One problem I think would arise is that the organization would be blasted for having a "token" member, which I think is wrong, but it could arise......

My house actually at one point had more minorities in it than caucasians. But we didn't point that out to everyone....it just kinda happened that way, and we all just went about our business as Delta Sigs.

Personally, when I was an undergraduate, if I saw the black members of NPC/IFC still involved in the black community then I think that people wouldn't have a problem with them joining what some call a "traditionally white sorority/fraternity." When I say "involved" I mean attend functions that are sponsored by groups like the "Black student Union" or the Divine Nine then I think black people wouldn't such a big problem. I have no idea what other groups the lady that valpogal99 spoke about was involved in, but a lot of black people that I saw involved in the NPC/IFC sometimes act as if they were ashamed to be black and had nothing to do with black people. Sometimes it looks like the person is turning their backs on their community. Maybe if more minority NPC/IFC members spoke out about how they are still proud of their race no matter what organization they are involved in, less people would have a problem.

Very true, but it's either a possible "token member" fraternity or it's a segregated, racist white fraternity. It's almost as if there's no way to win. It's almost as if there is no in between.



The one possibel "in between" that I can think of would be to pledge a number of minorities to get passed all of the above, but it can be hard at times to pledge even one minority. And in the case that your org has a minority join, yes, they could be labeled a "token member." But who labels that person the "token?" Is the the fraternity itself. Or is it other minorities looking at the fraternity with one minority member? Perception is everything in this case. What a token is to one person could be the beginning of desegregating a chapter. And in the end, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

>>>gphiangel624, please cut the "especially in the South" remarks. News flash... some parts of the South have made more progress in race relations than places in the North, Midwest (where this story seems to come from) and, yes, even Southern California. Of course, we in the South have a history of race relations problems, and most of us here would be the first to admit that we still have work to do to improve race relations. But the "at least it's not as bad here as it is in the South" attitude does get a bit tiring.<<<

Thank you Mystic Cat. I was going to say the same, but you said it better. I live in the South, and believe it or not, we actually manage to live side by side with all minorities without daily riots or race wars. Indeed, there is bias in the South. There is also bias in California.

I will definitely agree that there is a double standard here. NPHC organizations are rarely singled out for being "racist" because they only have a handful of non-black members. Yet NPC organizations are constantly picked on for their "inherent racism" because they have few minority members.

Contrary to popular opinion, 99.5 percent of historically white organizations do not throw ghetto fab parties, dress in blackface, or hold mock "slave auctions." Most of us became racially de-segregated over 50 years ago. The overwhelming majority of us would LOVE to have more diversity in our chapters. But, as many people who have replied to this thread have mentioned, minorities aren't joining -- and the ones who are are often pressured or even threatened unless they drop. I fully respect a black woman's desire to join an NPHC organization instead of an NPC organization if that's where she feels more comfortable. However, if she joins an NPHC organization and then complains about how it's the NPC's fault that we're still so "racially segregated," that's when I start to get annoyed. There's only so much that NPC sororities can do to become more diverse if those of different races aren't going to join.

Actually, depending on the circumstances, I might DISagree. If the org is letting a minority through SIMPLY to have that ever-popular token, then I would disagree.

See, what most non-minorites fail to realize is that DIVERSITY in and of itself is not a suitable goal. Diversity only implies a DIFFERENCE...not necessarily a pluralism or a coequality. So when you say that your org. is DIVERSE, to me, that means nothing really. It is just something that looks good on paper.

No one is saying that the guy's family is RIGHT. But don't call it a "double-standard" when you KNOW most of your families, and most white families in general, would feel the SAME way if their child told them they wanted to pledge a BGLO.

Do you know this for a fact? Have you met "most white families" personally?

*My* parents/family never have a problem with who I spend my time with or what organizations I join based on race. How do you know they're the exception rather than the rule?

Saying "most white families in general" is just as unacceptable, IMHO, as saying "most black/hispanic/arab/whathaveyou families in general" about anything. Unless you *know* "most" of them (in the billions???) you're only assuming. Not a safe thing, in these discussions.

Ok, what I intended for the one minority member being better than none was that I would perceive that "one" to be the start to a change, not just a token member. That actually having a minority member implies that the chapter is trying to accomplish some kind of "difference." That is how I meant it to be.

I'm glad you bring up the point about diversity and difference. I agree with you greatly and my main point is that it is hard enough for many historically white glos to even make a "difference" or "diversify."

If diversity isn't a suitable goal, than what is? I thought something like difference was sought out, appreciated, something that many orgs strive for? But diversity or making a difference doesn't mean anything to people, than what's the point? - That's the way a lot of "whities" :) tend to think when discussing a subject like this.

Diversity isn't good enough, difference isn't good enough, what is?

Libra, how's your friend pikey doin' LOL, you know I'm just playin' :)

I don't want this to turn into a flurry of white people saying, "My parents wouldn't care one way or another if I joined a black GLO," but the truth is that's probably what will happen.

My mother is very anti-sorority -- she didn't want me to join one at all; she said they were too "fluffy" and I wouldn't get anything meaningful out of one. But from her views I can deduce that she would probably prefer me in a primarily black organization because at least then it would be an educational experience! My dad would feel similarly, although he was less anti-sorority than my mother. And as for the majority of my white friends' parents, the most severe reaction I can imagine from most of them is a raised eyebrow.

That's not the issue at hand, however.

I don't really think the family members in the article were WRONG, just misguided -- they were just concerned that Alexander would be treated as a token, not accepted as himself, and that this would be less likely to happen in a primarily black fraternity. I guess we won't get to know whether or not this would have actually been the case now though.

GREAT POINT. So why does everyone assume the family in the article is indicitive of EVERY black family, thus creating a DOUBLE STANDARD? That's the only reason why I made that comment. To show that it goes both ways!

damasa, I see where you are coming from. What I mean is the danger comes from having that *one* minority member and becoming comfortable, as if you are now DIVERSE and therefore beyond scrutiny.

Diversity ITSELF is not a goal. PLURALISM or COEQUALITY is.

There goes that "everyone" again........hard habit to break, ain't it? (I use it too sometimes, so I know I'm guilty as well.)

But putting that aside, please help me out with this one:

Here's an example of what looks like a double standard (generalizations for demonstration purposes only)--

Any NPC/NIC org says, "Hey, we have people from other races and backgrounds in our group, too!" this is often dismissed as "tokenism".

Any NPHC org says, "Hey, we have white people in our group too--look at Eleanor Roosevelt (aside: 50 years ago...) this is not considered "tokenism".

Why is this?
I swear, this is not trying to start a flame, I'm just wanting to wrap my brain around it.

Adrienne (PNAM-2003)

one NPHCers VERY LONG response
 

I can only speak from my own knowledge base here but...

It is indeed more than merely joining a "traditionally" white organization at work here, I think. As others have indicated, NPHC membership has traditionally gone beyond the collegiate infrastructure. In past generations, because the reach of what black folks could participate in was so limited, your BGLO membership extended to social and service activities for you AND your family even when you were fifty, sixty years old. (I was told fondly about cards parties that would last all night with graduate Sorors and their spouses back in the 1950s and 1960s). You were a Greek member. You were active in your church. Maybe you were a member of the Links, OES, PHA Masons or teacher’s group. That was about the limit of your social infrastructure.

"Many" black american leaders were/are members of NPHCs (although granted the leaders of many Civil Rights activities were our blue collar brothers and sisters). Even today, you will hear “oh, that’s Reverend (Dr, Atty.) Duncan. He’s a Kappa,” uttered with no hesitation. To a great extent, we are still defined by the BGLO we’ve joined. Almost every middle (or lower middle) class black person knows of at least ONE NPHC sorority or fraternity (and who's who in it too). There are only nine groups, and we all pretty much do things the same way, and have for years. So while his mother may have appeared to be rather short-sighted, in her generation if you were going to be anything in this world, you belonged to a Great 8 (now Divine 9) organization.

BTW, this "not paying for tuition" threat is not quite as uncommon amongst NPHC folks: I know many a parent that won’t even pay the membership dues if their child pledges a different NPHC organization than to which they belong (and honestly, I’m probably among them). Unlike the NPC, it's pretty easy to either join a NPHC group through a city-wide chapter or simply to charter a new chapter of the campus, so using "don't have a current chapter on the campus" is not an acceptable excuse to pledge another group. People take their membership into THEIR SPECIFIC NPHC organization very seriously (I could go on about THAT, but I’ll stop there).

Before I'd started going out with him, my ex-bf had joined DKE. As an NPHC member, I was a bit critical of his decision, simply because I couldn't imagine what being in a TWGLO brought to his social life and future success. Later, having met his fraternity brothers, I could totally see why he'd joined, and certainly couldn't question his business and social connections. But honestly, his greek social life would have been WAY different had he joined one of the five D9 fraternities.

While the D9 (especially the ones founded after 1914) have always been pretty accepting of non-black members (my own chapter added both a Mexican and Vietnamese member while I was chapter president, and one of the charter chapter members was white), I can see how some would see the statements of the folks in the article as a bit of a double standard. It really is though simply a change of a major social infrastructure for black folks. It’s only been one generation (my mothers) since blacks were really on college campuses, joining any organization that pleased them. One generation is not a lot of time—most social changes in a culture take centuries, so I’m just not that surprised that this guy’s family would still feel this way about joining a TWGLO (see, they don’t have Greek Chat to expand their horizons :D). Hope this helps a bit.

NPHC orgs DO NOT going around saying things like this because it is not an issue. Next example.....

EDITTED:

Please educate yourself about NPHC orgs, before you get cut and paste happy. Eleanor Roosevelt was not the first or the last non-african american member. She is merely one in a LONG line and is in plenty of company. She didn't just pop up within the last 5 years, unlike with SOME orgs.

I used her because most folks know who she is.

Ma'am, we are arguing for the same side, lol. We are saying the same thing. If the black family in the article feels that way, what is to say they ALL do? And furthermore, what is to say that NO white families feel that way? That is what is IMPLIED when one alledges a double standard.

And when I said "everyone," I meant it as a generality for purposes of this thread. :)

My point is this: It can NOT be called a double standard when it is equally likely that both sides will have the same reaction to similar situations.

Again, I do not necessarily condone the mindset of this familyor any other family that might feel this way. But to call it a double standard is absurd, imo.

Also, as for the tokenism issue you raise, it is totally different. It is often assumed that BGLO's do not have white members AT ALL. I think the poster was simply trying to illustrate that not only do they have white members, but some of them are quite famous. Also, BGLO's do not face the burden of diversifying that traditionally white orgs do. That is because there is RARELY an instance where discrimination has been an issue. I bet we can all think of instances where blacks have been denied access to historically white GLO's. Can anyone document (WITH A SOURCE, lol) a time when a white person was denied entry into a BGLO?

Honeykiss:
With all due respect, I would refer you to the following GC threads as examples where this person was held up as a member of an NPHC organization. This shows that the issue IS raised. The question was, why does this not constitute tokenism. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but it didn't answer the question.

http://forums.greekchat.com/gcforums...threadid=25714

http://forums.greekchat.com/gcforums...?threadid=4790

http://forums.greekchat.com/gcforums...?threadid=1385

Granted, the way I posed the question was very simplified, but that was for the sake of discussion--I was trying to clarify a certain point.

Librasoul--thank you! This is what I have been trying to understand. I appreciate your patience in taking the time to explain it so well.

Adrienne (PNAM-2003)