Talk:Sigma Phi Delta

RfC: Sigma Phi Delta: professional or social?

There is a lack of consensus about how Sigma Phi Delta should be classified. Is it a professional fraternity, or is it a social fraternity? Sigma Phi Delta belongs to multiple trade groups. It belongs to the North-American Interfraternity Conference, primarily for social fraternities, and to the Professional Fraternity Association which is for professional groups. In addition, the argument has been made that because this is an all-male organization, it should automatically be classified as social due to Title IX. NYCRuss ☎ 21:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

No, there is not. Trade Associations do not dictate whether or not a group is social or professional; how it is classified by Title IX and by Baird's Manual are how a group is defined. Since fraternities and sororities are overwhelmingly a US thing, it stands to reason that these two sources are authoritative enough for Wikipedia. Justinm1978 (talk) 05:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

You may also want to read up on what Wikipedia already says about Professional fraternities and sororities, and see how Sigma Phi Delta does not truly fit as a professional fraternity within the context of the North American fraternity system. Justinm1978 (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Baird's classifies Sigma Phi Delta as a professional fraternity, and the very first sentence of the Title IX section of the Professional fraternities and sororities article also supports that a professional fraternity is not necessarily co-ed. NYCRuss ☎ 08:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Please provide a source for that claim. A simple search for "Sigma Phi Delta" social returns multiple sources indicating that this is a social fraternity with a professional emphasis, including one from the Alpha chapter. The fact that this group has NIC membership is enough for me to peg it as social, since that is a trade association consisting solely of social fraternities. I'm somewhat curious what your stake in this is, being that you're arguing this with absolutely nothing to back it up. Justinm1978 (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's the source:

Anson, Jack L.; Marchesani, Robert F. (1991). Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities (20th ed.). Indianapolis: Baird's Manual Foundation, Inc. pp. V 56–57. ISBN 0963715909. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Google searches are not legitimate sources for Wikipedia. You mentioned the NIC membership while neglecting to mention the PFA membership. What's my stake in this? I have none. What's yours? You have been persistently fixated on Title IX. You've cited that as reason for reversing edits, and then cited Title IX as the basis for the agreed upon classification for collegiate fraternal organizations on Wikipedia, as per Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-29 Infobox Fraternity. Upon reading that mediation, I realized that you have your facts very mixed up. The conclusion of that mediation was to use Baird's as the basis for classification, with the sole exception being new organizations that are not listed. Title IX is not a determining factor. Now, are you going to live up to the mediation that earlier you held as the final word? NYCRuss ☎ 20:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

As stated below, since Baird's was last published, the group took a stance because of Title IX implications on being a Professional fraternity while being single-gender, so even if we wanted to use Baird's here, we can't because we have information that the fraternity declared itself a Social Fraternity of Engineers. I have no facts mixed up; the group is not a professional fraternity any more than Triangle is due to their single-gender requirement. Justinm1978 (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

See my comments below that have the same time stamp as the one at the end of this sentence. NYCRuss ☎ 22:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I worked my way through the Sigma Phi Delta website, and found this statement in the fraternity history for 1990-1995 (http://www.sigmaphidelta.org/index.php?page=history&num=10) (From the 1993 convention)

The Thirtieth General Convention was held in Los Angeles, California, on September 2, 3 and 4, 1993. Pi Chapter members had moved en masse from their Chapter houses in Daytona Beach, Florida, leaving the housing board with almost $130,000 in renovations with no chapter to support them. A summons was issued for the Chapter to appear at a hearing during the 30th General Convention. After the hearing, the General Convention found the Chapter guilty on the charges of conduct prejudicial to good order, delinquency in accounts and violation of the Oath of Initiation. The Chapter was officially reprimanded, as provided for in the Statutory Code. They were instructed to provide 200 man-hours of labor to repair the trashing of the chapter houses. Failure to comply could result in a change of penalty to suspension.

Of considerable concern to the Delegates was the subject of a dual-gender organization. To remain strictly professional would require opening our membership to women engineers. The consensus was that we should be a social fraternity of engineers, which would permit us to retain our single-gender membership. (emphasis added)

To me this indicates that the Fraternity has dealt with the issue as to whether or not it is a social fraternity, and decided that to avoid having to open their membership to women engineers that they would be social. I was unable to find anything indicating that a change had been made since the 1993 convention.Naraht (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Note also, that this decision was made in 1993, after the most recent publication of Baird's, which was in 1991. Therefore, I don't believe that the inclusion of Sigma Phi Delta in an edition of Baird's (unclear whether refering to 1991 or not), represents an appropriate reference in regards to its current status.Naraht (talk) 13:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I would see another indicator of its status being whether or not one could join Sigma Phi Delta and then join Alpha Phi Alpha or Tau Kappa Epsilon. As those are both social fraternities and there are specific restrictions in the NIC on joining more than one social (general) fraternity. Justinm1978 (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The above quoted website information only confirms that Sigma Phi Delta in 1993 continued to view itself as a "professional-social" fraternity - a term that became obsolete for collegate fraternities due to Title IX. As indicated on the Sigma Phi Delta website under the pledging eligibility memo dated March 30, 2007, it is still calling itself a social-professional fraternity -- it also does not allow membership in the professional engineering fraternity, Theta Tau, or any social fraternity. Therefore, there is no indication Sigma Phi Delta has yet dealt with the issue of becoming a "social" fraternity as compared to what happened with Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia fraternity (e.g., removing references to professional fraternity, changing constitutional objective to no longer promote a specific profession, and ending membership in the PFA) (see also http://www.sinfonia.org/social). So unless Sigma Phi Delta makes changes, it is simply a professional engineering fraternity with a lot of social events. Also, based on Sigma Phi Delta website history, the fraternity will probably continue to call itself professional-social and try to stay male-only until it is challeged on why it is not co-ed (i.e., a university or individual makes a complaint of alledged discrimination against a recipient of Federal financial assistance). Newsun (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Reading the front page of their website, they use neither the phrase "social fraternity" nor "professional fraternity," but they do use the word "profession", while omitting the words "social" and "general." Here's what they say:

The object of the Sigma Phi Delta Fraternity shall be to promote the advancement of the Engineering Profession; to foster the advancement of Engineering Education; to instill a greater spirit of cooperation among Engineering students and organizations; to inculcate in its members the highest ideals of Virtuous manhood, good Citizenship, obedience to Law, and Brotherhood; and to encourage excellence in Scholarship.

If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck... NYCRuss ☎ 20:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

By this definition, then Triangle Fraternity is also a Professional Fraternity because they use the word profession in their objective:

The objectives of TRIANGLE, which apply to all members, are:

1. To help develop the highest standards of personal integrity and character, 2. To foster and provide an intellectual, mature environment for its members through individual and group effort and through the mutual companionship of men with similar professional interests and goals, 3. To foster and provide the broadening experience of fraternity living with its social and moral challenges and responsibilities for the individual and the chapter, 4. To recognize and support the objectives and goals of the alma mater and those of the community through responsible participation and action, 5. To help bridge the gap between undergraduate study and the vocation of the individual in industry, the academic world or government, 6. To foster and maintain a bond of fraternal brotherhood through a continuing program of activity for the alumni, and 7. To bring into focus the elements of planned progress for the betterment of mankind.

How do you reconcile that? Justinm1978 (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Triangle is not a member of the Professional Fraternity Association, and Sigma Phi Delta still is. Did you even read the quotation that you posted from Triangle? They mention "social" in a sentence that is balanced with other objectives. Sigma Phi Delta did join the NIC, but they never left the PFA. Aside from minor accommodations towards NIC membership, they never changed their behavior. They are the same fraternity that is classified as professional in the most recent edition of Baird's, which is the standard agreed upon in mediation. NYCRuss ☎ 22:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The above quoted website information about their history that I wrote earlier is also found in the Fraternity's pledge manual, on page 79, and as such is current. (http://www.sigmaphidelta.org/files/PLEDGE_MANUAL_10th_Edition.pdf) The quoted information clearly states that they consider themselves a social fraternity of engineers. Dropping their membership in the PFA is not necessary, the way that the PFA requirements are written, if Sigma Alpha Epsilon suddenly decided to restrict their membership to only those members majoring in Music with an emphasis in Bassoon, they could join PFA, without leaving the NIC. See the PFA Fraternal membership application at (http://www.chaptertools.net/site_files/file_1236354245.pdf). And the PFA actually recently *widened* their scope, as Alpha Phi Omega, the National Service Fraternity recently joined.

We are of course trying to figure out which side of the line the organization belongs where the organization has spent the last 70+ years *deliberately* trying to straddle the line as effectively as possible. (see pages 9-10 of the above pledge manual for more straddling) :) However, when push came to shove, when the question of admitting women was raised (for the 3rd or 4th time), the answer was "Social Fraternity of Engineers".Naraht (talk) 20:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the question should be: Is a collegiate organization still a professional fraternity when it was founded as professional fraternity, calls itself a professional-social fraternity, and continues to have a main purpose to promote a specific profession? If the answer is yes, then even if such a professional fraternity calls itself a “social fraternity” when it is convenient (i.e., in order to claim Title IX exemption as a social fraternity), it is still a professional fraternity. Based on past history of granted Title IX exemption letters, an organization cannot straddle the line with Title IX -- a social fraternity cannot continue have a main purpose to promote a specific profession for Title IX exemption (see the history of Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia and Sigma Alpha Iota on how they had to change for Title IX exemption). Newsun (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

In the case of Sigma Phi Delta, the history note of 1993 does states consensus that the fraternity should be a “social fraternity of engineers”, but since 1993 there appears to be no changes to stop being a professional fraternity. According to the the 2010 website 1) a main object to “promote the advancement of the Engineering Profession” is still in the 2006 constitution; 2) the website and accessible documents do not state it is a social fraternity, but a 2007 memo indicates the fraternity still calls itself a social-professional fraternity; 2) the 2007 memo also indicates the fraternity does not allow dual membership with Theta Tau, the professional engineering fraternity; and 4) the 2003 fraternity pledge manual on page 8 continues to imply that a professional fraternity can also be a social fraternity (i.e., the professional-social fraternity). Therefore, Sigma Phi Delta is still functioning as a professional fraternity. Perhaps Sigma Phi Delta wants to truly be a social fraternity and be exempt under Title IX, but it still has not changed from being a professional fraternity (this is also true of few other professional fraternities that still call themselves professional-social). Newsun (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

What would be wrong in saying it is both a social AND professional fraternity? Freddiem (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Can this discussion be moved to Professional fraternities and sororities? The result of this discussion would also clarify the type/scope of the few other collegiate professional fraternities that still call themselves professional-social and are trying to stay single-gender despite Title IX, these include Alpha Gamma Rho, Alpha Gamma Sigma, Delta Theta Sigma, and Alpha Omega Epsilon. Newsun (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that it is best to tackle Sigma Phi Delta alone. Grouping it with others, such as Alpha Gamma Rho, will obfuscate this issue. NYCRuss ☎ 01:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

References for Membership of Sigma Phi Delta

To give references to NYCRuss's original statement, Sigma Phi Delta is a member of both the North-American Interfraternity Conference (http://www.nicindy.org/about/) and the Professional Fraternity Association (http://www.profraternity.org/page.php?parent_id=&page_id=106623).Naraht (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Sigma Phi Delta CoA.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Sigma Phi Delta CoA.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

File:SPD logotype.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:SPD logotype.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Table-ize the history?

I can't come up with any other examples where the history per chapter is done this way. I think the article would be better served with a table with chapter name, location, date and maybe notes.Naraht (talk) 14:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)