White or black.....these terms are always offensive to someone......unless you are talking about clothing.

Right, right, right...

We don't. We don't have exclusionary clauses.

When were those removed?

I can't speak for any of the othr NPHC orgs but Zeta Phi Beta Sorority, Inc. NEVER had exclusionary clauses.

Sure. Let's see it happen now.

-Rudey

That's good. Did you know that Sigma Gamma Rho was an Asian GLO?

-Rudey

what about predominantly white?

Huh? Cancer affects everyone regardless of their race.

Jubliance1922, the 2 posters that asked you not to call it a WGLO are not white. I am assuming it was offensive to them because they do not consider their groups to be white as they encompass people of all races.

Most of us prefer the terms NPC organizations or NIC organizations (or what ever other umbrella group we may be under).

We are not "White Greek Life/Letter Organizations". We are social fraternal groups belong to various umbrella groups. We welcome members of all races, religions, sexual orientations, etc. etc.

After reading this "hijacked" thread, I felt a couple of comments need to be made regarding nomenclature. 1) From the perspective of an (this!) African American BGLO member, the "racial" identification of different groups simple reflects historical realites, nothing more and nothing less. So for someone to employ the term "WGLOs" is not meant to be pejorative a bit. This may be an area where there is a perceptional difference amongst caucasians and non-caucasians. 2) Heuristic terms (labels) are only good as their explanatory power. This goes for the cartography of GLOs also. Some respondents, who don't like the term WGLO, use the term NPC or NIC to refer to the same groups. Surely this will not do as it regards the NIC-member groups,which includes two BGLOs, Kappa Alpha Psi and Iota Phi Theta. (And, as most of you may know, some large and old-line "white" fraternities are not members of the NIC,e.g., SAE, etc.) So if membership in a specific council may not have the perfect explanatory power which the racial tag, as a historical indicator (and largely present day also) does have, what does? 3) There seems to be a need for some enlightenment by members of non-BGLO orgs. None of these groups have exclusionary clauses; as one respondent said, some never did, and others like my own expunged them in the late 40s or around abouts (Omega Psi Phi,1949). More importantly,no major GLO I know of has any de jure regulations regarding racial exclusionary clauses. In fact all BGLOs have members of all ethnicities. The difference is that BGLO don't trumpet this. Maybe the "psychological burden" of this historical reality amongst the historically "white" groups makes this a more sensitive issue for them. What's important here is understanding grounded in goodwill and truth,the real foundation for more growth in healthy interpersonal and interorganizational relations.

"Que Psi Phi 'til the day I die!"

Thanks for a serious answer.

NPHC orgs welcome members of all those groups as well, yet we are constantly referred to as BGLOs. So it should go both ways, correct?

BGLOs are easily defined through the history and everything down to the communities they serve.

Wolfman tried to take this stab at trying to explain what some folks are referring to as WGLO but I still don't see a list.

Again, if you want it to go both ways, I hope you're not upset that people will now consider Sigma Gamma Rho an Asian GLO.

-Rudey

I'm trying to get at whether the label is attached to the predominant population of a GLO or the philanthropy/thrusts of the GLO.

Taualumna suggested that it was the latter, so I'm asking a clarifying question.

Wolfman - great post!

And that doesn't apply to a lot of other groups as well? :rolleyes: