Talk:National Pan-Hellenic Council

Service/Social

Copying of a conversation regarding service vs. social status for NPHC fraternities and sororities...

Please don't test edit with NPHC sororities and fraternities. The links are invalid. I have to rollback 9 links that you have test edited. Real96 05:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I undid your reverting of my changes. The links were to valid articles. The organizations in question are not classified as strictly service fraternities, such as Alpha Phi Omega, Gamma Sigma Sigma and Omega Phi Alpha are. While NPHC greek-lettered organizations do service, they're still social fraternties like the IFC and NPC greek-lettered organizations are. See Service fraternities and sororities for a clearer definition. The change was not vandalism, and charges of vandalism (which I see you have a history of making) are not valid. Justinm1978 14:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If you make a reversion that drastic, then I suggest you make a note on the article's talk page before reverting. I do not feel in getting an edit war with you over something that trivial. However, I do feel, that the Alpha Phi Alpha article in which you inserted information will get reverted back because the article is currently a FA and was listed as a service fraternity. In addition, please be Civil with your commments. Thank you! Real96 14:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That's fine you feel that way, but it's not a drastic change, and I'm fairly certain it will stand once the definition of "Service Fraternity" is clarified. I suggest some civility with your comments and edits as well, I found your accusation of vandalism to be most insulting. Please review the vandalism policy before making such accusations and issuing warnings. Justinm1978 15:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) 1. I really don't care at this point as if the sororities/fraternities are "social/service". All can be categorized as social, but the organizations do service...again trivial. 2. This comment: and charges of vandalism (which I see you have a history of making) was uncivil. 3. I believed that your edits constituted vandalism, because with each edit, you did not place an edit summary. Many times NPHC articles get vandalized by prospective candidates or people who really don't give the respect for the organization. 4. Please keep the conversation on this page, per my talk rules. Thanks! Real96 17:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have a policy on this, but in the case of a conversation like this, my talk policy is to replicate information on both talk pages until the conversation is over, then the conversation is either deleted or moved to an appropriate article. Please respect my policy on this matter. If you wish to continue this conversation, it will need to be moved to a mutually acceptable location. I propose the talk page for the NPHC. If you find that acceptable, please continue the conversation there. Justinm1978 22:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not trivial. Whether or not the NPHC groups are social fraternities and sororities or service fraternities or sororities determines *Legally* whether they can be single gendered. If Alpha Phi Alpha, for example were to declare itself as a service fraternity, it would have to admit women as full and equal members of the fraternity. See the information about Title IX at Service fraternities and sororities.Naraht 18:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this isn't exactly a trivial matter. The legal definition is the one that needs to be applied. Not all fraternities/sororities can be categorized as social. The IFC and NPC greek-lettered organizations do service too, but they are by definition a social organization just like the NPHC GLO's. Justinm1978 22:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The Alpha Phi Alpha article addresses its status as Service vs Social. The sentence and verifable source is provided: Alpha Phi Alpha began its continuing commitment of providing scholarships for needy students and initiating various other charitable and service projects and evolved from a social fraternity to a primarily community service organization.[1] See second paragraph of Service fraternities and sororities, I think Alpha Phi Alpha meets this definition and the other 8 members perform the same type of serive.

Regarding Title IX, what is your response to this sentence taken from the Service fraternities and sororities page, Service fraternities, like professional fraternities and Honor Societies must be open to members of both genders since they do not have an exemption from Title IX similar to the one given in section (A)(6)(a) for Social Fraternities and Sororities? I'm not current on Alpha Phi Omega, Gamma Sigma Sigma or Omega Phi Alpha, but the first now accepts females, but only in cetain chapters, and the last 2 are still women sororities from what I could gather from the articles. Where am I wrong and how can they be still deemed Service regarding a strick adherence to Title IX?--Ccson 15:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Alpha Phi Omega is now legally co-ed in all chapters. All Alpha Phi Omega chapters which previously did not allow women as brothers are now required to. Any Alpha Phi Omega chapter which has previously been all-male which has not either admitted women or shown to have tried to recruit women by our next convention will be brought up for charter revocation by the National Fraternity for failure to follow the National by-laws. As for Gamma Sigma Sigma and Omega Phi Alpha, I know that Gamma Sigma Sigma does have some male sisters. That they do not enforce it the way that Alpha Phi Omega now does is their own choice and risk. (I don't know if Omega Phi Alpha has male sisters)

Alpha Phi Omega tried for almost 10 years after Title IX was passed to have a service fraternity/sorority exemption added including getting a bill actually introduced in the House of Representatives but was unable to. Our decision not to enforce this was a decision of risk to not lose those chapters which had indicated they might leave were they to be forced co-ed. I'll be happy to answer any questions on Alpha Phi Omega in this way, I'm on the National History Committee. Naraht 16:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Reminder: personal knowledge of male sisters in the two sororities is original research. Citing sources may help maintain a neutral and verifiable article. Have you changed their status to Social based on Title IX? According to the APO article, as of 2007 you have at least 10 chapters which are all-male, As a member of the National History Committee, do you classify these chapters as "Social" or "Service"?--Ccson 02:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

For Gamma Sigma Sigma, See GSS Membership for their lack of descrimination based on Gender. Still working on Omega Phi Alpha. I have seen women who were both in OMega Phi Alpha and Social Sorority, I'll find a link in the morning. BTW, the original concept of these splits almost certainly goes back to Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Naraht (talk • contribs) 03:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

As a member of the alumni volunteer staff, I would say these chapters are classified as not being in compliance with the National Bylaws of Alpha Phi Omega, and have been given a time frame to come into compliance or risk negative action be taken against their chapter. I think as an Alpha yourself, youve got a lot of original research going on yourself, and have some bias against this change. Nowhere on the [APhiA website] does it list them group as a "service fraternity" (see [seach cache]. By your definition that because they do a lot of service then that is their classification, means that virtually *all* greek-lettered organzations need to be re-classified as service instead of social because of their philanthropic and service work. Justinm1978 03:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If you have groups that are not in compliance and they are still active, your group is not in-line with title IX and you should relist your group as Social. Title IX has been in existence for years and surely any grace period has expired. Plus, in your research, can you tell me where it says that the type as listed in wikipeida infobox must be inline with title IX? Also, it's not my view of why APA is a service group, the source I provided is from a past general president who stated the fraternity has evolved to a primarily service organization, The other greek groups perform some service as APA did in the past, but still they consider their prirmary goal to be social, APA no longer is a social group, per the group, not me.--Ccson 05:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[reset indent] The type listed in the Wikipedia infobox must be in-line with the legal definition of the organization, otherwise the information is incorrect. Are you suggesting that it be allowed for a featured article to contain erroneous information? I don't see how this is a disputable point. The fact that we have APO chapters that are acting not in accordance with the national bylaws does not change the fact that the national bylaws state that the organization is non-discriminatory. If any other GLO had a chapter operating outside the policies laid forth in their national bylaws, that would not change the legal status of the national organization. Example: if a Que Psi Phi chapter was accused of hazing, that would not make the national organization law-breakers; that would make that chapter not in compliance with the Omega Psi Phi policies and the law.

This is a matter of organizational classification, not whether or not the unauthorized actions of individual chapters. I respect that you've invested a lot of time into the APhiA article, but Wikipedia is a community contribution, and all articles need to be presented as being from NPOV. I'd be interested to see a written document showing the transition from social to service, and when APA plans to go co-ed (as required by Title IX), otherwise that's original research, and will cause this article to lose it's featured status if someone wants to push the issue. Justinm1978 05:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is it written as you stated The type listed in the Wikipedia infobox must be in-line with the legal definition of the organization, otherwise the information is incorrect? Narahat statement here contradicts the APO article when he states above that all chapters are legally co-ed, when in fact the article says many are not. If all APO chapters are not legally co-ed as Narahat says, then leaglly you're not a full fledge Service fraternity, and until your 2008 national convention when you revoke memberships from those offending chapter, you're not legally a Service fraternity according to title ix, and per your reasoning, the APO wikipedia article is incorrect. The fact that over 30 years have passed since title IX was implemented and you still allow chapters to exist who open violate title ix suggests that your change to by-laws is only perfunctory so you can say you've satisfied on paper, but not by actions. Regarding Omega Psi Phi, national organizations legally liable and sued if local chapters are found guilty of hazing? Have you changed the other groups that are not legally co-ed as well APO? If you're going to apply a rule, it must be done without bias.--Ccson 15:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

No, APO is co-ed and does not discriminate as a matter of national policy. APA actively discriminates against women as a matter of national policy, and therefore can't be classified as strictly service due to Title IX. We don't allow chapters to discriminate, and they have been given a timeline to come into compliance. Regarding your Omega Psi Phi comment...anybody can be sued at any time for any thing, but the organization is liable if they condone the action. If you want APA to stick as service without bias, then all GLO's that do service projects need to be classified as service. Being classified as a social isn't an insult to APA; the fraternity does great service, but that's not their ultimate purpose. What does APA's articles of incorporation article say they are? I can't find this document to verify their legal standing, which really has the ultimate say on this. APO"s Articles of Incorporation and National Bylaws clearly state that they are founded as a national service fraternity [[2]].Justinm1978 15:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

In regards to Omega Phi Alpha, see [Omega Phi Alpha Constitution and By-laws], Article III, Sections 9 & 12.

You have not answered my primary question, again; Where is it written as you stated The type listed in the Wikipedia infobox must be in-line with the legal definition of the organization, otherwise the information is incorrect? I'm not basing APA status on Title IX, and until you provide the wikipedia policy that it must be in line with Title IX, I can't agree to the change. If you can find the proof, I will agree to the change because APA is obviously all male and wants to remain all male. I understand it's not a insult to be classified as social, many groups are and at one point Alpha Phi Alpha was, but it has evolved in its 100 year history to be Service. Alpha Phi Alpha's mission statement is documented in the infobox and the purpose is listed in the "Consolidation and expansion section". If changing the by-laws is all it takes to be legally Serice, why have you admitted any females, and why are you forcing offending chapters to accept females. Does the national group feel that if investigated that it would lose its status because a few rogue chapters, if "yes", then its clear you're a social group according to title IX based on your view of the "type", and in good, unbiased faith, that's how you should list APO's type in wikipedia. I want the APA and all GLO articles to be correct and open to review whatever policies and documents you have to prove your point.--Ccson 13:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight: you are asking me "where is it written that the information presented on wikipedia in an organization's userbox has to be factual?" That is what I am taking your question to be. It is the standing policy of Wikipedia to be as accurate as possible. We have produced documentation on APO and OPA declaring themselves to be national service fraternities and being co-ed. APA is legally classified as a social fraternity by it's acceptance of discrimination by Title IX and by the campuses which host chapters. I want to work with you here, but you haven't produced any documentation that corroborates your opinion in the form of national bylaws/articles of incorporation that define your group as a national service fraternity. A mission statement is not legal defining policy, it is a statement of objectives. As for APO's admittance of females (which isn't really germane to this discussion, but I'll add it anyway), it was a conscious decision of the active members (the students) in 1976 to accept women into full membership, just like it was a conscious decision of the active members (again, the students) to agree that no chapter shall be allowed to continue to discriminate and that APO will enforce this policy. I don't think APO as a national organization is worried that if they are investigated they would lose it's status, rather they want all chatpers to practice the same membership policies. I don't see it a decision made out of fear, it is a decision made in the best interests of the fraternity as a whole. Justinm1978 20:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Justinm1978, you are distorting my question, I said nothing about the info didn't need to be factual. I guess i'm questioning the factualness of your statement, and asking you to provide a reputable and reliable source to support your statement, or is your statement your personal opinion? For the third time, You made the statement above The type listed in the Wikipedia infobox must be in-line with the legal definition of the organization, otherwise the information is incorrect. I think we both agree it's a fact that personal opinions are not allowed to decide the content of an article. So, where did you come up with the type is based on Title IX?--Ccson 14:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Forgive my absense, I've been a bit busy as of late. This debate is becoming pointless because neither side is willing to move on their opinion. Your statement that they are a strictly service fraternity is your POV, and you have bias as you are an Alpha. A fraternity type is defined by their bylaws, not by what some wikipedian says. Also, the Title IX trumps whatever your bylaws say, as APA is not above the law. Until we are able to get a clearly defined statement from APA that says they have changed to being a strictly service fraternity, the dual-type needs to stay. Justinm1978 16:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

NIC Membership and service/social

I was looking at the Constitution for the North-American Interfraternity Conference[3]. Alpha Phi Alpha is a member of this group (as are Kappa Alpha Psi and Iota Phi Theta) as well as the NPHC. The Constitution of the NIC restricts membership to general fraternities, which according to the Fraternities and Sororities article is the same as a social fraternity. While this in and of itself is not enough for the other six members of the NPHC, it is a step in the direction toward general/social. (I would imagine if you asked Omega Psi Phi if they were the same type of fraternity as Alpha Phi Alpha, they would say yes). Naraht 18:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're saying the first three are Service groups. However; there can be many litmus tests to apply beside membership in NIC and Title IX, and I don't think the creator of the infobox wanted to make such a big deal about this. Why, because there's no text within the box to explain how to determine the status, plus status is not even a required field. What about international fraternities listed on this site which are not governed by Title IX or couldn't join NIC because they're not in North America? What Litmus test must be applied to determine their status. Omega Psi Phi might meet a Service frat criteria for based upon other criteria. Let's just agree there's no Fraternity Czar to rule on this, and we agree to disagree, and let each group determine their type based on the national organization.--Ccson 03:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Then please provide some documentation that APA is now a service fraternity, not a social/general fraternity that does a lot of service. Justinm1978 04:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Please answer my question that I have asked 3 times in above section.

here is the sentence about APA becoming a community service group with a link to a reputable and verifiable source where the info was obtained. Alpha Phi Alpha began its continuing commitment of providing scholarships for needy students and initiating various other charitable and service projects and evolved from a social fraternity to a primarily community service organization.[4] --Ccson 22:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, we can describe Alpha Phi Alpha as a service organization as long as we stop refering to it as a Fraternity. Naraht 11:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

APA is referred to as fraternity, group, organization interchangeably throughout the article. It's most definitely a fraternity as evidenced by its member in the NPHC and the NIC. Plus, this sentence and linked source is taken from the article; The Fraternity was again incorporated as a national organization on April 9, 1911, under the laws of Congress within the District of Columbia, under the name and title of The Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity.[5]

OK, it's a fraternity. :) I did have better luck with the North-American Interfraternity Council. I talked to the Executive Vice President of the NIC. He said that other than the groups which were grandfathered in when the NIC was formed in 1932, all groups which have been admitted since are general fraternities. Can you find the two words "Service Fraternity" together in that order in *any* document produced by Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity Inc. Corporation Headquarters? Naraht 17:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No, because Enough is Enough. I have answered your prior questions of "please provide some documentation that APA is now a service fraternity, not a social/general fraternity", by providing you a link to an .article in which the then current General President, Henry Ponder stated, APA evolved from a social to a service group. You admitted it was Service but not a Fraternity. I provided evidence APA was indeed a fraternity and you confirmed on your own from the NIC that it's a fraternity. It may not be one in your POV, and my own POV is not relevant. The two sources are reputable and verifiable and that's what important in wikipedia. You have not provided documentation to support your side's statement The type listed in the Wikipedia infobox must be in-line with the legal definition of the organization." You have also not provided evidence from the APA fraternity that it contradicts the statement of the General President even when they stated they would respond to the question if placed in a simple email. There are groups listed on the Service fraternities and sororities article and their own article in wikipedia which clearly state "limited to female only", yet you have allowed these to remain listed as service orgs even though they don't meet the Title IX requirement based upon your POV. You latest question of finding two contiguous words "Service Fraternity" is just another litmus based upon your own POV since your prior attempts have failed.--Ccson 01:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The Service fraternities and sororities page has been changed to your specification. Having eliminated that part of the argument, we move on. As a possible compromise, are you open to the following in the entry: [[Social|Fraternities and Sororities]] emphasizing [[Community Service]]Naraht 12:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ccson, I'm saying that APhiA, KAPsi and IPhi are General fraternities based on their mebership in NIC. That is a verifiable fact. As I see it, you have the following options.

1. Contact Alpha Phi Alpha and get a statement from them that they are a service fraternity (I have tried this over the last week or so and have been asked to make the request by email and they will get back to me).
2. Argue over in the Fraternities and Sororities page that General Fraternities are not Social Fraternities (good luck).
3. Admit that Alpha Phi Alpha is a Social Fraternity.
4. Remove fraternity type from the page.

Naraht 12:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess you're the Czar whom I was referring. Since it's been more than 10 days since they informed you of the proper channel for fraternity info inquiries, what was the official response from the fraternity regarding 'Service' or 'Social', or are you still waiting for a reply?--Ccson 22:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have not received an official response. I will attempt to contact them again today.Naraht

That's well and good, but statement is not POLICY. All it takes is for your next president to say "we're really social", and your entire argument is shot. A policy change and bylaw definition in the APA incorporation documents would bring this into compliance. Since you are unable to provide that as of yet, the dual-type needs to stay until it can be deliniated one way or another. Anything else is not factual at this time. Your edits are bordering on uncivil and are extremely POV and biased. I'm considering putting this up for mediation because of that. Justinm1978 16:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Service/Social Now what?

What is the next step given that ccson appears no longer willing to discuss this?Naraht 18:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Dunno, I put it up for discussion on the Fraternity/Sorority WikiProject talk page, but nobody seemed intersted in coming over and talking about it. I'd say that this should go to a vote so we can put this one to bed.... Justinm1978 18:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm putting up a vote on Talk:Alpha Phi Alpha. Please go there and make your vote either way. Justinm1978 16:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Delta-sigma-theta-shield.jpg

Image:Delta-sigma-theta-shield.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Delta-sigma-theta-shield.jpg

Image:Delta-sigma-theta-shield.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigma Chi Phi Sorority, Inc

Hello my name is Jasmine A Watkins. I am the Organizational President of Sigma Chi Phi Sorority, Inc. We are a small Honorary Society. Sigma Chi Phi Sorority, Inc was established in June of 2006 at Briarcliffe College in Bethpage, Long Island. Our philanthropy is the better of children and our communities. We have done work with the Make-A-Wish foundation and the March of Dimes. We have also attended Brest cancer walks and commencement meetings for different voluntary organizations. We also have brothers, Kappa Chi Phi Fraternity, inc. They were established in September of 2005. We are looking for some additional events helpful to our philanthropies and getting ourselves out to the world. Thank you in advance. SheRa417 (talk) 18:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National Pan-Hellenic Council. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080416200127/http://www.hpl.lib.tx.us/gala/bhm/ to http://www.hpl.lib.tx.us/gala/bhm/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091222135422/http://www.nphchq.org/about.htm to http://www.nphchq.org/about.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: African American Studies

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2024 and 24 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mothman6359 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Mothman6359 (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)