To sum it all up....
I think that this thread can be summed up as follows:
Duel membership b/t NPC/NIC orgs vs. NPHC orgs largely depends on the policies of each individual NPHC org, which I would venture to say would not allow such practices.
While I concur with the previous poster (the Sigma Nu brother) that there is no one consistent definition of a social fraternity (or a social fraternity), thus the attributes that constitutes one is largely a judgment call. HOWEVER, the Federal goverment (HEW, DOE) considers the NPHC orgs to be social in nature for Title IX purposes. NPHCers, if you want to call yourself a service org, feel free to do so, but you might want to count your blessings that HEW/DOE does consider you a social org; otherwise someone could start a movement against your org to make it co-ed and use Alpha Phi Omega as a precedent case (though in my opinion I would consider that HIGHLY unlikely).
An organization's nonprofit status (501c(3), etc.) has NO bearing on a GLO's exemption (or lack thereof) from Title IX. The former is for tax reporting purposes ONLY! No more, no less. So that argument is dead; we are comparing apples to oranges.
I do think that the one attribute that many people think makes a fraternity social is it's mutual exclusiveness (and that may have been the basis for the gov't considering NPHC orgs social GLOs).
Lastly, and this is my opinion only. While I will not infringe upon the right for any org to classify themselves accordingly, I do take issue with NPHC orgs to call themselves service GLOs, because IMHO if they truly thought of themselves as service GLOs, there would be a lot more of a proactive effort to execute service projects and other service oriented activities with orgs like APO and GSS, not exclusively NPHC orgs.
Just my opinion.
RM
|
Hybrid Mode
