Question: Does anyone ever see the NPHC allowing inclusion of a 10th group?

[Rain Man]

Originally posted by starang21
how ridiculous.

I agree; the very stringent membership requirements are ridiculous indeed.

[Rain Man]

Originally posted by Intense1920
So our restrictions are "stringent" because we want to make sure an organization is well established before being granted membership?

No, they are stringent in that the number of chapters required to be in the fold are in this day and age, unrealistic, particularly in light of the fact that there are numerous GLOs (local, regional, and national) that have highly saturated the college student "market". Further, compare that to the NIC and the NPC's requirements for a new org to join, and I gotta say, the NPHC's restrictions are very stringent, as indicated.

Daggone Intense, how well established does an org gotta get? I understand and accept the fact that any particular org must get a few years under its belt to insure survival and a few more years under its belt to insure growth and stability. By no means do I advocate bringing "baby orgs" into the fold, but when an org has been in existence 30-40 years, that's a pretty good indicator right there that they ain't goin' away any time soon.

Truth be told, IMO the reason why the requirements are so stringent is that the NPHC does not want a 10th org in the fold (or 11th or 12th), especially considering how the process of admitting the 9th org was like pulling teeth.

[rocketgirl]

Originally posted by Rain Man
I agree; the very stringent membership requirements are ridiculous indeed.

Just a comment from a non-NPHCer - I think it's good to have stringent membership requirements...it will prevent you from having organizations in your council that cannot stand on their own two feet for a few years. I think that's one of the problems with the two national multicultural councils that are established. There are little to no requirements and that means any organization can jump on and fall off. Having requirements that basically make it so that the organization can exist without the council means that the org is not using the council to just "get their name out there". It also means that they can actually be a support for the other orgs in the NPHC that are already very established. A younger organization would not be much help in the NPHC.

Like TheEpitome1920 said, practically all the orgs that are Black focused that were formed that are not in the NPHC were formed because the founders weren't looking for anything they found in the NPHC. That probably means that they weren't trying to be down with the NPHC from jump.

Personally, I don't think it's alienation/discouragement...if you really want to be in the NPHC...join one of the organizations already in it.

[KSUViolet06]

In my opinion, the entrance requirements to the NPHC aren't to DETER anyone, because if a group REALLY wants to be a part of the council, they'll meet the requirements-even if it takes 30, 40, or 50 years to get there.

[starang21]

Originally posted by Rain Man
I agree; the very stringent membership requirements are ridiculous indeed.

uhhhh, your line of thinking is quite ridiculous.

[Rain Man]

Originally posted by rocketgirl
Just a comment from a non-NPHCer - I think it's good to have stringent membership requirements...it will prevent you from having organizations in your council that cannot stand on their own two feet for a few years.

Stringent is one thing; stringent to the point of unattainable is another.

I had already mentioned in the post above yours that all orgs need a period of establishment before affiliating with any council--so to that extent I agree with you.


I think that's one of the problems with the two national multicultural councils that are established. There are little to no requirements and that means any organization can jump on and fall off. Having requirements that basically make it so that the organization can exist without the council means that the org is not using the council to just "get their name out there".

I have no issue with that; matter of fact I remember a Greek Council called the New Greek Alliance (later became National Greek Alliance) back in 1997/98/99 that consisted of GLOs that was 2-5 years in existence--one of them was a sorority called Kappa Phi Iota--anybody remember that org and founder Jamilah Adkins? Anyhow the whole alliance dropped off 'cause I can't even get a Yahoo or Google search on that name.


It also means that they can actually be a support for the other orgs in the NPHC that are already very established. A younger organization would not be much help in the NPHC.

Why not?

Like TheEpitome1920 said, practically all the orgs that are Black focused that were formed that are not in the NPHC were formed because the founders weren't looking for anything they found in the NPHC. That probably means that they weren't trying to be down with the NPHC from jump.

That's an oversimplified generalization--perhaps true for orgs founded < 10 years ago, but may not necessarily be so for orgs founded 20+ years ago. The only way to find out is to ask the individual orgs in question.

Personally, I don't think it's alienation/discouragement...if you really want to be in the NPHC...join one of the organizations already in it.

That begs the question, why is that necessary? What substantive elements, other than elitism, precludes a new org from joining?

[Rain Man]

Originally posted by starang21
uhhhh, your line of thinking is quite ridiculous.

Let's just mutually disagree and leave it at that!

Capiche?

[starang21]

Originally posted by Rain Man
Let's just mutually disagree and leave it at that!

Capiche?

no.

[Kevin]

"Divine Nine" has a nice ring to it.

Nothing rhymes with ten.

It'll never happen.

[33girl]

Originally posted by Rain Man
No, they are stringent in that the number of chapters required to be in the fold are in this day and age, unrealistic, particularly in light of the fact that there are numerous GLOs (local, regional, and national) that have highly saturated the college student "market". Further, compare that to the NIC and the NPC's requirements for a new org to join, and I gotta say, the NPHC's restrictions are very stringent, as indicated.

Actually, as far as NPC is concerned, they're quite similar. Maybe a new NPHC needs 100 chapters, but each needs only 5 people...contrast that to a new NPC having to have 15 collegiate chapters, each of which should have AT LEAST 50 members. So it's really not that different at least in that regard.

Better to set stringent requirements than to let a group that isn't ready to compete join the NPHC and struggle to keep up...I'm sorry, but the thought of a group founded in 1993 thinking they're on the same level as the other NPHC groups is ridiculous IMO.

[Rain Man]

Originally posted by ktsnake
"Divine Nine" has a nice ring to it.

*Rain Man sticks two fingers in the back of his throat*

BLLLAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH

Sorry, too much elitism and ego in that "name" for my stomach to handle


It'll never happen.

No suede, Sherlock!

[ladygreek]

So let me get this straight. Being in existence for 15 years and having to charter 100 new collegiate or alumni chapters, 50 of which have to be ten years old (so that is 10 a year the first 5 years and 5 a year the next 10 years) is unattainable? Not for an org, whose founders and members maintain their commitment to why they joined in the first place.

The smallest of our seven regions has 50+ chapters.

[Rain Man]

Originally posted by 33girl
Actually, as far as NPC is concerned, they're quite similar. Maybe a new NPHC needs 100 chapters, but each needs only 5 people...contrast that to a new NPC having to have 15 collegiate chapters, each of which should have AT LEAST 50 members. So it's really not that different at least in that regard.

I'ma havta see if I can get more stats on their chapter and membership numbers to see how they play out--but I doubt if I will find it because there isn't a whole lot of useful info out there as far as this goes. Here goes...

I'm sorry, but the thought of a group founded in 1993 thinking they're on the same level as the other NPHC groups is ridiculous IMO.

You're preaching to the choir, I just deliver what's out there.

[ladygreek]

Originally posted by ktsnake
"Divine Nine" has a nice ring to it.

Nothing rhymes with ten.

It'll never happen.

Doesn't have to rhyme--just be descriptive, like the Tenacious Ten.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by ladygreek
Doesn't have to rhyme--just be descriptive, like the Tenacious Ten.

I stand corrected.