look at fraternity/sorority life policies and interpret how they align with or [are] significant to their particular organization, because most of those fraternity/sorority life policies are through the lens of the needs, and incidents even, of our NIC and Panhellenic organizations, right, and so they’re trying to find how the language is applicable to them, and that can lead to missteps, right, whether knowingly or unknowingly, can lead to missteps. I think that has been one of the primary challenges, because how do I navigate what I don’t understand? And so, that lands you in the conduct office, and conduct is like, well, you have these policies, but if your conduct officer doesn’t fully understand fraternity and sorority life, they won’t be able to tell that you’re trying to translate. So I think that’s the primary challenge. I think the other is just the inequities in the accountability process. When conduct officers are dealing with individual students, we look at their schedules, you know, we can base a meeting on that. When we are working with non-culturally based fraternities and sororities, they typically have a staff person. Right, they have these paid employees, and so they can co-investigate with you in the middle of a workday. Culturally based fraternities and sororities, nine times out of ten, you’re going to be having those volunteers who probably cannot connect with you until much later today, 4:00 PM or later. And so if you are not a conduct person that is willing to adjust accordingly, then you’re not really offering the same opportunities to the undergraduates nor the volunteer leaders of these organizations to fully engage in the accountability process. And so, you know, it’s about the flexibility there. So, I think those are two primary challenges. And if we can navigate policy and access, things could look different.
RM: I appreciate that perspective. And actually, something you said towards the end actually connects to the next question, which is, you’re talking about staffing models for fraternities and sororities outside of culturally-based fraternal organizations. Specifically, I think of our historical white fraternities and sororities that fall under NIC and NPC. So let me ask you a question: How do culturally based fraternal organizations differ from historically white Greek-letter organizations when addressing student conduct issues?
SMW: That is an excellent question. And this is where I really try to talk to our culturally based groups. Outside of the staffing structure, right, you have a staffing model for our historically white organizations. You have a volunteer model for our culturally-based organizations, right? And so that is already a huge difference in the way in which the conduct department is going to be able to work with and navigate. I think the other piece and this is a systemic issue is that there is a lot more, from my experience, I don’t want to say this is for everyone, but in my experience, from observations and my, and my own personal experience is that our historically white organizations, they seem to be invited to be partners in the accountability process, whereas our culturally-based fraternities and sororities are told what’s going to happen. Even to the point of, I’ve seen fraternity and sorority life advisors tell a culturally-based organization, “Well based on this misconduct, I need to see your program because I need to adjust it.” And when I heard that I said, “So you want to take the process that’s been written for a culturally-based organization and adjust it through your Panhellenic lens.” That math does not math for me, as the children say. And so when you just determine that they don’t have a voice in the process, and that they don’t know any better, that they lack knowledge in this particular space, it opens the door for all the “-isms” to start to roll in, right? And that’s, that’s not, for lack of a better term, it’s unfair, right? And so if we’re going to do this work and we’re going to do this work well, everyone has to be invited to be an active participant, and adjustments made accordingly, and not some groups being able to assert themselves, while others are just replying, “Okay, yes, that’s what you say, that’s what we’ll do.” That doesn’t work for me.
RM: I definitely think it’s important that we’re looking at it from the lens of that particular organization as opposed to taking situations that apply to one group but processing through the lens of another, right? And I would even say, even within our culturally-based fraternal organizations, we also got to understand that there are differences amongst the councils that fall within there.
SMW: Absolutely.
RM: I think your call out here, what I’m hearing is, it’s definitely a key point to hone in on, we have to make sure that it’s customized, and to meet the specific need of that population. And I’m appreciating that. With that being said, right, and you touched on this a little bit, but can you expand on what, what do you think are some considerations campus-based professionals should take when adjudicating conduct cases involving CBFOs?
SMW: Well, when I, when I educate folks about this, some of the things that I go to, of course, is, what do those policies say? And how does it relate to our culturally-based organizations? Right? And so if, let’s say the incident was some type of off-campus event, right? How does the language in your policy about off-campus events speak to the way in which our culturally-based organizations may engage in off-campus events? You know, is it the third-party vendor which they may not have access to because of the finances, etc, etc? So you have to look at what the policies say and try to look at it through the lens of that particular organization. What is their support structure? We look at some of the organizations, and they may not have access to the same amount of, or same types of educational opportunities that some others do. While we can’t solely rely on the institution to provide all the education, I want us to also consider what do they have access to? I think the other things you need to consider is, again like I said before, support system, right? So, as a member of an NPHC organization, we may have an advisor council. So if I can’t be there, somebody else can be there to show up and support the group. But that may not be true for a NALFO group or a NAPA group. And right, and they’re still trying to get that together, they’re still navigating that. And so where’s the grace for those who continue to develop and grow versus, like we’re established and this is our like, this is our well-oiled machine that, that we’ve consistently just lubricated and let roll. And so I think we have to sit down and take all those things into consideration the same way we would with an individual student.
RM: Excellent. Now, we’re talking about what campus-based professionals can take into consideration and do. I want to hear your perspective in terms of what proactive steps or things can our culturally based fraternal organizations take to prevent conduct issues— and understanding [the] conduct process — while staying true to their mission and values.
SMW: I mean, I don’t think we’re ever gonna be able to prevent everything because they’re young and they’re going to make mistakes, right? And we, we kind of want them to make mistakes so that they can continue the developmental process. But, what our organizations need to do is lean more into education. And, before we lean into the education, is it knowledge, the issues? If the whispers are about sexual misconduct, we cannot pretend that we don’t hear the whispers about sexual misconduct, and we need to lean into the educational aspect. What is it that our members may not understand? This cannot be a conversation that, you know stays in the house, as some of the folks say. We have to really break down what are the themes in our organizations that we continue to receive reports about. And what’s the education that we need to do? Let’s not be afraid if we need to go on and remove a member. “I love you, brother, I love you, sister, but good day.” Right, like you, you gotta go. “Put that tight T-shirt in the closet. Don’t look at it no more. Don’t wear them letters, friend, we done.” And so, and that’s okay, you know, even if you’re a smaller organization. When we think about numbers and, and things of that nature, because campuses, you know, want you to look a particular way, you have to be able to to cut the bad seed from the space. But the biggest thing is leaning in there, and, as far as you know, understanding the conduct process, and not so much a shameless plug, but they need to be connected to ASCA. We are the premier association for conduct-related matters. And so we are going to help you understand what the process should look like and give you the tools you need to challenge that campus-based professional. Additionally, you need to know what the policies say. Don’t walk into that meeting and you haven’t read the policies, and have your questions, and making sure that due process has been provided. “Oh, they were supposed to get notice? They didn’t get notice. They’re supposed to have the ability to submit their evidence, and XY and Z. Has that occurred?” So you need to be able to walk in with all of that knowledge in the space. If not, they’re going to understand that you are unprepared and not knowledgeable, and they’re going to walk all over you. And this is how we end up with so many of our CBFOs being removed from a campus as opposed to being able to participate in what those sanctioning processes look like when they are being held accountable for misconduct.
RM: That is great feedback. I especially appreciate that piece of being informed what the policies are. I think sometimes our members kind of lean on the emotional argument. Yes, we get the feeling, but it’s also let’s stick to the facts. And sometimes when you stick to the facts you’ll notice that it can work out in the favor of our students, right? If we’re thinking about that, and we’re teaching them how to, you know, look at the facts and analyze them, I think it can sometimes lead to better outcomes.
SMW: I always tell people when you’re doing this work it’s facts over feelings. I care about people’s feelings as like a human. But when I have to analyze the data, look at the evidence, you have to look at the facts. When you walk into those spaces you have to know your facts. You have to leave the emotions out of this work.
RM: We talked about what the campus professionals can do. We talked about what our culturally based fraternities and sororities can do, right? But what does that collaboration look like? What are some effective ways you think that campuses, whether it’s the fraternity and sorority life office, or the student conduct office can work with the leadership of our culturally based fraternities and sororities in these conduct processes?
SMW: Right. I think a lot of it is offering time, right? And so I’m gonna do two separate pieces. I’m gonna do the internal partnership piece and then I’m just gonna do that external partnership piece. So the external partnership, conduct offices with our culturally based fraternities and sororities, I think is offering time. It’s saying, “Listen, I want to make sure that you understand what these processes are. I’m happy to come into a chapter meeting. If it’s, you know, you want to get the whole council together, and we talk about conduct in general — we can do that.” But also that conduct officer needs to make sure that they speak the language because you don’t want them to have the same experience that they may already be having looking at the policies. So it’s also on that conduct officer to make sure that they’re knowledgeable. And don’t just allow your knowledge to be, “Well, the student said.” What research have you done? What other professionals who are affiliated have you spoken with? What leadership and councils, or organizations have you sat down and broke bread with. Folks was just at AFA [Annual Meeting]. Did you sit down for a spot of tea with someone that’s from a council that you have not actually really engaged with, or you have at least one of their organizations on your campus, but you know, they haven’t come across your desk, thank goodness. But, you know, let’s learn more. And we have to be better about that. A part of the issue is that from my experience, conduct offices are inundated more with conduct issues from our historically white organizations, and that they don’t make space to go learn and engage. On the internal partnership piece, you have to figure out how to work together. One of the things that I had the ability to do at a previous institution was I had a partner in each department. So student engagement, fraternity and sorority life, campus recreation. And those were the folks that I worked with consistently when a report came in. And so we looked at what the sanctions would be. They monitored the sanctions. I put those — my internal partners — in a position to be advocates and advisors as opposed to conduct officers, right? And so you have to be able to step out of your office. Most conduct officers were a little introverted, and so we got to step outside of our introverted selves, and you know go build those relationships and invite your campus partners into the process, and also learn from them because you can’t know it all. Let them teach you, and also do your own work.
RM: Something interesting you just said that just reminds me, and it takes me a little bit back to my days when I was a fraternity/sorority advisor on campuses. But that relationship piece building is so important. If the students can view you as someone that they can trust a lot of times they’ll come and tell you, “Hey, listen, we kind of messed up, and we need some help through here,” right? Because sometimes I think what really escalates a conduct situation is cause they try to hide things, and then things come out and you weren’t forthright from the beginning, and it leads to distrust. But if we have that, if we have that good relationship from the beginning, I think that it can lead to a much better conduct experience for both sides, right, not just the student, but also the administrator. Right? And so, what advice would you give to university administrators or advisors who are working with culturally based fraternities and sororities?
SMW: I think the first thing that I’m always going to challenge institutional administration to do is look at your policies, right? And let’s take it a step further. Not just your policies, because maybe you involve multiple entities into editing and crafting new policies, so you got that there. But what are your practices? And how is that impacting our groups? So yeah, you figured out how to, you know, find space for them on campus to host an event. But how many officers do they have to have that they pay out of pocket for versus the other groups? Right? And so I’m always going to say, look at your policies and practices first. And when you are engaging in policy review, you need to have representation from those who will be impacted by your policies at the table. There’s not been a policy, — a code of conduct — that I have edited that has not had the voice of students. That has not had the voice of faculty. Right? I want all of my stakeholders involved, and I think sometimes we slip as institutional leaders and say, and thinking you got it. That’s part of it. And then just working, working with them, building those relationships, creating safe spaces for them to come because you’ve shown effort in showing up to their events. You’ve shown effort in participating in different training days, right. So for our organizational leaders, you said, “hey, I know that you’re having this, this big officer training, or whatever, can I come and assist, sit and listen, and learn,” right? What are the things that you could do to forge those relationships? When we are educating all of our groups about how to do brotherhood and sisterhood, we remind them that brotherhood and sisterhood is relational. Why does that stop at the professional level? This is all relational work. We have to build relationships across partners. And we have to build relationships with those students. When they are making complaints and concerns — even if the way in which they’re wording it doesn’t sound kind or sound like a complete thought — listen with the intent to understand, believe them, and then use whatever is within your locus of control to help them navigate those hurdles and help them call out systems. I think those things will be most effective when working with our culturally based fraternities and sororities.
RM: Thank you for sharing that. One thing you said, you talk about relational. And it really took me to really, cultural norms that exist within the different organizations. What kind of tips would you give, whether it’s a campus administrator or an organization, to be able to effectively hold culturally-based fraternal organizations accountable while still respecting their unique cultural traditions and practices?
SMW: I mean a part of that, I think the biggest part is inviting them into the accountability process. To, to do a call back to what I said earlier, right, like instead of just talking at them, you include them. So one thing that I always try to do in these conversations is, say, “Okay, listen, talk to me. What’s going on? And, how do I sit here in this role and support you?” And some of it’s been like, “Dr. Wright, I just want them to be able to go to this workshop that I’ve been trying to plan.” “How is that linked to this matter?” “This is how it’s linked to the matter.” “Say less, you got it.” Right? I’ve invited them in because they know what they need more than we do. We have to help them to articulate what they need. And so, being willing to dissect the issues with them, and then think about, much like how we do when we talk to them about brotherhood and sisterhood events that, you know, why are you doing this? What’s the point? How does this relate to brotherhood or sisterhood? We can do the same thing with misconduct. Okay, so I might need to put you on probation, but what are the developmental aspects of this that I can do that’s gonna help you all, so that we can reduce or remove this type of behavior from the group? And so the biggest thing is you have to invite them in. And you have to help them walk through their thoughts.
RM: Thank you for sharing. Again, spot on the relational piece building. What I’ve learned in my experience, students don’t know what they don’t know. It’s a lot of things they don’t know, and they do want to do right, it just sometimes it’s that delivery for them. And, and sometimes we recognize that, right, because of the power dynamics that exist between administrators and students. Sometimes, we don’t want to get off that. Giving them a little bit more than the usual can go a long way. So I appreciate your call out there. Now, I want to ask you about, from your experience, what are some trends or patterns that you’re noticing in student conduct cases involving culturally based fraternities and sororities?
SMW: I mean, I consistently see hazing and sexual misconduct continue to really be some of the main trends, right? And so, the issue, though, is when we think about the sexual misconduct piece is we often have this mentality of like, it has to stay here right? It doesn’t really step outside. And so, it takes like institutional forums for things to start to come out about an organization or, or something like that, right? Like we are protecting this member who has maybe alleged, is alleged to have possibly victimized someone, right? And so how do we get out of that mindset of understanding our role in supporting and challenging our members when it comes to Title IX, right? And do we even understand Title IX? I mean right now, most of us are in limbo, but we don’t know if we in 2020 or 2024 regulations, we just, we just here. They have, they have to understand those policies to be able to support their students and encourage their students to come forward. I wonder sometimes, and I worry like how many individuals have been possibly victimized, and haven’t come forth? And some of that is also because, well, we only have this one group on campus. So if I say something, and they get in trouble, and they get kicked off, you know, everybody’s gonna be mad at me. So there’s also that social piece, right, that they get connected. And I think that the hazing piece is as much as our organizations continue to try and adjust their intake programs. We gotta really sit down and address these alumni who want to continue to encourage the foolishness. There’s no reason why the conversation that I was having when I came in in ‘03 is still being had in 2024. Baby, go sit down somewhere. And we love Big Brother so and so, or Big Sister so and so. But Soror needs to go sit down, right? Frat needs to go sit down. And we have to be okay with calling them out and saying like, “I get it, I get it, old school. But we, that’s not where we are anymore. The student has changed. The times have changed, the laws have definitely changed.” And so let’s do this differently. And until we get better at the education, and the calling out, and the accountability across the board, we’re gonna continue to see these two things tear away at our organizations.
RM: You said a mouthful there with the go sit down somewhere. It’s kind of hard, because these may be the main people up in the stands.
SMW: I know, I know.
RM: It’s like who, who, who gave you admission into this show?
SMW: [Laughter] And you know they strong-arm their way in. “Move. Get out of the way.”
RM: You know what, I’m gonna move on to the next question.
SMW: It’ll be a different, different conversation. [Laughter]
RM: Listen, but we’re gonna keep this in the rails. But so you’re talking about, a lot of things you talked about, I really picked up on like the equity piece, right? So as we’re talking about, and understand the diversity of our student population and community. So, how do you see diversity, equity, inclusion initiatives intersecting with student conduct policies for culturally based fraternities and sororities?
SMW: Yeah. I mean, you know, most of this conversation I’ve been hitting on the equity piece, right? And so. And I think, really, when we talk about inclusion, I tell people when I speak about inclusion when it comes to conduct work is, again, the language, right? So just because you did this event, and you invited everybody, that’s not, that’s not what I mean. I mean, I want to be able to see myself in your policies. I want to be, I want to know that you attempted to really make sure that you use language specific to myself. Right? I always use the basic example of like folks still write the word pledge. I know we don’t say pledge in Sigma Gamma Rho. Right? And so now I’m looking at them like, “I don’t know those people. I know a new member.” Right? So how can you expand the language in your policy to make sure that it connects? Right? I think that’s part of it. I also think that we need to just overall think about the type of programming. We like to do t these things for hazing prevention week, which makes sure we have one speaker, right? And that speaker must be able to address each and every type of organization you have on your campus. If the only language that speaker can utilize, it can only speak to your Panhellenic groups or your NIC/IFC groups, you have lost your culturally based fraternities and sororities. Right? Because now I’ve been mandated to sit here because you may have told me that I need to have whatever percentage of my organization here or we’re going to be fined or whatever your policy states. But you’ve wasted an hour of my time because they didn’t talk to me. They talked to them. So we also have to do a better job at vetting because if we want to be providing education, we want to be inclusive in our educational aspects, so that we can do some prevention and be proactive in reducing misconduct so they don’t have to end up in the conduct office We need to do better on the front end. Right. We need to vet those educational experts. And, you know, when it comes to just, again the conduct offices, they need to be in those spaces as well, and they need to make sure that they just didn’t talk to the fraternity/sorority life advisor on what they should have in their policies. But if you just had a meeting with Phi Beta Sigma, whether the allegations were founded or unfounded, I want to talk to Phi Beta Sigma about, “What was your experience like? Where could this have been improved for you? How did you understand these policies? No, you didn’t? Okay. Where was it, unclear, for you?” Because that’s going to inform how I adjust my policies, and you cannot be afraid, professionals, to let the 19-year-old tell you that you’re loud and wrong. It’s okay. It’s okay to receive correction from those who are younger than you because they’re the ones who are experiencing your policies. They’re experiencing your process. So give them a voice so that you can do better at it.
RM: That gave me chills when you said, “Let the 19-year-olds tell you, you are loud and wrong.” But when you do something you spend so much time in it, you don’t really see the blind spots right?
SMW: Right.
RM: I think it’s important to definitely take that in, and, you know, I think about myself when I’m teaching and my students maybe didn’t get something from the instructions. Maybe there’s something that’s missing. Two things can be true. One, I kind of already explained this here, and you should have picked up on this, and I can also make this clearer going forward, right? So it doesn’t invalidate that I did everything that I could. It just means that there was something I hadn’t considered that resonates best with this population. So I really like what you’re saying there.
SMW: I mean, here’s the thing. If we’re in the accountability process, and we’re expecting them to hold themselves accountable, their brothers or sisters accountable. We can be held accountable, too. They’re accountable to their actions. We’re accountable to our actions. In my mind, it’s a two-way street.
RM: Now let me ask you this because you talked about some trends. You talked about a few things that you’ve seen. But let’s look ahead. Where do you see the future of student conduct and culturally based fraternities and sororities heading? And what should our stakeholders prioritize?
SMW: I’m gonna be honest with you. I worry about the future in general, right? I saw a lot of our culturally based fraternities and sororities being moved away from our fraternity/sorority life offices to cultural centers. Which may be good, maybe not. I’m still processing that or as my good friend Dr. Lena Crane would say, “I’m still noodling on that.” With the current state of politics — which is greatly impacting higher education — my outlook isn’t great. And I say this only because, if the conversation that we’re having today is the same conversation that I had 10 years ago, it’s the same conversation I had five years before that. So if the conversation hasn’t changed, that means the system hasn’t changed. And so how does this look different if we never change the system? Why am I still coming to ASCA and AFA and saying, “Friends, we need to take a look at our policies. Your CBFOs are not in your policies.” I’m tired of the same line, right? And maybe that’s my calling and purpose to keep being a record on repeat. And I want to be positive, right? I really want to say, “It’s gonna be great!” But there’s so many different things that I’m seeing from politics to, you know, as folks are recalling their DEI initiatives, that people are like, “Oh, good, I don’t gotta try to do this anymore.” Right? So I don’t know. But I know what I can do is continue, as exhausting as it gets at times, is to just hit repeat on my elevator pitch, right? “Hey, how are your policies? Yeah. Are your CBFOs involved in that? Yeah. Are you listening to them?” I don’t know. I want it to be positive for you. It’s just not, it’s not there right now, because I haven’t processed all of the possibilities, and I’m an overthinker. So there you have it.
RM: So we’re going to start closing now. And so, in closing, is there anything else you would like to add about supporting our culturally based fraternities and sororities in the realm of student conduct?
SMW: I mean, I just, I think it’s important for me, like I typically do just to reiterate the action items, right? Which is for conduct folks as well as our fraternity/sorority life folk, if you don’t have a great relationship, build it. Because at the end of the day, we want the same thing. We want a safe campus. We want our students to be safe. We want them to develop. But we have to work in partnership. So we have to set our egos aside. We have to set our, you know, seniority aside, etc. And really be true partners to ensure success. We have to be inclusive, right? We have to make sure that we are providing our volunteer leaders as well as our CBFO student members the same time, energy, and commitment that you’re providing to your historically white groups. Because here’s the thing, friends, you get so overwhelmed or inundated with all of the things from your historically white groups that by the time an incident is on your table for a CBFO, you may be at your wit’s end, and they get the hammer, right, because you’re exhausted. And I’m not saying this is all of you. But do your check. Check-in on yourself as you’re like, “I just finished five cases with this group, this group, and now y’all on my desk?” Right. You have to be able to check yourself. And I think you got to check those policies, and you have to check those practices because if your practices are discriminatory, you have to fix them. Until we fix the system, we cannot create safe and prosperous spaces for our culturally based fraternities and sororities to really thrive, right? They offer so much to your campus, from their educational series to their social gatherings, their advocacy. They’re what we do this for, right? When we look back at them like, “Exactly,” right? Those are tomorrow’s leaders. And that’s not to say that members in historically white groups aren’t tomorrow’s leaders. I’m just saying that this particular subset of leaders are not, in a non-Title IX way, loved on the way that other groups are, and that has to cease. That’s my closing.
RM: Well, Dr. Wright, as always, it is a riveting discussion with you, just listening to what you have to say. I really appreciate your time. More importantly, I appreciate the work that you do to really find a way to hold our communities accountable because we definitely as members believe that. But also doing it in a kind, loving, caring way that really honors them, and who they are as individuals, and sets them up to understand, and not go back to doing those behaviors and really be able to teach their peers. I love you for that. And I appreciate that you’re doing that work. It’s — you’re right — like sounding like a broken record. Somebody, somebody’s gonna know the lyrics right and be able to sing along with you.
SMW: [Laughter] That is the hope and the prayer, friend.
RM: [Laughter] But until then we just gonna sound like broken records.
SMW: [Laughter] There you go! Put it on, repeat.
RM: Absolutely! So to all the listeners out there for this edition of Perspectives, we want to thank you very much for your time, and we look forward to connecting with you in the next edition.
