|
A Conversation about Afican American Fraternities and Sororities
Why do you think this subject has not received much scholarly attention?
Research on BGLOs falls prey to the same forces that divert scholarly attention
away from many other important topics on African Americans: mainstream myopia.
Here's what is meant by that. Graduate students and academic faculty are the
greatest producers of all research because they are employed in institutions
that support and demand research productivity. Yet, the reality is that graduate
students and faculty are constrained in the research they conduct by senior-level,
typically white, faculty, most of whom do not know anything about BGLOs and
would not consider BGLOS a worthy research topic. Thus, graduate students and
junior-level faculty are steered away from this research area. Indeed, we were
strongly discouraged from pursuing this research by our colleagues and faculty
advisors. Moreover, the number of people who are able to conduct this type of
research is very small, yet the number of important topics on African Americans
is extensive. Taken together, this creates a problem in which there are many
important African American questions, movements, groups, and concerns that go
unaddressed.
Another reason for the lack of scholarship on BGLOs has to do with the secrecy
that surrounds these organizations and the understandably defensive posture
many members take towards their respective organizations. This has created a
situation in which it is very difficult to conduct any quantitative or qualitative
research, since it is simply difficult to get willing participants for studies.
Also, the collegiate chapters of these organizations tend to be small and located
particularly at predominantly white institutions. Thus, capturing an adequate
sample to permit meaningful research is difficult. Moreover, historical analyses
of these groups are difficult because many of the necessary documents (e.g.,
organizational history books, organizational journals, organizational papers)
are difficult to access.
What may be more of an issue is that there has not, to date, been any scholarly
text to get the proverbial ball rolling for other scholars. It is our hope that
our book will be that text. To that end, we included an extremely detailed selected
bibliography to help guide future researchers.
What is the typical pledging experience like?
If pledging procedures differ from institution to institution, what would
your ideal procedure(s) be? Pledging is banned by the National Pan-Hellenic
Council, the governing body of the nine major BGLOs. In its place, a Membership
Intake Process (MIP) has been instituted, which is a truncated process devoid
of most of the activities associated with the old pledge process. Despite the
ban, pledging persists within these organizations and is probably the key issue
with which they struggle, an issue we discuss in some depth in chapter 16 of
the book.
Across organizations and from chapter to chapter, "pledging" varies. In some
places, MIP is the norm. typically takes place over the course of several weekends
whereby an aspiring member pays an application fee, secures letters of recommendation,
goes through interviews, and learns the general history and overall structure
of the organization to which he or she aspires to join. MIP culminates in taking
a written exam and initiation. In other places, MIP is combined, unofficially,
with underground (unsanctioned) pledging activities such as requiring pledges
to commit organization history, relevant poems, and songs to memory; and requiring
pledges to dress alike, talk and act in unison, and engage in other activities
aimed at helping them take on a group rather than individual consciousness (i.e.,
submerge "me" for the sake of "we"). This process is also more protracted than
MIP and may last anywhere from 6 weeks to a semester to an academic year. Historically,
such pledge processes have also involved violence, especially at the undergraduate
level.
As for our ideal pledge process, we explain it in detail in the book. However,
it is important to note that what we want most is to give voice to both sides
of the issue. The opinions of pledging proponents (MIP reformists) have been
squelched within BGLOs. Both sides, those in favor of pledging and those against
it, have sound arguments but honest dialogue between these groups is not taking
place and, in our opinion, that is where the problem lies. We hope to get both
sides out on the table to create discussion about how to design a pledge process
that helps to foster the bonds and other essential elements of BGLOs without
placing people's lives in danger or jeopardizing the viability of BGLOs.
It seems that white Greek organizations have similar problems of alcohol/drug
use, hazing, etc. as their African American counterparts, yet the NPHC has not
taken the same "drastic measures" to put an end to those problems. Why do you
think there is such a disparity in the NPHC actions?
There are two inaccurate assumptions implied in this question. The first is
the mistaken assumption that black and white Greek organizations have similar
problems with alcohol/drug use and hazing. BGLOs do not have similar problems
with alcohol/drug abuse and sexual aggression/date rape when compared to their
white counterparts. As explained in the chapter by Belknap et al., white Greeks
use alcohol/drugs much more frequently and heavily than do BGLOs. And, while
hazing occurs in both and is a problem for both, it is drastically different
in manifestation, which would suggest that the origins and remedies are different
as well. Whereas within BGLOs hazing is often a violent act, within white groups
alcohol/drug use is the key issue.
The second mistaken assumption concerns the purview of the NPHC. The nine BGLOs
make up the NPHC. It is, therefore, an umbrella organization for BGLOs. As such,
the NPHC does not have authority over white Greek organizations. Thus, there
is no disparity in NPHC actions toward white and black Greek organizations.
The NPHC has take drastic action as it relates to the organizations over which
it has authority, namely the nine BGLOs. However, their drastic steps have not
put an end to hazing within their ranks and, in our opinion, this is due in
part to a lack of serious dialogue between proponents and opponents of pledging.
What can college administrators do to quell "bad behavior" by members
of BGLOs and at the same time promote the value of having such organizations?
The first step is understanding the history, culture, and contemporary issues
facing these organizations. The second step is to take a legitimate interest
in these groups, particularly with regard to mentoring them on predominantly
white college campuses. This may also necessitate facilitating a relationship
with other campus divisions such as African American or Multicultural Student
Affairs. Third, administrators must develop relationships with the local alumni
chapter of each NPHC organization represented on their campus to better understand
protocols, procedures, and deadlines. Fourth, it may behoove university administrators
to lobby BGLOs to revisit the Membership Intake Process and better develop a
process by which undergraduate chapters will abide. Lastly, undergraduate BGLOs
often have far fewer resources than their white counterparts on predominantly
white college campuses. Therefore, helping them acquire key resources such as
funds, access to PR, and additional leadership training, would be invaluable
in helping to promote these groups.
Tamara L. Brown, assistant professor of psychology at the
University of Kentucky, is a founding member of Pi Mu chapter of Delta Sigma
Theta Sorority at Longwood College in Virginia. Gregory S. Parks,
postdoctoral fellow at the University of Kentucky, is a member of Alpha Phi
Alpha Fraternity. Clarenda M. Phillips is assistant professor
of sociology at Morehead State University.
African American Fraternities and Sororities:
The Legacy and the Vision
Edited by Tamara L. Brown, Gregory S. Parks, and Clarenda M. Phillips
Publication Date: February 2005 $39.95 cloth, ISBN 0-8131-2344-5
For additional information, please contact: Leila Salisbury, Marketing Director,
859/257-8442
|
