Quote:
Originally posted by Sistermadly
IMO, the issue in this particular thread hijack isn't membership requirements, it's the constant reiteration of the suggestion that NPC/NIC members aren't as committed to their organization as folks in the NPHC (or NALFO, or MCGLOs).
Originally posted by 12dn94dst
The only way to dispell that myth would be to provide the numbers. In a discussion such as this, we can only go by what we're heard or read until someone proves us otherwise. To co-sign with valpogal99's statement, provide us some numbers to work with so that people who are making the statement that alumni/ae NIC/NPC members aren't as active as alumnae/i NPHC members can see where they're going wrong (or right maybe?).
|
No, it's not really the only way to dispel the myth. Another way is to reiterate what you've already said -- people are comparing apples and oranges. Apples and oranges are being mixed again here. Sistermadly referred to being "committed" to organizations, and you refer to alumni "activity." That is
a way to evaluate alumni commitment, but not the only way.
Seems pretty simple to me -- different organizations may not only have different understandings of membership, but may also have varying understandings of how members demonstrate commitment. It may be that with one group, that commitment is demonstrated by service to the community as part of and in the name of the group. It may be that for another group, commitment is demonstrated by service to the group in general and perhaps to collegiate chapters in particular. With yet another group, commitment may be demonstrated by living out the group's ideals and, by one's association, bringing honor to the group. Still another group might measure commitment by financial support, or by some combination of these criteria.
Who is more committed? Who knows, because apples are being compared to oranges and pears and peaches and . . . .