[FuzzieAlum]

I personally wasn't arguing with the use of HWGLO and HBGLO. I was addressing AlphaXiDiva's use of HBGLO and WGLO, because it implies that only the historically black fraternities and sororities have opened their membership rolls to other races. I do understand that, particularly in the case of the NIC, the conference is not composed exclusively of groups that used to be white. I personally find that using the umbrella conferences as a way to refer to organization is handy and generally understood, but it is problematic, and I also understand your desire not to use those phrases.

Even referring to the conferences is not entirely inclusive. There are some newer, growing organizations that are not specifically multi-cultural but that never have used race as a factor - and they are not members of NPC, NIC, or NPHC. Some of these groups, such as Phi Sigma Rho, Ceres or Sigma Alpha are modeled on what we might call HWGLOs; others are modeled on what we might call HBGLOs. Then there are new groups such as alpha Kappa Delta Psi and Sigma Lambda Upsilon that are I guess are "culturally focused" but that do not limit membership to (in their cases) Asians or Hispanics, and never have. I don't feel comfortable calling them multi-cultural, since their focus is on one race. But they are not "historically" anything since their membership has not changed over their lifespans in terms of what sort of women are eligible to choose. But to call them, say, AGLOs is to miss that their membership is not limited to Asians. Perhaps these groups are best compared to the many "historically" white GLOs such as Delta Phi Epsilon that never used race as a factor for admission, but in fact have been primarily one race, even if they have strived for diversity.

But I think all this hair-splitting misses the important fact that MOST GLOs, excluding the newer ones founded on the principles of multi-culturalism, were in the past and are to a lesser extent today divided on racial lines. Whether it has been by intention or by the reality that much of America is segregated, I know of no sorority or fraternity that is actually as diverse as the campus it is on. Things were worse in the past, I think. AEPhi and DPhiE were founded because not all of their members, mostly Jewish, were welcomed into any of their campus' sororities. Theta Phi Alpha was founded by Catholic women. Today, who would trumpet their chapter's diversity based on having Jews and Catholics as members? And even those groups that never prohibited non-white from joining - look back at your GLO's old composites and you'll see a sea of white faces (or vice versa for the HBGLOs).

There was a rushee on here recently concerned about one chapter because they were mostly Jewish, and she wasn't. She said she wouldn't be comfortable there and didn't want to be in the minority. I think that is true for a lot of rushees, even if they don't voice it. That's why we tend to continue to join groups where we are the majority. The non-white gals in my chapter were used to being in the minority - they had grown up in white communities. I would bet that many of the white people in HBGLOs grew up in primarily black communities.

I think to pretend that we are not HISTORICALLY black or white is dishonest. I hope we are all striving for diversity today, but I don't believe we are really there yet in most cases. When I hear someone say, "We're diverse, we have one black member (out of 100)," I'm willing to bet good money that well more than one percent of the campus is African American.