Originally Posted by Little Dragon
As you say, many factors came together for the founding of NALFO. I was also active at the time and I remember one of the factors being the size difference between CHNL orgs and most orgs that eventually became NALFO founding members.
I didn't think that the west-east was not such a big factor, but I could be wrong. Back then, of the 9 founding members of NALFO, 1 was Midwest founded (APsiL), 1 was founded in the South (ODPhi), 3 were West Coast founded (GZA, LThN, NAK) and 4 were East Coast founded (SLU, LAU, OFB, ARL), while in CHNL, 2 were from the Midwest (SLB, SLG), 2 from the south (ODPhi, KDChi), and the rest were from the East (LTPhi, LTA, LSU, CUS, Phiota, SIA, LUL).
Yet, if you look at the list, there is a 30+ difference in chapters today, as it was back then, between the smallest CNHL fraternity and the largest NALFO's. As for the Sororities, SLU could have been easily in CHNL, while there is a 15+ difference to the next NALFO sorority. Size does matter for each org strategy making process and NALFO can't really serve the same way an LTA with 100+ and an APS with 10-.
I agree that the strategies and goals of LGLO's and HLGLO's are different, but a trade org, such as NIC, does not govern its member organizations. I cannot speak for other orgs that left NALFO, but SLB left due to NALFO's increasing regulatory policies. If the council is a governing council, LGLO and HLGLO's might not fit together, but under a trade org, which main purpose is lobbying for its members and creating programing that help them, and not so much governing them, there would be no problem.
Although I do see you point LatinaAlumna and I agree with you. I don't want want anybody imposing policies that affect my organization's government.
|