This past weekend I attended my Fraternity’s—Alpha Phi Alpha—Southern Regional Convention. I attended in part because I am a Life Member, financially active in a chapter in the Southern Region (i.e., North Carolina). I also attended because I am the National Chair of the Fraternity’s Commission on Racial Justice. Saturday afternoon, a brother asked me an important question—one that I think many people wonder: what is my agenda with regard to BGLOs. The brother indicated that he did not mean anything by the question; he was not assuming what my motives are, but he was curious and suggested that others seem to be curious as well. So, let me remove the mystery.

There is an assumption that my writings these past eight years have been profit-driven. To be clear, the royalties I earned from all of my BGLO books last year was just shy of $850.00. Yes, you read that correctly—eight hundred and fifty dollars. I never set out to be a researcher and writer to get wealthy off of my writings. If I did, I would not publish with academic/scholarly/university presses. I would be publishing with Simon & Shuster or some other large, trade press. The truth is that publishing scholarly works is not a money-making enterprise for a whole range of reasons. Even more, while step-shows and T-shirts may be a good investment for someone who wants to profit off of BGLOs, producing scholarship is not.

The other assumption is that I am gunning for some office in my Fraternity. I have never run for an office in Alpha. The highest office I’ve held has been as an alumni chapter Vice President. And I have always been recruited to the offices I have held. I am not chomping at the bit to be any officer in Alpha. I do not need a position to bolster my resume/CV. I think my professional accomplishments to date speak for themselves. This does not mean that running for some local, state (district), regional, or national office is out of the cards in the future. But I am focused on my career and enjoying my life, now.

The reason I write about BGLOs is because I find the topic interesting, and I get paid as a law professor to write about things that interest me. In a sense, it is that simple. But even more, I see great value in BGLOs, and I hope to play a role in helping them, generally, and Alpha, specifically, reach their potential. I believe the way to do that is to have a well-reasoned approach to analyzing their history, culture, and contemporary issues. Even more, it is to develop solutions to their problems that are either empirically based, theoretically grounded, or consistent with best-practices.

As an academic, it is my job to analyze and critique. I am not a BGLO cheerleader. I am objective and fact-driven. As a critical race theorist, I believe in the scholar activist model. I do the research on BGLOs, but I am also engaged in practical ways with my own Fraternity. As a believer that BGLOs should be the best they can possibly be, I am impatient and intolerant of leaders at any level who are incompetent, crooked, and lacking in transparency. I am particularly intolerant of leaders who bully rank-and-file members. I believe that if BGLO members want their organizations to be what the founders’ envisioned, those members must fight for those types of organizations either against leaders who do not want the same (e.g., leaders who see the organization as their piggy bank or stepping stone to something, personally greater) or on the side of leaders pursuing that quest.

I am not seeking to be the next Belford Lawson, or Charles Wesley, or Walter Kimbrough, or anyone else. I tip my hat to other great Alpha men and other BGLO members. But I am neither in a competition nor exhibiting an effort to replicate what has already been done. I simply want to be the best me—the best lawyer and social scientist—who contributed something tangible to making BGLOs better. In doing so, I am more than willing to take the path less-traveled or blaze my own trail, to challenge authority or upend it.

During the week of November 26, 2012, I had the privilege to attend and present at the Association of Fraternity Advisors’ Annual Meeting. It was a valuable experience, and I really learned a lot. On Friday, December 1^st, I sat-in on the presentation entitled “Taking the Mystery Out of Advising NPHC Councils” by Jennifer Jones (President, NPHC) and Jimmy Hammock (President, Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity, Inc.; Chair, Council of Presidents, NPHC).

Throughout the hour and fifteen minute presentation my mind continued to wander to two points. First, given all the questions that the student affairs professionals are asking and not getting answered, clearly the mystery remains. Second, in a similar vein as Dr. Walter Kimbrough’s analysis in an article in 2005, “Should Black Fraternities and Sororities Abolish Undergraduate Chapters?” and a similarly consistent argument made by Dr. Ricky Jones—both experts on NPHC organizations—maybe it’s time to disband NPHC. Scratch that. It is time!

Let me state upfront that I had never met Jimmy Hammock prior to the AFA Meeting. He attended my session, and in our passing I found him to be warm, engaging, and fraternal. Also, as a lawyer and someone who writes about how NPHC groups intersect with the law, my research has suggested to me that Mr. Hammock has a tremendous moral compass. As such, I think he is probably a more-than-able leader for Phi Beta Sigma and NPHC. As to Ms. Jones, I don’t believe I’ve ever met her. I state these things to make clear that the critiques that follow are not attacks on Mr. Hammock and Ms. Jones, personally. I just think that NPHC has some glaring weaknesses that don’t seem to be getting remedied.

Back to the AFA presentation! What struck me is that while Mr. Hammock and Ms. Jones were supposed to be taking the myth out of NPHC council advising, I don’t think that any myths were adequately addressed. People wanted to know how to handle an array of issues, but no broad solutions were put forth. It was as if, in this organization that has been around as an umbrella organization for, once 8 and, now 9 black Greek-letter organizations since 1930, nobody in NPHC leadership seems to have critically thought about the myriad issues confronting the organizations and devised solutions to those problems. The best that could be offered in this session was to offer to put out fires on the campuses specific to those student affairs advisors asking the questions. Even then, the offered problem-solving was only for the organizations of the presenters. It was shocking that no broad-based solutions were offered.

At one point, an audience member asked what the councils’ $150.00 dues go toward—what return on their investment the  councils receive. The answer was simple: they get what they get—to be members of NPHC. But they don’t get that; they’re required to have it. It’s foisted upon them. It’s like union membership, but union members at least get benefits from membership. We quickly moved on from this topic in the session, but something dawned on me. The question hadn’t really been answered. So I posed it again and noted that the NPC (umbrella group for “white” sororities) and NIC (umbrella group for “white” fraternities—though most NPHC fraternities also belong) offer numerous benefits to their member organizations and constituent councils. In fact, you can go to those organizations’ websites and find detailed information. What about NPHC? The response I received was that NPHC councils receive the same benefits and services as NPC and NIC councils … but not the same because NPHC doesn’t have the same financial resources as those other umbrella organizations. In short, NPHC councils receive the same but not the same. Make sense? And why this difference, sort of? NPHC doesn’t have the same financial resources. All I was thinking was “excuses … bridges and monuments.” Fine, NPHC doesn’t have the same ample financial resources, so it can’t provide ample resources to its councils. But what does it provide? I never got an answer to my question. I think it’s because there was no answer to be had.

Here are the facts. NPHC organizations have challenges that they need to face. College chapters and members are struggling. Hazing is killing young people. There are questions about our relevance. But instead of going about solving these problems, NPHC is, sorry to say it, stuck on stupid. There is no meaningful programming that occurs at NPHC conventions—from what I’ve  experienced and what I’ve been told. There is little to be learned by attendees to take back and make their respective organizations better. As such, there is no reason for members of NPHC organizations to attend NPHC’s national convention.

NPHC leadership, from what I understand, has either been hostile or indifferent toward thoughtful commentary, analysis, and research on it and its constituent organizations. They are provincial in their problem-solving. As one expert on NPHC organizations told me when I first started doing research on these groups, for them to acknowledge valuable insights about NPHC, you have to have a personal relationship with those in its hierarchy. This suggests that if there are NPHC organization members who have insights about how to effectively address small and failing councils, meaningfully reduce hazing, and advance the broader mission of the organizations, NPHC isn’t interested in the solutions.

At the close of my AFA Meeting session, I believe it was one of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity Inc.’s Provincial Polemarchs pulled me to the side. He noted that we have so much work to do in ending hazing among NPHC organizations. My response? NPHC isn’t serious about solving the problem. If they were, they would have an all hands all ideas on deck approach. They don’t. And you see this across the board on issues. They are busy worried about who’s researching, writing, and speaking on college campuses about NPHC instead of harnessing the vast talents of these organizations to solve their own problems and the problems of our communities.

And they want a $150.00 council assessment. Child, please!

Be the Democratic Institutions We Say We Are– BGLOs purport to be democratic institutions, that being that each member has some say in the major issues facing the organizations.  Much of this is done via representative voting—electing delegates that will represent them at conventions/conferences that range from local to national/international.  But given that members feel so passionately about who actually gets to become their brother or sister, and the mechanism by which this happens (not to mention the stakes that the organizations face in this realm), BGLOs should let as many members who want to weigh in on the issue have a say as to what they would want in a process. At least, that way, members will feel that their voices have been heard.

Communicate to Members What Can and Cannot Be Done (AND WHY!)– It is not enough to give BGLO members a voice.  Give them understanding.  BGLOs should categorize the suggestions that they get from their members’ vis-à-vis what should be included in a process, and where certain suggestions are rejected, BGLOs must explain why.  For example, if some members recommend “light” paddling of prospective members on a daily basis, an ineffective response is “We just can’t do that.”  A better response is “Forty-four states have hazing statutes and these statutes outlaws ‘hazing.’ In all 44 of those states, hazing has been construed as physical abuse.  Many of these statutes give paddling as an example of physical abuse.  And state trial courts in several states have clearly stated that paddling is defined as hazing.  Those found to have engaged in such hazing have been faced with criminal and civil sanctions.  In some instances, their fraternity/sorority and/or host university has been subject to civil liability.”  Such an answer is likely to suggest that members’ suggestions were at least taken into consideration.

Provide Field Staff Where Possible– White fraternities and sororities often have field staff that travel the country, advising their chapters.  This is a great idea for organizations that can afford it.  I can only assume that there are 2 BGLOs that could do this.  For the other BGLO, I’d suggest drawing upon a team of members who are student affairs personnel to serve as remote/virtual advisors. Let’s use my fraternity, Alpha Phi Alpha, as an example.  I know of around 20-30 Alphas who work in student affairs.  Say 15 of them served as virtual advisors. Each could pick a group of specific issues that would be their specialty.  If a Greek Affairs advisor had an issue with a chapter of Alpha and needed help resolving it, they could email the Alpha virtual advisors.  The request could then be assigned to the brother who has a specialty in that area, and within 24 hours, he would respond with his recommendations.  Proactively, Alpha could periodically—say once a month—run a report on problem chapters (e.g., those who have failed to submit required paperwork to the organization, those with poor chapter g.p.a.s, those where brothers are not graduating in a timely fashion).  The remote advisors would then seek to ascertain what the purported issues are and work with the chapters to resolve the issue or issues. Chapters with a past of hazing sanctions could also remain on constant monitoring by these advisors.

Raise G.P.A. Requirement for Membership (and Make Chapters Maintain This G.P.A. to Stay in Good Standing– Each BGLO contends that “scholarship” constitutes part of their organizational identity, but most if not all of them have a g.p.a. requirement of somewhere between 2.5 and 2.7 for membership.  These requirements are low.  I know that many BGLO members will balk at this, contending that BGLOs are not honor societies, but the reality is that part of our roots are literary societies—the hotbeds of debate, public speaking, broad reading, and intellectualism on college campuses for nearly 150 years. Moreover, we might presume that individuals with better g.p.a.s have something more at stake during their college experience than those with poor g.p.a.s.  And while juvenile behavior is fairly normal, those adolescents with more at stake are less inclined to engage in anti-social behavior than those who have less at stake (see HERE).

Require Documented Community Service Hours for Membership (and Make Chapters Maintain a Requisite Number of Community Service Hours to Remain Active)– It stands to reason that for individuals who frequently engage in prosocial behavior because it is an integral part of their identity, those individuals will be less inclined to engage in antisocial behavior like hazing.  This oversimplifies why hazing takes place, as there are profound sociological and social psychological dynamics at play with respect to hazing.  But I have to believe that there is something qualitative different between the person who does community service in passing only because their organization requires it versus the person who does it in abundance because he or she believes it is the right thing to do or because the gain some joy from it.  As such, should identify members who have a concrete, prosocial disposition or who are at least inclined to demonstrate their willingness to be prosocial in order to become members.  Moreover, BGLOs should keep their members moving toward prosocial behavior as a way to both do good and to undermine antisocial conduct.

Give Prospective Members a Robust Education on BGLOs– One important thing that BGLOs should want from their members, especially college members and prospective college members, is for them to be better decision-makers–especially in regard to issues around hazing.  Research shows that increased knowledge and experience lead to critical thinking and better decision-making (see HERE). Since prospective members are not likely to gain more experience with respect to BGLOs because they are not yet members, the most that BGLOs can expect from this population is increased knowledge.  This increased knowledge has to be on BGLOs—what they are, what they do, and the challenges they face.  My personal experience tells me that few people do a robust amount of research on BGLOs before they seek membership, and once they are already members there is little to no incentive to increase their knowledge on these groups. For most members proficiency comes largely, if not solely, from just being a BGLO member. What I suggest is that BGLOs not simply recommend readings to prospective members, but actually teach them.  For a number of reasons, which I will blog about at a later date, I think that if universities offer a course on BGLOs, it would be the best approach.  That, however, does not seem like a likely possibility in the short run. As such, I think NPHC should develop a web-based course on BGLOs.  Prospective members, particularly prospective college members, would need to take the class and pass with at least a “B” to be eligible to apply for membership to any BGLO.  The course would focus on BGLO history, culture, general contemporary issues, and issues around hazing/pledging/MIP.  There would be required reading, online discussions, and weekly quizzes. The course would be during the summer when prospective members are less likely to be harassed by current BGLO members.  At the end of the summer, BGLOs would be given the list of individuals eligible for membership—prospective members who are knowledgeable about BGLOs, potential problem-solvers once they become members, and better decision-makers as members and as aspirants.

I make these recommendations in toto, not as an offering of mere choices. And I make them not to the exclusion of other remedies. As a final not, I know that one major response to proposals to end hazing is that “we will never end hazing.”  That is true, but the point is not that we cannot but to what degree can we do a better job than we are now.

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.