I did :P

Actually I never made it to greek week, my body was going up the creek and it was the week after initiation. Shame, if I'd been in prime shape I could have kicked some tail at the kickball tourney.

I think you asked some good questions here. As far as membership questions, I would not say that our responses involve any "secrecy" but I would say "exclusive". (agreeing with Infamous' response). I'm just being blunt right now but I find that most (not all) people on GC who have asked membership questions are pretty stupid. I have received PMs from people asking advice that I cannot give, such questions as "how can I make them like me?" So after a while your responses do tend to sound a little snippy.

I agree.

I agree with Infamous and BlueReign. There was a point, in the before time, when we did discuss membership and, on the whole, information was given freely. What stopped it, as BlueReign mentioned, was the attitude of the aspirants and the development of internet guidelines. In that vein, it's a risk management issue.

There's also a certain level of trust- after a certain amount of trollishness, dishonesty and plain ol LAZINESS on behalf of aspirants, people stopped wanting to hear it. You can't research your prospective org by emailing strangers on websites and expect great success, and folks weren't seeing a lot of effort beyond that.

Wise sisterfriends understand that and work with it- staying here to make friends and enjoy camaraderie that may evolve into a real connection, others get the reactions they deserve.

I have a bit of a different take on this. There are different systems of intake which puts the onus on the aspirant to seek out the organization amongst BGLOs. Thus, the attitude of the organizations to its role to the aspirant, traditionally speaking, is like that of a neophyte to the mystery religions in the Greco-Roman world. But the model of the traditionally white GLOs makes sense in an extremely competitive environment where, because you often have palatial homes for undergrads, you have to have members, so active recruitment is a must. BGLOs for the most part operate under the competitive model of an oligopoly. If NPHC groups changed their MO and started major building programs for their undergrad chapters, they'd have to change also.Screw the false mystification of this phenomenon.

On a wider note, the "insularity" which was made note of does, I think, have to do with the segregated nature of reality in this society,to a large extent. For most of our histories NPHC organizations have operated outside of the purview of the "mainstream media" in our world. Only in the '70s and '80s did our groups expand en masse to predominantly white campuses and become subject to the rules and regulations of this milieu. There were ensuing cultural conflicts and misunderstandings made more relevant by lack of trust and different practices in the BGLO context. (I was a part of group that started the first BGLO on my campus in '79-'80; those supervising us refused to give our Constitution/ByLaws to the Greek Life Office which had them for all the extant groups on campus.)

Finally, this attitude not only operates interorganizationally but intraorganiztionally more than it should. From our churches to other organizations (including BGLOs) the leadership and leadership ethos TENDS to be very closed and authoritarian. And the culture of secrecy goes with this.This is something that needs to change for the overall health of the organizations. I know that this is something that is discussed in my organization a lot by those who have been in national leadership and who've been around for a long time. (An extreme example of this is the leadership crisis in ZPHIB which recently spilled over into the "mainstream media" b/c the Feds were going to get involved.) In reality, all GLOs have intraorganiztional issues; more transparency will us good. The bottom line is this: if we want to exist in the wider arena at the intercollegiate level, we'd better get used to the greater scrutiny that comes with the present climate in relation to risk management issues and college administrations tightening up on all GLOs. If you want to play, you gotta pay!Many of us in BGLOs act as if we're still operating in a segregated environment and that we can do as we please.

Jeez Wolfman,

Please post more! You're posts are really thought-provoking! PM me sometime if you wanna have a discussion about culture, race and Greek orgs...I'm doing a lot of research on it

Pz
Nate

While I see what you mean, it's interesting in that for the NPC/IFC GLOs, we tend to think more on the lines of "S/he's nervous, so telling them to just be themselves will help them both by keeping them from being so nervous AND by hopefully dissuading anyone from changing themselves for recruitment." The difference in how we approach potential members probably has something to do with the fact that NPC groups tend to value NMs more than NPHC, from what I've seen. By that, I mean that we [at least at my campus] don't haze, encourage them to get into positions and be elected as early as possible, and don't disregard their opinions just because the're younger in the sorority. NPHC, on the other hand, has a bad rep for hazing on my campus and I've seen many people on here saying, "You're a neo, so what do you know?"

If that's NOT how it really is, say something, someone. It's just what I've witnessed here and at my campus.

I am hesitant to continue posting in this thread because I am not about defending the practices of my organization, which I am still learning about.

As a new member, I have been encouraged to join committees and assume leadership roles within my chapter. However, I also understand that I have a good deal to learn about the workings of my organization and sometimes the best way to do that is to observe.

fantASTic, the "neo" comments that you have observed are probably more in jest than anything else, and I would hope that you would not continue to believe that NPC orgs value their NMs more that BGLOs (the culture of our organizations just demonstrates that value differently). For all of us, new members are the life blood of our organizations, without them none of our organizations would last very long.

To Wolfman: While I agree with some of your post, I wonder how much would you suggest that NPHC organization alter about its culture and practices in order to "play on the bigger field," so to speak. PM me, if you want to continue the conversation privately.

fantASTic..... I strongly suggest talking to someone more knowledgeable in real life, like a Greek affairs administrator. I think that what you see on GC and what you experience in real life are valid, but I think it takes something a little "extra" to understand certain nuances about how and why we do things the way we do them. I suggest an administrator because they have the experience and the patience to explain things a little better than we probably will.

I do believe that some of your comments paint NPHC orgs with a wide brush -- we, for example, don't have "New Members." We have aspirants, who then become whatever they are called during that organization's Membership Intake Process, then we have members.

Trust me, for all of the time, energy, effort, money, etc., spent on the membership intake process, we DEFINITELY value those people that are going through. You don't SEE that because it's private.

^^And when I was responding to her post, I was thinking more of a neo/new member correlation, which is not correct.

Per my feelings and convictions about this matter, I will post here what I have to say to combat what I've just written about. If it's not about ritualistic matters (and not just traditions which are just practices that have grown up and are respected) and matters which have to do with proprietary information and intraorganizational gossip, it's should be talked about in public forums.

To my point. There has to be real dialogue and engagement on these issues between all parties for each group to hammer out what the parameters are. It just doesn't go one way! But I do know this:this culture of secrecy, esp. as it relates to hazing has to be changed. First, we have to get into the heads and hearts of members that we have to give up this sense of entitlement about Greek life. All Greek chapters are INVITED GUESTS on every campus. We live in an extremely litigious society and every institution is about protecting their ass(ets). GLOs represent a major matter of exposure to colleges and universities. We have to understand this and realize we exist on their campuses at their behest. We don't have inalienable rights in this matter! I'm very much in favor of maintaining the richness of BGLO traditions but they have to be devoid of the physical hazing aspect. Without question, the traditionally white GLOs have done a better job in addressing alcohol abuse issues in a programmatic and real way than we have of hazing, even though there is undergraduate rebellion in their midst and non-compliance, too.

Case in point. Amongst NPHC groups, more open dialogue and transparency amongst the rank and file would have been better in crafting a better solution to the wholesale abolition of pledging in 1990. This decision had the result of making pledging a sub rosa activity and the culture of hazing more more distorted in some ways. This is the reason why my fraternity is exploring bringing pledging back. But this issue does not exist in a cultureal vacuum. We are not simply accountable to our groups and the sometime secretive cultures that exist in them at different levels (just like in police depts., the military,etc. where exposing misconduct or certain apects of its inner workings of the institution can be viewed as a betrayal of the group); we are accountable to our host educational institutions and, increasingly, the legal and penal system. This will increasingly become the case if we act as we do now.

A few random thoughts on the fly!

In Delta it is. It is specifically against our protocol and code of conduct, especially during a certain time of year.

Just to be clear, Delta changed her intake process before the rest of the NPHC. We had a period where chapters piloted the new program, evaluated it and that in turn led to some tweaking. Then it was voted on at a national convention. You also need to understand that this whole process change started because host institutions were threatening to eliminate all NPHC orgs on their yards, because of the hazing that was occuring.

And notice I said hazing and not pledging, because in my mind they will always be two different things.

Thanks. This clarifies, for me, parts of your earlier post.