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.

This past Labor Day weekend I had the challenge of making some relevant and penetrating remarks to the Black Greek-letter organization (“BGLO”) community and interested students at Prairie View A & M University.  Yes, I mean that Prairie View, the same place where a Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity aspirant—Donnie Wade—was allegedly killed as a result of hazing activities just last year.  It was the first time that I had been asked to speak at a university that was, itself, under so much scrutiny.  My message was simple: BGLOs were founded with a certain organizational identity in mind; they have remained faithful to that identity in some ways, but largely, they have drifted.  As such, it is up to the members and aspiring members to be what the founders intended them to be so that they can make BGLOs what BGLOs were intended to be. 

The symposium was, a kind of, one-two punch.  I went first.  Philander Smith President and BGLO expert, Dr. Walter Kimbrough, went second.  I framed what BGLOs should be, in a global sense.  Dr. Kimbrough dealt squarely with the issue of hazing.  Interestingly, at one point in his talk, Dr. Kimbrough underscored why it is difficult to make any true headway with regard to solving the hazing issue within BGLOs.  He noted, and quite appropriately, that many BGLO members see themselves as a BGLO expert.  Consequently, those with the most minimal of knowledge about BGLOs may present major issues for the organizations.  It is a classic example of the cognitive bias, the Dunning-Kruger Effect, where an individual’s incompetence robs them of the ability to be introspective enough to realize when they reach erroneous conclusions and make poor decisions.  In the BGLO context, for example, you see it where members use the “tradition” excuse for hazing.  It goes something like this: “The reason I hit John in the chest with a 2×4 is because it is fraternity tradition.”  An even cursory reading of fraternity history undercuts this argument, but these individuals don’t seek-out BGLO-related knowledge when they already believe they have cornered the market on it.  A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!

But just as I opened my Prairie View speech, that I am indeed critical of BGLO undergrads, I believe that  there is also enough blame to go around.  And one group that deserves its fair share of critique are Student Affairs and Greek Life personnel who are charged with advising BGLO collegiates.  Anecdotally, while I have met a number of Greek Affairs advisors who are knowledgeable about BGLOs, I have also met more than my fair share that are not (but believe that they are).  Forthcoming research on Greek Affairs advisors’ cultural competence about BGLOs underscores my concern. 

A rebuttal to this is that on many campuses with National Pan-Hellenic Council (“NPHC”) chapters, many Greek Affairs offices hire NPHC-affiliated graduate or professional students to work the collegiate BGLOs.  This is problematic, however, for a host of reasons.  For one, often-times BGLO members lack a robust understanding of their own groups, especially sufficient enough to advise collegiate BGLO chapters.  As such, many Greek Affairs offices create a situation analogous to a physician having a limited knowledge of its patient’s symptoms and possible remedies, so the physician looks to its nurse in the hopes that the nurse will address the issue.  If this is the case, a new paradigm is needed.

Undergraduate BGLO members and chapters, to the extent that they fail to live up to organizational ideals, are handicapped in part because of their own actions.  But those who are reportedly responsible for their success—chapter alum, local alumni chapters, fraternity/sorority leadership, NPHC—have also failed them.  And this failure extends to Greek Affairs advisors.  I will not lie, I enjoy being invited to college campuses and speaking to BGLO undergraduates, but the truth of the matter is that BGLO lectures do little to educate Greek Affairs advisors and likely have no long-term beneficial impact on a campus.  What seems to enhance Greek advisors’ cultural competence about BGLOs is  reading the most recent scholarship on these groups.  Accordingly, if Greek Affairs advisors hope to live up to name “student affairs professionals,” they should do what professionals in other disciplines, like medicine or law, must do—remain current with the research and best practices in their area.  To do otherwise is tantamount to malpractice or ineffective assistance in the advising context. 

So what is a solution?  My recommendation is that the same way that various entities ensure that physicians and attorneys, for example, remain current with bodies of knowledge in their respective fields and render the best possible service to their patients/clients, Greek Affairs needs a similar body with a similar objective.  The two most likely candidates are NASPA and the Association of Fraternity and Sorority Advisors.  Either of these bodies, I suggest, should take it upon itself to set standards for Greek advising and routinely educate and train advisors about diverse “Greek” populations.  Without such an effort, BGLO undergraduates and chapters will continue their steady demise, with the fallout being felt by their broader national organizations, communities they serve, and host institutions.