Not quite. What Title IX and the Dept of Ed regs say is that the non-discrimination provisions of Title IX do not apply "to the membership practices of social fraternities and sororities which are exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, the active membership of which consists primarily of students in attendance at institutions of higher education." 34 CFR 106.14(a) (which pretty much tracks the language of 20 USCS Sec. 1681(6)(A)).

But this doesn't mean that simpy being exempt from taxation under section 501 = being exempt from the requirements of Title IX. I'm quite willing to bet that all professional, honorary and service GLOs have section 501 tax-exemption as well.

What it means is that a GLO will be exempt from the membership requirements of Title IX if it is exempt from taxation under section 501 and is social in character. Otherwise, the provision could simply leave out the word "social." So, there has to be a determination that a GLO is "social." For the latter question, the Dept of Education looks to the nature, character and purpose of the organization to determine whether the organization is social or professional, service, honorary, etc.

That was the case when my Fraternity asked the Dept, back in the 80's, to agree with us that we are a social rather than professional fraternity and could therefore remain single-sex. If I remember correctly, the letter agreeing that we are social and exempt from the membership requirements of Title IX doesn't even mention tax exempt status under section 501, but instead focuses solely on the nature and purpose of the Fraternity.

I know it is a tax classification, and that classification is given to organizations whose primary purpose is social. Thus I suspect that the Dept. of Ed. does consider the tax classification in determining exemptions. And I was merely confirming your thought that although we say we are service organizations, in the eyes of the IRS we are social organizations. Jeez.

Which is why I said "social fraternities/sororities are exempt."

R.I.F. isn't it? :D

Quite!

Ladygreek (and preciousjeni),

Sorry if I'm coming across as beating a dead horse or being obtuse. (And yes, preciousjeni, I did miss the "social" in your post. Sorry.) I was just trying to respond to the question about what Title IX had to do with GLOs and avoid confusion.

So, to beat the dead horse just a little longer so as to avoid a little more confusion, 501(c)(7) is not limited to organizations whose primary purpose is social; it is for "Clubs organized for pleasure, recreation, and other nonprofitable purposes." In the one instance with which I'm familiar, the Department of Education did not consider tax classification at all in determining exemption from Title IX; it looked exclusively at documents, statements and activities of the GLO to determine whether the GLO is exempt from Title IX.

And ladygreek, I realized you were confirming my statement about how NPHC orgs view themselves vs how the IRS views them, and I should have acknowledged that. Sorry. But I've run into too many Greeks, on GC and elsewhere, who think that their tax exempt status is what exempts them from Title IX as well. One just has to look at the thread on whether a member of a co-ed fraternity should be president of a campus IFC (or more to the point, whether a school should require a co-ed fraternity to be a member of the IFC) to see that not doing anything to threaten single-sex is an issue for some people/groups. That's why I responded as I did.

I promise I'll shut up now. ;)

Don't ya love how wonderful communication is across the internet, MysticCat81? I'm glad we're pretty much squared away!

Some days, there really isn't enough caffiene available! Count me glad, too.

Comparison of 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4), (6) and (7) Status


Social activities must be insubstantial

Social activity may be anything less than "primary"

Social activity may be anything less than "primary"

Social activity must be primary; other activities must be less than primary

This is from a comparison chart. It was laid out in columns. the last column being 501(c)(7). So the bold above applies to that classification.

And this is what bothered me the most about your posts. With only being familiar with one instance you have managed to generally denigrate everyone else's opinions and knowledge.

Many Omega Phi Alpha ladies have dual membership in NPC and NPHC sororities - and we can, because we are a service sorority. If we were affiliated with a national organization, it would be along with professional fraternities and sororities such as AKPsi (the co-ed business frat), etc. - things that do not disqualify you for membership in other organizations.

Even though some social fraternities and sororities are more service-based than others (I don't want to point any fingers here, so I won't), they are still not purely service fraternities/sororities.

On a sidenote, does anyone know - since APO went coed, are there any all-male service fraternities?

What chapter is that, just out of curiousity?

I don't believe there are any that are all-male or all-female.

Sorry, that was bad wording on my part ... more majority male than APO. Like with APO, at least from my experience and understanding, things seem to be pretty even, whereas with the sororities, they are almost entirely female. My question is whether there are any predominantly male service fraternities now that APO is not?

No, because APO has always been the only Service Fraternity. There are no others.

Also realize that due to Title IX, non-co-ed college groups are pretty much non-existant. Socials were exempted, btw.