NALFO/NPC

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Lane swerve for outsider question.

Would it have to be an NPC-NPHC UA? Could there just a be an NPC UA that no NPC sorority will initiate a member of an NPC, NPHC or NALFO sorority? Or could individual NPC sororities adopt their own rules on the matter, just as they do with rules about AI or initiating grad students, and just as some of the NPHC sororities have done?

/lane swerve

Yeah, I don't see why it would have to be a UA. Individual groups can make their own policies on this one; there's no reason for it to be an intra-NPC issue. And in fact, the reason for such policies is the reciprocity...it would make NO sense for the NPC to create a UA without the other councils' agreeing.

[Sciencewoman]

It's a mid-October recruitment, and there is apparently a NPC no-contact rule once class starts. My take-away was that NALFO groups are getting a month or so head start recruiting members at the beginning of the school year, because they are not bound to the no-contact rule. I'm not sure when actual invitations to join are offered by the NALFO groups (before, during, or after NPC format recruitment).

ETA: Yes, SoCalGirl, your first paragraph is what I'm describing. In this case, I think the gap is actually more like a month.

[SoCalGirl]

I think during the no contact period the CPC is supposed to be publicizing recruitment and getting women to sign up. A chapter is not supposed to promote their individual chapter but instead encourage everyone to go greek.

If a school has a greek system where the IFC and NPC work together to promote going greek but the MCGLOs are separate and able to give bids during that time, I think the school needs to either 1) move up recruitment or 2) get all the councils on campus to work together. In a perfect world all greeks would promote greekdom in general while educating PNMs about the different groups so the PNM can chose to pursue what's best for him/her.

[knight_shadow]

Are these NPC groups REALLY at a disadvantage? I doubt the extra week or so of NPHC/LGLO/MCGLO activities are cannibalizing NPC/IFC recruitment efforts.

I'm wondering if anyone has actually looked at the numbers to see if there's any negative impact to NPC rush (at Sciencewoman's school) or if it's just a "THEY GET TO DO IT IT'S NOT FAIR" thing that's happening.

[PersistentDST]

Originally Posted by SoCalGirl

I think during the no contact period the CPC is supposed to be publicizing recruitment and getting women to sign up. A chapter is not supposed to promote their individual chapter but instead encourage everyone to go greek.

If a school has a greek system where the IFC and NPC work together to promote going greek but the MCGLOs are separate and able to give bids during that time, I think the school needs to either 1) move up recruitment or 2) get all the councils on campus to work together. In a perfect world all greeks would promote greekdom in general while educating PNMs about the different groups so the PNM can chose to pursue what's best for him/her.

While I do agree that all GLO's should be open to intermingling and working together, there are many things that will not overlap. A prime example would be "bids." NPHC organizations (for sure) and the NALFO organizations that are active in my area do not do a bidding process. The NALFO organization currently on the campus has a process similar to those of the NPHC. While NPC organizations are sure to have recruitment every year (minus a campus ban or something extreme), the organizations I am aware of may or may not choose to have intake every year. There is no purpose to have a no contact period because we do not "recruit." If a person is interested (we do not use PNM in our language) they are more than welcome to come to events and learn about our organizations.


I think that learning more about each others councils would be a great start, because it helps during conversations like this one. Having a program to promote all GLO's on campus is great idea, but we need to make it clear that each council is different and may have different goals/initiatives/traditions. Heck, we barely speak the same language (Community service vs. philanthropy/PNM/intake/etc. etc.)


I can say that if I caught wind of a person who went through the process was initiated into a NALPO organization and then "quit" the organization and tried to get into my organization, it would be a swift NO. I give equal respect to the NPHC, NPC and NALPO. The NALPO is not just some fringe "multicultural" council. This chapter took their time and energy and decided to pick the OP to be in their lifetime sisterhood, and she quit. I see this same conversation about PNM's not wanting to be in a chapter when the women took their time and energy to offer a bid to them and there is no sympathy in those posts. I feel none in this situation either. Same difference.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by PersistentDST

I can say that if I caught wind of a person who went through the process was initiated into a NALPO organization and then "quit" the organization and tried to get into my organization, it would be a swift NO. I give equal respect to the NPHC, NPC and NALPO. The NALPO is not just some fringe "multicultural" council. This chapter took their time and energy and decided to pick the OP to be in their lifetime sisterhood, and she quit. I see this same conversation about PNM's not wanting to be in a chapter when the women took their time and energy to offer a bid to them and there is no sympathy in those posts. I feel none in this situation either. Same difference.

On a philosophical level, I agree. A woman who re-negged on her commitment is not an attractive prospect. On a practical level, though, the reason we don't take women who dropped out of other NPC's is because we don't want them doing it to us.

[tld221]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

On a philosophical level, I agree. A woman who re-negged on her commitment is not an attractive prospect. On a practical level, though, the reason we don't take women who dropped out of other NPC's is because we don't want them doing it to us.

And so to Sen's point about seeing NPHC and NALFO orgs in te same value as NPC orgs, are you saying you can't see this scenario practically?

Because a woman dropping out of a NALFO org and coming to your org would be less offensive? You wouldn't want an NPC sister depledging for a NALFO or NPHC org in the same vein?

In other words, the disdain is only felt intracouncil, not intercoucil.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by tld221

And so to Sen's point about seeing NPHC and NALFO orgs in te same value as NPC orgs, are you saying you can't see this scenario practically?

Because a woman dropping out of a NALFO org and coming to your org would be less offensive? You wouldn't want an NPC sister depledging for a NALFO or NPHC org in the same vein?

In other words, the disdain is only felt intracouncil, not intercoucil.

And I'm saying it's got nothing to do with "disdain." As soon as NALFO groups start stealing an appreciable number of women from NPC groups, it will benefit NPC groups to form an agreement with NALFO. Until then, we can argue all we want about lifetime commitments, but that's not the driving factor for the NPC UA and it won't be enough to make a rule about not pledging former members of NALFO groups.

[OPhiAGinger]

Originally Posted by PersistentDST

I can say that if I caught wind of a person who went through the process was initiated into a NALPO organization and then "quit" the organization and tried to get into my organization, it would be a swift NO.... This chapter took their time and energy and decided to pick the OP to be in their lifetime sisterhood, and she quit.

About ten years ago Omega Phi Alpha had an issue with one of our chapters that is relevant to this discussion. This chapter was very successful at attracting large pledge classes, but they also had a really big retention problem. Even with the large pledge classes, they seemed to turn over almost their entire chapter every 3 semesters or so. Eventually we discovered that women on that campus viewed OPA as a pathway to the NPHC sorority of their dreams. They would pledge OPA, get initiated, and rack up an impressive amount of community service hours performed on OPA chapter-sponsored projects. If she was successful in securing an invitation to join the other group, she would immediately dump OPA. Regardless of the fact that they made a lifetime commitment to OPA, they were using OPA just to meet the service requirement of the other org.

The issue eventually resolved itself, but I'm curious about how the NPHC leadership would view a situation like this.

[DrPhil]

There is nothing wrong with membership in a social GLO and a service GLO. That is not "dual membership" in the sense that we are discussing in this thread. As for violating a service GLO's "lifetime commitment", not every chapter of service GLOs teach "lifetime commitment". Those that do will have difficulty overcoming the varying cultures. If someone has always been told a service GLO is a club to join to get more involved in the community but nothing more longterm and dedicated than that, there will be people who will view a service GLO as transitional.

ETA: That doesn't mean none of these people did community service before joining the service GLO. Some people join service GLOs because they love service and want to further their community service. When I was interested in joining APO it was after years of community service in high school and college. I ended up not joining for a number of reasons but some of the members of that APO chapter expressed a lifetime commitment to service but not necessarily a lifetime commitment to APO as an organization.

[Sen's Revenge]

Originally Posted by OPhiAGinger

About ten years ago Omega Phi Alpha had an issue with one of our chapters that is relevant to this discussion. This chapter was very successful at attracting large pledge classes, but they also had a really big retention problem. Even with the large pledge classes, they seemed to turn over almost their entire chapter every 3 semesters or so. Eventually we discovered that women on that campus viewed OPA as a pathway to the NPHC sorority of their dreams. They would pledge OPA, get initiated, and rack up an impressive amount of community service hours performed on OPA chapter-sponsored projects. If she was successful in securing an invitation to join the other group, she would immediately dump OPA. Regardless of the fact that they made a lifetime commitment to OPA, they were using OPA just to meet the service requirement of the other org.

The issue eventually resolved itself, but I'm curious about how the NPHC leadership would view a situation like this.

On the NPHC side, I tell aspirants that they are dead-ass wrong for using APO, OPA, or GSS service hours to count toward community service toward an NPHC org. My rationale is that you are SUPPOSED to do service for a service GLO, and you are REQUIRED to do service for a service GLO. For an NPHC org, we only ought to be counting the service that you didn't HAVE to do to maintain your membership in something else, but the service you WANT to do, unselfishly.

In my opinion, the work really needs to be done on the NPHC side, for those orgs who require prior service.

[Titchou]

Actually the reason NPC groups don't do it is because we have a rule against it. The rule was instituted because groups were stealing members from other groups. NPC doesn't happen to have a reciprocal rule with any others. Should we? That's not up to me but it evidently isn't a priority for NPHC and NALFO and NPC at the moment (though I understand some NPHC groups forbid membership in NIC groups and maybe others).

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Titchou

NPC doesn't happen to have a reciprocal rule with any others. Should we?

Hence our discussion.

Originally Posted by Titchou

That's not up to me but it evidently isn't a priority for NPHC and NALFO and NPC at the moment (though I understand some NPHC groups forbid membership in NIC groups and maybe others).

It is a priority for some of us. Even if some GLOs don't have national policies, there are chapters establishing their own guidelines regarding this.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Titchou

. . . (though I understand some NPHC groups forbid membership in NIC groups and maybe others).

Four of the five NPHC fraternities are also members of the NIC, so that settles issues of dual membership for everyone but Omega, the one NPHC fraternity not also in the NIC.

As Dr. Phil and others have noted, some of the four NPHC sororities forbid dual membership with NPC sororities.

[TSteven]

Originally Posted by Titchou

Actually the reason NPC groups don't do it is because we have a rule against it. The rule was instituted because groups were stealing members from other groups. NPC doesn't happen to have a reciprocal rule with any others. Should we? That's not up to me but it evidently isn't a priority for NPHC and NALFO and NPC at the moment (though I understand some NPHC groups forbid membership in NIC groups and maybe others).

Four of the five NPHC fraternities are also members of the NIC (as are several NALFO fraternities) and as such, they also follow NIC Bylaws. The NIC does not allow duel membership in “general (social) fraternities”. As I understand it, regardless of the conference/council.

However, if a member resigns from a “general” fraternity and seeks membership in a second “general” fraternity, once the second fraternity has been formally notified in writing by the national office of the first fraternity that the candidate is no longer a member, then he may be initiated into the second fraternity – but only if the second fraternity (or chapter) allows it. In other words, while the NIC may allow it, a specific fraternity (or chapter) may not.

ETA: I saw MysticCat already replied. (Perhaps I should read the thread to the end before replying.)