NALFO/NPC

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by PersistentDST

Freemasonry and OES don't fit into this specific discussion, just like professional and service organizations don't fit into this specific discussion. We are talking about "General" or "Social" GLO's.


The NPC has rules in place so that an initiate of one sorority can never be initiated into another under their umbrella. The point was to make sure that chapters could not steal members from another sorority, whether it be about harmony or just balance. Whatever the reason, there is an agreement and mutual respect. Mutual. Respect.


The NPHC, NALFO and NMGC doesn't want their members stolen either. And would enjoy the mutual respect as we are all "general" organizations. (I really don't like calling my sorority "social" or "general" because we are MUCH more than that, but for the sake of argument I'll call it that.) Even if there is not some type of "agreement," there should be the same level of respect. It is not always afforded to us, because we are considered "other" or an alternative. We aren't.


The OP was initiated into the NALFO organization, and then said it wasn't for her (which she should have taken the time to figure out before initiation). And then says that she is worried that the NPC colony will have concerns about her being in a "multicultural" sorority. It's not a "multicultural" sorority. It is a sorority. She wanted sisterhood, she got it, and she quit on them. (There is no disaffiliation in my lexicon.)


Chi Omega Fraternity. Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated. Lambda Theta Alpha Latin Sorority, Incorporated. Mutual. Respect.

What do you think the ideal situation would be? An agreement across councils?

[PersistentDST]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

What do you think the ideal situation would be? An agreement across councils?

I would love to see is an agreement across councils. And frankly, that requires acknowledgement and respect of the seperate councils first and foremost. While we do not need to have some drawn out history lesson about each council or organization, it would be great if we were more informed about each other. I think that if people are informed, it would help to change the stigma that outside of the NPC/IFC that our organizations aren't somehow equal, because a majority population of the organizations are not White.

When we have discussions on GC, things tend to be NPC-centric, but the majority of the active posters are from the NPC. I get that. I think generally we are respectful of each other. But at times a topic like this comes along and it shows the "otherness" of our organizations.
We read posts all the time about PNM's or initiates of NPC Sororities who decide they do not want to be in the organization that gave them a bid. GC is not very sympathetic towards the PNM the majority of the time. "That chapter saw something in you, and you didn't give them a chance." I reacted the same way when I read the OP's post. But generally, the reaction is not filled with the same disappointment and outrage despite the situation being the same. That is what I mean by "otherness."

It's deeper than agreements and paperwork. If we can first respect each other equally, then an agreement across councils would be a great idea. I am a realist (and a pessimist at times) and I don't see it happening.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by PersistentDST

It's deeper than agreements and paperwork. If we can first respect each other equally, then an agreement across councils would be a great idea. I am a realist (and a pessimist at times) and I don't see it happening.

This.

Aside from the fact that I don't like the idea of councils dictating who can and can't be members of their member organizations, I think this cross-council kumbaya talk is much ado about nothing.

"Let's all have equal footing when it comes to rush/recruitment/intake" doesn't translate to "We're all equals" when socials are only held among groups that have housing or when "we'll reach out to you again when we need a step team for Greek Week" happens.

Until there's a paradigm shift where groups are actively learning about and engaging with groups other than the ones like theirs, no amount of YAY JOINT RUSH is going to fix things.

Plus, the way we bring in members varies among groups (ie. city-wide, grad chapters, rush before school starts, 365 recruitment, balanced man, etc) -- what kind of agreement would address all of these things? And what about "general interest/social" organizations that aren't members of national councils?

[navane]

Originally Posted by PersistentDST

The NPC has rules in place so that an initiate of one sorority can never be initiated into another under their umbrella. The point was to make sure that chapters could not steal members from another sorority, whether it be about harmony or just balance. Whatever the reason, there is an agreement and mutual respect. Mutual. Respect.


The NPHC, NALFO and NMGC doesn't want their members stolen either. And would enjoy the mutual respect as we are all "general" organizations. (I really don't like calling my sorority "social" or "general" because we are MUCH more than that, but for the sake of argument I'll call it that.) Even if there is not some type of "agreement," there should be the same level of respect. It is not always afforded to us, because we are considered "other" or an alternative. We aren't.


The OP was initiated into the NALFO organization, and then said it wasn't for her (which she should have taken the time to figure out before initiation). And then says that she is worried that the NPC colony will have concerns about her being in a "multicultural" sorority. It's not a "multicultural" sorority. It is a sorority. She wanted sisterhood, she got it, and she quit on them. (There is no disaffiliation in my lexicon.)


Chi Omega Fraternity. Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Incorporated. Lambda Theta Alpha Latin Sorority, Incorporated. Mutual. Respect.

+1 on this. Very well stated.


I have to say that I'm a little confused by some of the explanations that have been posted about why NPC has the UA in question. I never understood that UA to be about money or weak vs. strong chapters. I always perceived that UA to be a means for NPC to hold women to their vows and to discourage GLO-hopping.

I hold that same standard for NALFO, NPHC and NMGC orgs. If a woman from Delta Sigma Theta or Lambda Theta Alpha walked up to me and said she wanted to rush or AI Gamma Phi Beta, I would look sideways at her. That just doesn't make any sense to me. And the anecdote posted earlier about my organization AIing a woman from a NALFO sorority saddens me.

Joining an NPHC, NALFO or NMGC is not a practice round or a place to stall for time before getting to join a so-called "real" (NPC) sorority. No. No. No. Official NPC UAs or not, NPCs should take membership in other council GLOs seriously and respect those vows just as much as we respect our own (and each others).

[33girl]

Originally Posted by navane

I have to say that I'm a little confused by some of the explanations that have been posted about why NPC has the UA in question. I never understood that UA to be about money or weak vs. strong chapters. I always perceived that UA to be a means for NPC to hold women to their vows and to discourage GLO-hopping.

I think it's a little bit of all these things. It would be nice if it was just about not breaking a vow, but it would also be nice if the only reason people went into politics was because they wanted to help their fellow man and do good in the world.

[DrPhil]

Navane for president.

Originally Posted by 33girl

...help their fellow man and do good in the world.

No fellow women?

[33girl]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Navane for president.



No fellow women?

No, screw them. They walk into rooms and forget why. (Please tell me I am not the only one annoyed by that meme on Facebook. )

[DrPhil]

We don't need a hypothetical utopian agreement across councils. That's as annoying as a diversity workshop to get people to "play nice". When people have expressed time and time again that they don't care about certain organizations, and that they need to be reminded about the relevance of those organizations (hence, the comments in this thread), it is exhausting and results in annoyance or apathy on both sides.

To hell with it.

[tld221]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Someone might hit me for this, but the NPC UA about once you pledge one you can't ever pledge another, is less about harmony and love and more about realizing we all have weaker and stronger chapters and if we take advantage of something at School A, we can get bitten in the ass at School B.

So what you're saying is... without the UA, weaker chapter at School B would lose folks left and right for other (stronger, better, different) chapters and stronger chapter at the same school would be forced to:

(a) rush a bunch of girls who've quit on their first orgs and looking for a new home
(b) forced to internally make their own stances on the issue, creating inconsistencies and effing up the order of tiers and statuses. Who wants the be the house that openly takes the quitters?

Even if the focus of NPC rush isn't on lifelong loyalty, this is less about NPC stealing girls. This is about protecting numbers and literally maintaining status quo(ta).

Originally Posted by PersistentDST

We read posts all the time about PNM's or initiates of NPC Sororities who decide they do not want to be in the organization that gave them a bid. GC is not very sympathetic towards the PNM the majority of the time. "That chapter saw something in you, and you didn't give them a chance." I reacted the same way when I read the OP's post. But generally, the reaction is not filled with the same disappointment and outrage despite the situation being the same. That is what I mean by "otherness."

It's deeper than agreements and paperwork. If we can first respect each other equally, then an agreement across councils would be a great idea. I am a realist (and a pessimist at times) and I don't see it happening.

Again, what I was getting at earlier. Im the same realist/pessimist and as much as I wanna be down for the kumbaya, I'd much rather folks blatantly say "no, we don't see your organizations as the same. your traditions are yours and have value to you, but we don't want or need to regard it with the same respect."

Maybe it IS unrealistic to expect that.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

We don't need a hypothetical utopian agreement across councils. That's as annoying as a diversity workshop to get people to "play nice". When people have expressed time and time again that they don't care about certain organizations, and that they need to be reminded about the relevance of those organizations (hence, the comments in this thread), it is exhausting and results in annoyance or apathy on both sides.

To hell with it.

Yeah, that.

[PersistentDST]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

We don't need a hypothetical utopian agreement across councils. That's as annoying as a diversity workshop to get people to "play nice". When people have expressed time and time again that they don't care about certain organizations, and that they need to be reminded about the relevance of those organizations (hence, the comments in this thread), it is exhausting and results in annoyance or apathy on both sides.

To hell with it.

Your are correct. It is annoying to have to remind people about my international sorority with over 900+ chapters full of accomplished women. I shouldn't have to.

Originally Posted by tld221

Again, what I was getting at earlier. Im the same realist/pessimist and as much as I wanna be down for the kumbaya, I'd much rather folks blatantly say "no, we don't see your organizations as the same. your traditions are yours and have value to you, but we don't want or need to regard it with the same respect."

Maybe it IS unrealistic to expect that.

Me too.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by tld221

So what you're saying is... without the UA, weaker chapter at School B would lose folks left and right for other (stronger, better, different) chapters and stronger chapter at the same school would be forced to:

(a) rush a bunch of girls who've quit on their first orgs and looking for a new home
(b) forced to internally make their own stances on the issue, creating inconsistencies and effing up the order of tiers and statuses. Who wants the be the house that openly takes the quitters?

Unfortunately, it sometimes depends on the social standing/perception of the organization the girls left. If XYZ is looked at as a "joke" for whatever reason, people aren't going to be harsh on ABC for taking in Jenny the ex-XYZ, especially if "Jenny was just a naïve freshman who didn't know what she was doing." Or especially if Jenny is more attractive/popular/campus involved than the average member of XYZ.

You'd like to think women who are legally young adults have already grasped the concept of "there but for the grace of God go I," but often times, not. That also applies to bidding someone from another council. You shouldn't have to make a rule, but unfortunately, it appears you do.

I'm not touching on the male side just because the purpose of NIC and NPC is so vastly different.

[PersistentDST]

Originally Posted by 33girl

You'd like to think women who are legally young adults have already grasped the concept of "there but for the grace of God go I," but often times, not. That also applies to bidding someone from another council. You shouldn't have to make a rule, but unfortunately, it appears you do.

I totally agree.

And now I see a thread scolding a young lady for quitting recruitment twice. And I laugh. Oh well...we have already established the bias...I'll let it go.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by PersistentDST

I totally agree.

And now I see a thread scolding a young lady for quitting recruitment twice. And I laugh. Oh well...we have already established the bias...I'll let it go.

She didn't drop the "by the way I'm in a multicultural sorority" pearl until halfway through the thread. She didn't quit, she just has really lame reasons about why she couldn't go through rush at all.