Dear NPHC Leadership and Divine Nine Leaders:

On Tuesday, September 14, 2010, at around 6:00 p.m., I emailed the National Executive Directors of the National Pan-Hellenic Council, Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc., Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc., Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc., and Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority, Inc.  I did not email the National Executive Directors of Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc., Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc., Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity, Inc., Zeta Phi Beta Sorority Inc., or Iota Phi Theta Fraternity, Inc., because I could not locate their email addresses on their, respective, national websites.  And experience has taught me that when the phones at the headquarters of the various Divine Nine organizations are answered—which is not all the time—requests for Executive Directors’ email addresses are not met (and probably for good reason).  As such, I have typed this blog entry in the hopes that my initial message reaches you.

The email I sent asked if you would like to partner in an effort to find the best strategies for ending hazing within our organizations.  But before I reiterate my proposal, let me take a step back and ask you a few questions:  Do you want to stop hazing within black Greek-letter organizations (“BGLOs”)?  Do you think that MIP has been the most effective strategy in ending hazing? I know. I’ve heard the argument, “If undergrads just obey the rules, then we would not have this problem.” But that’s like saying, “If people stopped robbing, and raping, and money laundering … we wouldn’t have any crime.”  Such a statement is true, but it’s also naively simplistic and fails to consider the multitude of reasons why people commit crime, which also precludes an ability to figure out how to stop crime.  Lastly, are you open to the possibility that a whole range of disciplines, and experts within those disciplines, might be able to help BGLOs solve this problem?  If you don’t see hazing within BGLOs as a major issue, don’t read on.  If you think MIP has largely solved the problem of hazing within BGLOs, don’t read on.  And if you think that some narrow range of experts or concepts can solve the problem, please stop here.

For those of you who are left, my observation is that hazing is a major problem for BGLOs, with no end in sight.  Further, MIP has not resolved the issue of hazing.  As such, I believe that BGLOs have to radically rethink how they bring in new members.  I was critiqued for this thinking, once, because it seemed as though I was solely focused on having a process, while BGLOs have more pressing issues—i.e., identity issues.  I, however, don’t think about process apart from organizational identity—in that each BGLO must be firmly rooted in the most noble of their, respective, founding identities and then identify, select, and train members to be in accordance with those identities.  It is the process where all of this takes place or should take place.  And neither the old pledge process nor the current Membership Intake Process meet this standard.  Furthermore, BGLOs reliance on what they believe, hope, and wish will work has failed to comport with broader bodies of knowledge out there.

So BGLOs might simply rely on theories and scholarship from student affairs, but such reliance is short-sighted, as student affairs likely provides only some answers and solutions to the problem at hand.  But if BGLOs look to criminology, for example, they would gain a better understanding of how personality and belief structures drive antisocial behaviors, like hazing.  They would gain greater insight into how punishment and sanctions may best be implemented to reduce hazing.  If BGLOs looked to organizational behavior, they might become more sympathetic to the fact that within organizations, individuals can engage in prosocial deviant behavior when they believe that their behavior remains faithful to organizational ideals at the expense of everyday organizational rules. Such insight might be beneficial in determining how to better structure a process, or even the crafting of a process, such that more members believe that it enables, rather than undermines, organizational ideals.  Organizational behavior research might also shed light on such things as team building, membership selection, membership retention, and contemplating broader organizational identity.  Sociology might show how broader societal factors promote hazing within BGLOs.  Medicine and clinical psychology could demonstrate the physical and psychological consequences of hazing. Communications might illuminate how BGLOs should go about educating their members more effectively on the perils of hazing and why a new course is needed.  Work in social and cognitive psychology could be used to better understand how to facilitate bonds between individuals, what types of belief structures and thought processes underlie hazing, and how, as research actually demonstrates, severity of initiation predicts liking for an organization.  And a more comprehensive analysis, rather than the seemingly piecemeal approach currently used, of the legal issues pertaining to hazing might make BGLOs think more systematically about the does and don’ts of any process they implement. 

In a sense, my colleagues—Drs. Tamara Brown (Delta) and Clarenda Phillips—and I have been doing this as we approach BGLOs and their issues more generally.  So are my colleague—Dr. Matthew Hughey (Sigma)—and I, currently. In essence, we have been strong believers, and practitioners, in the idea that BGLOs deserve an interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary analysis, and such an analysis should not be mere Ivory Tower musings, but rather geared directly or indirectly toward addressing the problems that BGLOs face. With this in mind, our proposal is to turn this effort on one problem—hazing.  But even more, as the examples I enumerated above should suggest, our thinking is about more how to stop hazing.  It’s also about identifying, selecting, and training individuals in a manner that is consistent with our ideals—i.e., personal excellence, meaningful and life-long brotherhood/sisterhood, systematic engagement in an uplift agenda, and life-long involvement in our organizations.

With that said, Dr. Hughey and I plan to edit a multidisciplinary book, which would outline the theories and data on how to stop hazing while also selecting and training members in a way that meshes with our ideals and identity.  Employing the best practices, we will propose a process that meets these myriad ends.  It’s our hope that NPHC and each of the Divine Nine organizations will engage in a meaningful collaboration with us.  I look forward to your response.