Service Greek Orgnizations

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by rhoyaltempest

I know what you're getting at but I have seen the actual documentation before under certain articles; two that I can't remember right now. I think one of them is article 501.

If your org is a 501(c)(7), then you are most definately a social org by designation of the classification. If your org is a 501(c)(3), you have more leeway into declaring yourself a service org.

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by rhoyaltempest

This is true but I just want to point out that service IS a primary purpose for the NPHC orgs in addition to Scholarship and Sister/Brotherhood.

Hence the difference: For most NPHC orgs, service is A primary purpose. Whereas for orgs such as APO, GSS, OPA, ESA, etc., service is THE primary purpose. The difference is in the definitiveness of the nature of the org. For service GLOs, being classified as a service org is objective. For NPHC/NIC/NPC orgs, being classified as a service org is subjective.

I believe that all the NPHC orgs are officially classified as both social and service.

For the record, Kappa Alpha Psi is officially classified as a social fraternity.

[ladygreek]

Originally Posted by rhoyaltempest

This is true but I just want to point out that service IS a primary purpose for the NPHC orgs in addition to Scholarship and Sister/Brotherhood. I believe that all the NPHC orgs are officially classified as both social and service. And since some of the service organizations have chapters that participate in step shows and other "social" activities/traditions common the NPHC, they can be viewed as social also.

But let's be honest--most of us were not FOUNDED for the primary purpose of service, or have it in their original incorporation documents. Delta does. And even then we say what we are is a sisterhood, what we do is community service.

We are classified as social membership organizations, because we are 501(c)(7)s. That is why contributions to us are not tax-deductible, and our general operating funds can only come from members' dues. It is the (c)(7) designation that allows us to be selective in choosing members.

A (c)(3), which is classified as a charitable organization cannot impose such restricitions, because they are funded by tax-deductible public dollars.

This whole thing of all NPHC orgs jumping on the service bandwagon has evolved since I became a Delta. And very honestly, one of the reasons the NPHC did it was to combat the partying and hazing image.

Let's be clear that I am in no way disparaging other NPHC groups--I am glad that service has become one of their primary purposes. But let us not rewrite history.

[AlwaysSAI]

Where did the OP go?

[RedRover]

Where I went to college, the A-Phi-O chapter acted in many ways just like IFC fraternity (notice that I said IFC fraternity; the chapter has yet to admit any women as members).

I know of at least two men who didn't receive bids to APO, althought both were active in other organizations on campus.

[emb021]

Originally Posted by RedRover

Where I went to college, the A-Phi-O chapter acted in many ways just like IFC fraternity (notice that I said IFC fraternity; the chapter has yet to admit any women as members).

APO *IS* a greek letter organization, and has many of the same characteristics of other greek letter organizations, such as pledging (with pledge requirements, etc), active requirements, rushing, wearing letters, etc.

SOME chapters do bidding. Overall, we try to be an open organization in terms of membership. So no GPA requirements, usually no minimums on recruiting numbers, etc. As chapters do have pledge programs with pledge requirments, those that do not meet those requirements will usually not get in. But our pledge programs are education programs, not elimination programs.


FWIW, APO is a 501(c)(3) organization.

Another item not brought up is Title IX, which had an effect on college organizations (Title IX is about discrimination on college campuses, and affects ANY college/university which may receive ANY federal funds.) Title IX had a BIG effect of college sports teams, as well as college groups. Groups could not discrimination on the basis of gender. *Social* GLOs were excluded, but non-social were not. APO, as a non-social WAS subject to Title IX, and this was one of the causes that lead us to going co-ed.

The NPHC groups may like to say they are 'social-service' GLOs, but per Title IX, they are squarely social. Again, as I said before this does not negate the fact that service is a big element of what they are.

[RedRover]

Correct me if I am wrong, emb021, but a dozen or so APO chapters do not admit women as members

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by RedRover

Correct me if I am wrong, emb021, but a dozen or so APO chapters do not admit women as members

That is changing, per action of the 2006 National Convention.

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

That is changing, per action of the 2006 National Convention.

Fortunately or unfortunately.

[emb021]

Originally Posted by RedRover

Correct me if I am wrong, emb021, but a dozen or so APO chapters do not admit women as members

Be quite happy to.

When APO went co-ed in 1976, we left this up to each chapter to decide if they wanted to go co-ed. New chapter, however, had to be co-ed. Over time, we now have about a dozen or so chapter that are still all male. While at many schools we faced the very real threat of loosing chapters if we did not go co-ed, at several schools the administration were quite happy to allow our chapters to stay all-male. That's kind of the thing with Title IX. Somethings things are only an issue when people make them an issue. I've also been told that some groups had issues working with us because while we are co-ed nationaly, we still had those dozen or so all-male chapters.

HOWEVER, around 2004/2005, the National Board took a look a things, and felt that legally, we were not in compliance with our own governing documents, and that the remaining all-male chapters had to go co-ed. They worked to create a transition effort to help these chapter achieve this.

A lot of people were not happy about this. This was a big issue at our 2006 National Convention, the results were that YES, all the all-male chapters must go co-ed by our 2008 National Convention.

[Senusret I]

Just wanted to throw in the "good faith effort" part that was stressed among the people I spoke with.

It will not be enough (nor will it be acceptable) to just send in paperwork for women but not actually recruit, pledge, or initiate them.

Certainly it will be a struggle to change the culture on these campuses, but it can be done. If there is not at least an attempt, there will be consequences.

[RedRover]

I heard this story third or fourth hand, so I don't how much of the story is true but I will tell it any way.

A woman joined APO in her freshman year. Due to financial reasons, she was forced to transfer to a college closer to home (in fact, my alma mater). The APO chapter at her second college didn't admit women. She contacted the regional director to see if she could affiliate with another APO chapter at any of the nearby colleges. She was told she couldn't. She was told that she was still a member of APO in good standing, but she wasn't a member any college chapter. Needless to say, she now has negative feelings towards APO.

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by RedRover

I heard this story third or fourth hand, so I don't how much of the story is true but I will tell it any way.

A woman joined APO in her freshman year. Due to financial reasons, she was forced to transfer to a college closer to home (in fact, my alma mater). The APO chapter at her second college didn't admit women. She contacted the regional director to see if she could affiliate with another APO chapter at any of the nearby colleges. She was told she couldn't. She was told that she was still a member of APO in good standing, but she wasn't a member any college chapter. Needless to say, she now has negative feelings towards APO.

She was considered an Alumna at that point and could have joined or started an alumni association. At the time, the chapter at the school to which she transferred was within their rights.

She could have sued the school and probably won, but she didn't, so oh well for her.

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

It will not be enough (nor will it be acceptable) to just send in paperwork for women but not actually recruit, pledge, or initiate them.

Certainly it will be a struggle to change the culture on these campuses, but it can be done. If there is not at least an attempt, there will be consequences.

BOM BAHM BOM BAAAHHHHHMMMMMM!!!

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by emb021

Be quite happy to.

When APO went co-ed in 1976, we left this up to each chapter to decide if they wanted to go co-ed. New chapter, however, had to be co-ed.

THAT WAS NOT [IMMEDIATELY] TRUE; it wasn't until 1986 that new chapters had to be co-ed. That is one APO urban legend that needs to be put to bed, along with the whole "Gentlemen's Agreement", but I digress.

A lot of people were not happy about this. This was a big issue at our 2006 National Convention, the results were that YES, all the all-male chapters must go co-ed by our 2008 National Convention.

As much as I despise this ruling, in all fairness the all-male constituency had more than an ample opportunity to kill this where it stood. All they needed were six delegates from 3 active chapters and this issue would've been squashed flat! And mind you, the all male constituency getting the needed votes in their favor that they did get was not easy at all.

I have always thought the all-male constituency needed to form their own brotherhood anyway. Not to say that this will happen, but this debate has been raging on for at least 15 years and needs to be put to rest one way or another. Forcing the chapters to go co-ed really isn't effective in doing this. Oh well. I wish them all the best.