That sucks.

DeltaBetaBaby said "My point was that NPC groups will take former NALFO members because the idea of lifelong commitment has very little to do with how/why NPC groups make decisions."

That made me think I missed something because DeltaBetaBaby didn't include NPHC in that statement. But, nope, everyone's invisible to the NPC. My Sorority, for example, has restrictions pertaining to NPC but my Sorority isn't even a blip on the NPC radar. Whooooodydoooooo....

To put a finer point on it, though, I don't want to say that nobody cares at all or that it wouldn't be considered in membership selection. It's just not (public) policy.

Are you sure about this or are we treading into membership selection territory for the individual orgs? I know there's no UA, but do you know for certain that it's not restricted for all 26 NPC sororities?

YAS.

As has been mentioned already, the rule about not joining multiple NPCs was put into place to prevent NPC groups from stealing each others members.

Since that agreement did not include NPHC or NALFO or any other group the rule does not apply. It's not about respect, it's about agreements.

Aren't there other organizations that people pledge loyalty to, like Masons and OES, which don't eliminate people from membership eligibility? What's the difference?


eta: Just searched through some stuff on the sister side of our website. I'll say that membership in another GLO (non honorary or professional) is a gray area. Not going to expand on that at all.

I'm guessing because they aren't Sororities or Fraternities. The only reason why one of my sisters was allowed to pledge Beta by the nationals of the Multicultural national that she'd belongs to and is still active in as a collegiate,was because Beta wasn't considered to be a social sorority in their eyes. Every group has their own definition.

This has been a really disappointing conversation.

Really, SoCalGirl? Reeeeeeeeeeally?

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...wbX7G9bD8R_SaI

Someone might hit me for this, but the NPC UA about once you pledge one you can't ever pledge another, is less about harmony and love and more about realizing we all have weaker and stronger chapters and if we take advantage of something at School A, we can get bitten in the ass at School B.

I don't doubt that there are people out there who could commit to two "general" GLOs and treat them both completely equally in their heart and mind, and conduct themselves accordingly. I also don't doubt that there are people out there who tried this and did a horrible job. And in this world, unfortunately, we have to make rules based on the lowest common denominator.

Freemasonry and OES don't fit into this specific discussion, just like professional and service organizations don't fit into this specific discussion. We are talking about "General" or "Social" GLO's.


The NPC has rules in place so that an initiate of one sorority can never be initiated into another under their umbrella. The point was to make sure that chapters could not steal members from another sorority, whether it be about harmony or just balance. Whatever the reason, there is an agreement and mutual respect. Mutual. Respect.


The NPHC, NALFO and NMGC doesn't want their members stolen either. And would enjoy the mutual respect as we are all "general" organizations. (I really don't like calling my sorority "social" or "general" because we are MUCH more than that, but for the sake of argument I'll call it that.) Even if there is not some type of "agreement," there should be the same level of respect. It is not always afforded to us, because we are considered "other" or an alternative. We aren't.


The OP was initiated into the NALFO organization, and then said it wasn't for her (which she should have taken the time to figure out before initiation). And then says that she is worried that the NPC colony will have concerns about her being in a "multicultural" sorority. It's not a "multicultural" sorority. It is a sorority. She wanted sisterhood, she got it, and she quit on them. (There is no disaffiliation in my lexicon.)


Chi Omega Fraternity. Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated. Lambda Theta Alpha Latin Sorority, Incorporated. Mutual. Respect.

What do you think the ideal situation would be? An agreement across councils?

I would love to see is an agreement across councils. And frankly, that requires acknowledgement and respect of the seperate councils first and foremost. While we do not need to have some drawn out history lesson about each council or organization, it would be great if we were more informed about each other. I think that if people are informed, it would help to change the stigma that outside of the NPC/IFC that our organizations aren't somehow equal, because a majority population of the organizations are not White.

When we have discussions on GC, things tend to be NPC-centric, but the majority of the active posters are from the NPC. I get that. I think generally we are respectful of each other. But at times a topic like this comes along and it shows the "otherness" of our organizations.
We read posts all the time about PNM's or initiates of NPC Sororities who decide they do not want to be in the organization that gave them a bid. GC is not very sympathetic towards the PNM the majority of the time. "That chapter saw something in you, and you didn't give them a chance." I reacted the same way when I read the OP's post. But generally, the reaction is not filled with the same disappointment and outrage despite the situation being the same. That is what I mean by "otherness."

It's deeper than agreements and paperwork. If we can first respect each other equally, then an agreement across councils would be a great idea. I am a realist (and a pessimist at times) and I don't see it happening.

This.

Aside from the fact that I don't like the idea of councils dictating who can and can't be members of their member organizations, I think this cross-council kumbaya talk is much ado about nothing.

"Let's all have equal footing when it comes to rush/recruitment/intake" doesn't translate to "We're all equals" when socials are only held among groups that have housing or when "we'll reach out to you again when we need a step team for Greek Week" happens.

Until there's a paradigm shift where groups are actively learning about and engaging with groups other than the ones like theirs, no amount of YAY JOINT RUSH is going to fix things.

Plus, the way we bring in members varies among groups (ie. city-wide, grad chapters, rush before school starts, 365 recruitment, balanced man, etc) -- what kind of agreement would address all of these things? And what about "general interest/social" organizations that aren't members of national councils?