Can National Shut Down a Chapter Because of it's Racial Breakdown?

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

General question overall: Why would someone WANT (meaning truly desire) to be a part of group that has historically had institutionalized racism and bigotry as a part of its chapters... I'd be scared to attend a picnic and BBQ... What kind of "games" would they play?

At least with an NPHC org, someone will be playing dominoes or Bid Whist or spades and there might be an egg toss or potato sack race. But nothing involving hurting other people simply because they are of a different creed, race, ethnic group, whatever... I mean, I truly dislike egg tosses because I always get the crashed egg... LOL...

youz crazy

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by PANTHERTEKE

Not really.

By the early 1960s most national fraternities and sororities had eliminated these clauses. Some as early as 1950.

(source)

And some never had these clauses!

[magichat]

I know for a fact of a chapter that closed because they did not keep their jewish quota at a school where there are alot of jews, and greek life is composed largely of jews.

[Achilles87]

It turns out there was a bit of a misunderstanding between our National Office and our President. After speaking with the National Office myself, here is the issue (and my attempt to describe it while maintaing as much anonymity as possible):

To use the silly example from above. The organization was founded by a group of redheads because they were not accepted in other organizations. The organization prides itself on being a redheaded organization. Our chapter has a large proportion of blondes and brunnettes. Not a majority, but definitely a significant proportion.

National said the recent trend of an increasing proportion of non-redheads needs to stop, and it needs to stop now before it's too late. They said that we need to stop rushing non-redheads. If a non-redhead approaches us, and asks us to let them in because they "really want to be in a redheaded fraternity," then it's ok to let them in, but simply because the non-redhead likes all of us, wants to be friends with us for life, wants to build up the house, is of good character etc, that is not enough to let them in.

They said that at every other school, this is how they operate, and this is how the organization is meant to operate given how it was founded. They have determined that a change needs to be made in our chapter and either we're going to do it or they are. They said that if none of us is willing to be in the organization that the National office knows it to be, than they will kick us all out and form a new chapter at the school or simply leave the school void of a chapter. They're exact words, "I organized a chapter at your school before. What makes you think I can't do it again?"

The one question they wouldn't really answer is: Which is a better chapter: 100% redhead, but doesnt do ANYTHING to acknowledge the fact that they are members of the redheaded community, or a chapter that is 2/3 redhead but plays a very active role in promoting its readheadedness (and the non-redheads participate equally in such activities)?

In my (and others') opinion, we can be a redheaded organization without being 100% redhead. They claim that the number of non-redheads who truly want to be in a redheaded organization are so small that we shouldn't be opening our arms to non-redheads who appear to want to join for any reason other than "being in a redheaded organization." After being assured that the non-redheads were very good, quality members, they responded, "We're not a good person organization; we're a redheaded organization. If they're good people, then that's a bonus."

I hope this made some sense. It's very late (damn Olympics).

[breathesgelatin]

Originally Posted by Achilles87

It turns out there was a bit of a misunderstanding between our National Office and our President. After speaking with the National Office myself, here is the issue (and my attempt to describe it while maintaing as much anonymity as possible):

To use the silly example from above. The organization was founded by a group of redheads because they were not accepted in other organizations. The organization prides itself on being a redheaded organization. Our chapter has a large proportion of blondes and brunnettes. Not a majority, but definitely a significant proportion.

National said the recent trend of an increasing proportion of non-redheads needs to stop, and it needs to stop now before it's too late. They said that we need to stop rushing non-redheads. If a non-redhead approaches us, and asks us to let them in because they "really want to be in a redheaded fraternity," then it's ok to let them in, but simply because the non-redhead likes all of us, wants to be friends with us for life, wants to build up the house, is of good character etc, that is not enough to let them in.

They said that at every other school, this is how they operate, and this is how the organization is meant to operate given how it was founded. They have determined that a change needs to be made in our chapter and either we're going to do it or they are. They said that if none of us is willing to be in the organization that the National office knows it to be, than they will kick us all out and form a new chapter at the school or simply leave the school void of a chapter. They're exact words, "I organized a chapter at your school before. What makes you think I can't do it again?"

The one question they wouldn't really answer is: Which is a better chapter: 100% redhead, but doesnt do ANYTHING to acknowledge the fact that they are members of the redheaded community, or a chapter that is 2/3 redhead but plays a very active role in promoting its readheadedness (and the non-redheads participate equally in such activities)?

In my (and others') opinion, we can be a redheaded organization without being 100% redhead. They claim that the number of non-redheads who truly want to be in a redheaded organization are so small that we shouldn't be opening our arms to non-redheads who appear to want to join for any reason other than "being in a redheaded organization." After being assured that the non-redheads were very good, quality members, they responded, "We're not a good person organization; we're a redheaded organization. If they're good people, then that's a bonus."

I hope this made some sense. It's very late (damn Olympics).

Oof. This is an extremely awkward situation. Especially if that threatening comment from your nationals is accurate. That's not very professional.

I completely agree with you that if your organization is still promoting red-headed equality and issues, and the values that your organization was founded upon, it seems totally OK that blondes and brunettes are joining. Hey, you're getting them to help with the red-headed equality cause too, which who knows, they might not have otherwise been.

At the same time maybe you should evaluate why the nationals is telling what they are telling you. If you are honest with yourself, is there something you could do to ensure that your org is sticking close to its values?

And also, when you say National Office, who do you mean? Was this just one person, or a grad consultant or something of that nature? I think you really need to talk to your chapter advisor, regional advisors, etc., and make sure that you are on the right track and interpreting what your nationals are telling you correctly. You chapter/regional advisors can be a great resource and backup for you here.

[Achilles87]

By National Office, I mean the Executive Vice President of the organization.

I was definitely thinking of consulting the Chapter Adviser, and I know our President spoke to several people lower down the totem pole in the National Office.

[breathesgelatin]

Originally Posted by Achilles87

By National Office, I mean the Executive Vice President of the organization.

I was definitely thinking of consulting the Chapter Adviser, and I know our President spoke to several people lower down the totem pole in the National Office.

Definitely. Sounds like you're on the right track and I wish you good luck.

At the same time, you do need to consider and make sure you're fulfilling your GLO's mission 100%.

[fantASTic]

Originally Posted by AKA_Monet

General question overall: Why would someone WANT (meaning truly desire) to be a part of group that has historically had institutionalized racism and bigotry as a part of its chapters... I'd be scared to attend a picnic and BBQ... What kind of "games" would they play?

At least with an NPHC org, someone will be playing dominoes or Bid Whist or spades and there might be an egg toss or potato sack race. But nothing involving hurting other people simply because they are of a different creed, race, ethnic group, whatever... I mean, I truly dislike egg tosses because I always get the crashed egg... LOL...

Wow.

Thank you, very much, for showing us your true side. You clearly have great disdain for NPC/NIC organizations. I can't believe you are okay with putting this on the internet and representing AKA like that.

[alum]

Just to play devil's advocate, how do we not know that Achilles87 isn't talking about an NPHC group that is pledging too many Caucasians?

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by alum

Just to play devil's advocate, how do we not know that Achilles87 isn't talking about an NPHC group that is pledging too many Caucasians?

Well, we don't know, but I don't think any NPHC fraternity has an "Executive Vice President."

BUT IF HE WAS talking about an NPHC (and in Alpha, I can think of one chapter that seems to fit the description)...in fact, no matter the coordinating body, I suggest that he speaks to whomever on his campus is in charge of Greek life if they are being threatened with closure or recolonization.

My gut is telling me his fraternity just can't do what he's describing! It sounds wrong on a lot of levels.

To echo posters above me, if they are REALLY and TRULY fulfilling the "redhead" mission with a diverse chapter, then they need to speak to someone on campus.

[magichat]

Originally Posted by Achilles87

It turns out there was a bit of a misunderstanding between our National Office and our President. After speaking with the National Office myself, here is the issue (and my attempt to describe it while maintaing as much anonymity as possible):

To use the silly example from above. The organization was founded by a group of redheads because they were not accepted in other organizations. The organization prides itself on being a redheaded organization. Our chapter has a large proportion of blondes and brunnettes. Not a majority, but definitely a significant proportion.

National said the recent trend of an increasing proportion of non-redheads needs to stop, and it needs to stop now before it's too late. They said that we need to stop rushing non-redheads. If a non-redhead approaches us, and asks us to let them in because they "really want to be in a redheaded fraternity," then it's ok to let them in, but simply because the non-redhead likes all of us, wants to be friends with us for life, wants to build up the house, is of good character etc, that is not enough to let them in.

They said that at every other school, this is how they operate, and this is how the organization is meant to operate given how it was founded. They have determined that a change needs to be made in our chapter and either we're going to do it or they are. They said that if none of us is willing to be in the organization that the National office knows it to be, than they will kick us all out and form a new chapter at the school or simply leave the school void of a chapter. They're exact words, "I organized a chapter at your school before. What makes you think I can't do it again?"

The one question they wouldn't really answer is: Which is a better chapter: 100% redhead, but doesnt do ANYTHING to acknowledge the fact that they are members of the redheaded community, or a chapter that is 2/3 redhead but plays a very active role in promoting its readheadedness (and the non-redheads participate equally in such activities)?

In my (and others') opinion, we can be a redheaded organization without being 100% redhead. They claim that the number of non-redheads who truly want to be in a redheaded organization are so small that we shouldn't be opening our arms to non-redheads who appear to want to join for any reason other than "being in a redheaded organization." After being assured that the non-redheads were very good, quality members, they responded, "We're not a good person organization; we're a redheaded organization. If they're good people, then that's a bonus."

I hope this made some sense. It's very late (damn Olympics).

At which point you tell your national office to fuck off, and begin to plan a break from the oganization. Your chapter comes before your national organization.

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by magichat

At which point you tell your national office to fuck off, and begin to plan a break from the oganization. Your chapter comes before your national organization.

No it doesn't. Even if it did, they have come nowhere near that point.

[magichat]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

No it doesn't. Even if it did, they have come nowhere near that point.

That is the difference between the NPHC and NIC, from what I have seen NPHC is much more focused on the organization as a whole. I mean you see it in countless threads on here, people go their whole life wanting to be an Alpha, or a a Kappa, or whatever, and before they even go to that college and meet that chapter they already know which org they want.

Not to say thats a bad thing at all, but if this is NIC, then the person's first loyalty is towards his chapter brothers, not towards a national office that is telling them they havent rushed enough of a certain race/creed/whatever and is threatening to reorganize the chapter because of it.

To try and make even further sense of what I am saying, I am going to attempt an anecdote (I guess it could be considered an anecdote), but if it doesn't make sense bear with me. To this person, XYZ, his GLO, is his fraternity. They are who represent XYZ to that campus, they are a group of friends who share similar ideals. If the person who gave that group of friends help operating for years all of a sudden decides, well we don't like some of the people you are bringing into your group of friends, so stop letting people without redhair into your group, regardless of the fact that you like them and they contribute to the good name of the group, then what do you do?
Sorry for the run on sentence.

[Senusret I]

Oh, no. I totally understand what you mean. And I understand the sentiment behind it. There are plenty of collegiate chapters of the NPHC who believe their chapter comes first.

I just happen to believe that they are all incorrect and have missed the point of being in a national fraternity.

Just to reiterate, this is not an NPHC/NIC thing. This is a problem among many people who pledge anything.

[magichat]

Our disconnect may have much to do with me having graduated recently and still being young and full of piss and vinegar, in that case then.

I would love to continue this discussion but I am running late for a tee time.