Question: Does anyone ever see the NPHC allowing inclusion of a 10th group? - Page 9

Rain Man · #1 08-26-2005, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DSTCHAOS
We are special because we are.

Ah, the illusion of inclusion leads to a mind of delusion. Hey, I like how that flows

If our being special and DIFFERENT than NIC hurts your feelings, that's just too bad.

*sigh* If you say so.....

I was joking about APO. I know that you all don't meet our stringent criteria.

I like a challenge. Let's break it down, shall we:

Section 8. Eligibility for Affiliate Membership. To be eligible for affiliate membership in NPHC, a fraternity or sorority which did not hold membership prior to December 1995 must meet the following requirements. The fraternity or sorority shall:

a. Be devoted to general fraternity or sorority ideals and be in conformity with the NPHC Constitution and Bylaws and the NPHC Mission Statement.
b. Have been in existence for at least fifteen (15) years and shall have been incorporated in the United States of America.
c. Be national in scope and consist of a total of no less than one hundred (100) undergraduate and alumni chapters, which have a current financial membership of at least five (5) persons. Of the aforesaid 100 undergraduate and alumni chapters, a total of no less than fifty (50) must have been a part of the fraternity or sorority for at least ten (10) years.
d. Have constitutional provisions for a national convention, with interim authority vested in trustees, a board of directors or the officers who supervise the affairs of the fraternity or sorority.
e. Have undergraduate chapters recognized by and be in good standing with accredited four-year colleges or universities which offer at least a baccalaureate degree.

A. Need more clarification; If by "general" fraternity and sorority ideals, you mean a "social" fraternity, then the answer is no. As far as being in conformity to NPHC Constitution and Bylaws and NPHC Mission Statement, that remains to be seen; I can't find a copy of such on the official site.

B. YES! Incorporated originally in the state of Virginia, now incorporated in the state of Missouri, and will be 80 years old in December

C. YES! Have over 700 chapters in the United States and about another 3-400 in the Phillipines, majority of charters issued before 1980. As far as financial members go, we don't track financial members in the same sense that NPHC does, so I'm not sure how that comes into play.

D&E. YES! We have all of the above.

So barring 1-2 issues that need clarification, APO could easily petition to be part of the NPHC. However, I think the issues preventing this (and I think this is what is meant by "general fraternity ideals") is that we are neither single-sex (though some local chapters still are), nor are we mutually exclusive in membership affiliation. Oh, and of course the bylaws.

But then, since we do not now nor ever in the past planned on affiliating with a council, that is neither here nor there--especially considering 8 of our founders were members of Sigma Alpha Epsilon, and 5 were Kappa Delta Rho's (originally Krescents)

Rain Man · #2 08-26-2005, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DSTCHAOS
You already admitted you had some other issues with the NPHC. So, your opinion is a bit misguided. Do what you like and good luck.

I already am--I am speaking my mind, misguided or otherwise.

In the words of Bartles and Jaymes:

Thank you for your support.

DSTCHAOS · #3 08-26-2005, 01:03 AM

Uh...so I already said APO doesn't fit NPHC criteria. Why devote a long post to say what I already said?

To go back to the original poster's question that I may not have directly answered: There will be expansion but not in the next 10 or more years. The existing BGLOs who wish to become a part of the NPHC need to get their weight up first. They will recognize the requirements and meet them no matter how long and hard the task is. Some people will be resistant to this expansion and there will be naysayers. Good luck to these organizations.

ETA: Because this is a circular discussion

abaici · #4 08-26-2005, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ktsnake
Nothing rhymes with ten.

It'll never happen.

See, I planned to read this thread and not respond. But that was TOO funny.

To answer the question, perhaps. I don't really see the need for another group in the NPHC. We have enough issues already.
Beyond fraternalism, as someone mentioned, member organizations have a financial responsibily to fuflill to the council. Younger groups may have problems satisfying their obligations.

Rainman, I don't get it dude. To hear you tell it, the NPHC is responsible for acid rain, famine, the War in Iraq, everything that's wrong with the world. Did a member of the D9 steal your bike or something?? I don't' get it.

Rain Man · #5 08-26-2005, 01:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by abaici
Rainman, I don't get it dude. To hear you tell it, the NPHC is responsible for acid rain, famine, the War in Iraq, everything that's wrong with the world. Did a member of the D9 steal your bike or something?? I don't' get it.

See page 5, post 11 of this thread.

Rain Man · #6 08-26-2005, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DSTCHAOS
Uh...so I already said APO doesn't fit NPHC criteria. Why devote a long post to say what I already said?

To illustrate that as far as APO is concerned, NPHC's standards are not stringent as you had indicated in your post. While the org does not fit NPHC criteria, the criteria isn't stringent relative to APOs membership and chapter size, makeup of its governing body, and length of time in existence. Period.

ladygreek · #7 08-26-2005, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rain Man
Name one org (other than Iota) that has done this.

OK, a'ight, I concede that such a criteria is doable and attainable.

By the same token, I don't see any of the orgs busting their tails to meet this criteria just so they can join the NPHC (not that any org should do such a thing).

I think to be honest, the younger orgs do not want to join the NPHC because IMO the "established" orgs and the younger orgs come from two different schools of thought when it comes to inter-organization affairs, policies, and politics.

Which makes this discussion moot--doesn't it?

Rain Man · #8 08-26-2005, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DSTCHAOS
Why respond to one post twice? Are you off your meds?

No, I need to get my post count up; I was on a 3-month hiatus and I need to make up for lost time by submitting every post I can get.

Hope ya don't mind.

Luv 'ya baby! *kisses*

Good night!

DSTCHAOS · #9 08-26-2005, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rain Man
To illustrate that as far as APO is concerned, NPHC's standards are not stringent as you had indicated in your post. While the org does not fit NPHC criteria, the criteria isn't stringent relative to APOs membership and chapter size, makeup of its governing body, and length of time in existence. Period.