Alpha Phi International Threatening Volunteers with NDA

[Sciencewoman]

More than a bit! I just got called a racist, because I post here. Yikes...and they think we're mean and nasty!

[Sen's Revenge]

Originally Posted by Sciencewoman

More than a bit! I just got called a racist, because I post here. Yikes...and they think we're mean and nasty!

I mean you may not be, and I know I am not, but also, they are not wrong.

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

I've been a national volunteer for my org for the past seven years in multiple capacities, and I've never had to sign such an agreement.

It does seem a tad sketchy to require such a thing. What information is Alpha Phi sharing with VOLUNTEERS that would create such a problem for them if it was released outside the org?

<snip>

I volunteer with a nonprofit whose mission is education and lobbying. I have significant information about the financial picture of that organization, information that if divulged could provide fodder for those who advocate against us. Therefore, I understand the sensitivity of *some* information, and even the need for an NDA. I don't see, however, the utility of one as vague and all-encompassing as this one.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by DGTess

I volunteer with a nonprofit whose mission is education and lobbying. I have significant information about the financial picture of that organization, information that if divulged could provide fodder for those who advocate against us. Therefore, I understand the sensitivity of *some* information, and even the need for an NDA. I don't see, however, the utility of one as vague and all-encompassing as this one.

This is true. Although, I would think that if this was a concern for Alpha Phi - or any Greek org - for legitimate reasons (e.g. wanting to keep financial or legal information confidential), wouldn't they have all sisters/brothers sign one, as well?

Granted, NDA's are typically somewhat vague in nature. However, they usually are not so all-encompassing and unclear that the person signing it would wonder, "Wow, can I talk about Alpha Phi AT ALL?" There is a level of reasonableness to them, and Alpha Phi's doesn't seem to have that.

As an example, here's a section regarding confidential information from an NDA I've received:

1. Definition of Confidential Information. “Confidential Information” means: (a) all information marked confidential, restricted or proprietary by *insured name*; and (b) any other information that is treated as confidential by *insured name* and would reasonably be understood to be confidential, whether or not so marked (and whether in written or oral form) and whether provided to Company prior to, on or after the Effective Date. Confidential Information also shall include, but is not limited to, intellectual property, data, attorney-client privileged materials, attorney work product, customer lists, customer contracts, customer information and transaction data, rates and pricing, information with respect to competitors, strategic plans, account information, research information, financial/accounting information (including assets, expenditures, mergers, acquisitions, divestitures, billings collections, revenues and finances), IT and personnel information, marketing/sales information, information regarding businesses, plans, operations, third party contracts, licenses, internal or external audits, law suits, regulatory compliance and other confidential and proprietary information.

When you compare that to Alpha Phi's "confidential information", particularly that in bold, it's no wonder volunteers are unclear about what's actually confidential and questioning the reason behind it.

A. I acknowledge and understand that in connection with my position as a*[INSERT POSITION HERE]*with Alpha Phi, I will have access to and be provided with certain confidential and proprietary information pertaining to Alpha Phi, including but not limited to information relating to its members, business practices and strategies, finances, designs, plans, drawings, photographs, mock-ups, discoveries, research, developments, methods, processes, procedures, improvements, ‘know-how’, market research, marketing techniques and plans, in oral, demonstrative, written, graphic or machine-readable form, and other matters, all of which Alpha Phi deems confidential and proprietary and all of which are of substantial value to Alpha Phi (“Confidential Information”).*

B. I acknowledge and understand that in connection with my volunteer leader position with Alpha Phi, I may be asked to create or prepare certain confidential and proprietary business information pertaining to Alpha Phi, its members and its business operations. I may also be asked to participate in meetings, telephone conferences or other modes of communication where confidential information pertaining to Alpha Phi is disclosed and/or discussed. The confidential and proprietary information referred in paragraphs A and B of this Agreement is hereinafter referred to as the “Confidential Information.”*

[Jen]

I think they want to be able to enlist volunteers in helping with horrific recruitment practices that uphold racism, classism and exclusionary behaviour.

If the volunteers don't like what they see, nothing is currently stopping them from speaking out and informing, not only current members, but the general public. I think this NDA is an attempt to silence anyone that doesn't know what they're getting into. I don't think the fear is about initiation info or financials at all.



I don't think the members as a whole have any idea about the recruitment practices and the direction the sorority has been going in because the goal is to hide it behind the scenes. This would ensure it stays hidden.



I hope volunteers take a stand.

[SunflowerState]

I was an Alpha Phi advisor for quite a few years. 1,000s of hours of volunteer time. When I protested these practices, I was ignored. Repeatedly. I finally resigned. And, yes, all the things that are being said about the EOs practices are true.

[APhi2KD]

The steps toward termination were streamlined in the latest bylaws, as well.

[*winter*]

Ok...I’m genuinely curious here- as a complete outsider to this type of system. (My sorority is non selective; therefore our “selection” process is completely public.)

If a confused freshman comes here and asks why she wasn’t selected, everyone says, that’s membership selection information, which is private and ritual. It seems to be taken very seriously, so I’m surprised that organizations don’t already have these types of agreements. Granted, I didn’t read the entire agreement (and I’m not a legal person anyway), but what’s the issue? Wouldn’t it be good to have this type of agreement because you don’t want people discussing membership selection?

[NYCMS]

Any Alpha Phi's here who can shed light on this question - I'm curious when this focus on looks began for recruiting...I recall reading something here about it beginning at University of Arizona and I'm curious when it started and what sparked it.

I'm an alum of Arizona and knew many girls in the Alpha Phi chapter (this was late 70's). There was no fixation on looks back then - they had a wide range of girls (as did all chapters) and some of those I knew were super smart (Mortar Board, etc.), others were involved in campus groups, one gal won Homecoming Queen. Nice girls, but not the focus on looks that seems to be the case (like all chapters they had a range of looks). As a side note, even the chapters at Arizona known for 'pretty' girls back then didn't have that "babe" look I see on many campuses now among different sororities. You know, the long legs, long hair, skimpy clothing, "I'm so sexy", pouty lips, very posed look. Ugh.

Thanks for any info one might be able to share - if not, no worries.

[SWTXBelle]

Originally Posted by *winter*

Ok...I’m genuinely curious here- as a complete outsider to this type of system. (My sorority is non selective; therefore our “selection” process is completely public.)

If a confused freshman comes here and asks why she wasn’t selected, everyone says, that’s membership selection information, which is private and ritual. It seems to be taken very seriously, so I’m surprised that organizations don’t already have these types of agreements. Granted, I didn’t read the entire agreement (and I’m not a legal person anyway), but what’s the issue? Wouldn’t it be good to have this type of agreement because you don’t want people discussing membership selection?

If you look at 19th century fraternal organizations' rituals which are out there, they tend to have a component wherein the new initiate promises/swears/vows not to divulge ritual, which includes membership selection. It wasn't a legally enforceable agreement, at least to the best of my knowledge, but instead relied on the integrity of the person being initiated. With the advent of the internet, you had former members and malcontents posting ritual, but there's a catch 22 for any group in confronting that information - if they were to sue, 1. it would cost a lot of money and 2. it would confirm the validity of the information. GLOS have wisely, in my opinion, basically ignored internet postings of supposedly secret information.

The issue with Alpha Phi goes back to the release of membership selection information which appeared to be valid, and the HQ response.

[navane]

Originally Posted by *winter*

Ok...I’m genuinely curious here- as a complete outsider to this type of system. (My sorority is non selective; therefore our “selection” process is completely public.)

If a confused freshman comes here and asks why she wasn’t selected, everyone says, that’s membership selection information, which is private and ritual. It seems to be taken very seriously, so I’m surprised that organizations don’t already have these types of agreements. Granted, I didn’t read the entire agreement (and I’m not a legal person anyway), but what’s the issue? Wouldn’t it be good to have this type of agreement because you don’t want people discussing membership selection?

In this instance, I think the issue boils down to -- is it ok to keep something a secret when the secret is considered to be objectionable to a reasonable person's morals and all efforts to correct the problem from within have been unsuccessful?

[*winter*]

Thanks for answering. Makes sense!