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 1st, 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!
I totally disagree with your recommendation about disbanding NPHC groups, I am disappointed that NPHC groups are being attacked just like HBCUs. Who are you to ask about their relevancy, instead if trying to shut down the these institutions, you and your research need to do research about self-efficacy development for Black students and the generational benefits its has, then look at how NPHC groups and even HBCUS contribute in a great way. I know that there are some issues, but I really don’t think you understand that you are doing more damage than assistance.
BLGO’s were created for undergrad students not old ass grad chapters, that was not their primary purpose so if you say they should abolish NPHC, you my friend are stupid
The NPHC or its leaders are not the problem. It is the letter wearing members of all the organizations who lay claim to ‘MY LETTERS’ and think they are the gatekeepers to who is allowed to wear those letters.
If those very members would take the time to support organizations financially then we would at least have more resources to help provide solutions. We are in a constant fight to respond to the ‘latest hazing incident’, how can any leader provide a solution when the culture of hazing is written on the hearts of some members and potential members?
Instead of writing articles on the lack of direction by the current leadership or what comes from membership in the NPHC, become apart of the forum that is working toward a solution. You have a voice use it to bring us together, not tear down what is in place …. THINK ABOUT IT!!
The comments here are interesting, because they a) don’t answer some of the questions that are being brought up, and b) don’t recognize that the author does and has written about how to uplift BGLOs. I work on a college campus and find many of his points salient and worth discussing, not being dismissed. I appreciate you for bringing up these issues. Asking hard questions is necessary and appropriate.
I only logged in to say I agree with Michael Anthony. The issues brought up in this article are real and valid points, and to have someone call you stupid for bringing up valid points…well…we see the NPHC apples aren’t far from the NPHC tree.
The hard questions will never get answered if every time we bring them up our very own aren’t profound enough to dig deeper than “you’re stupid” “do your research” or “become a part of the forum that works toward a solution ALL WHILE you have initiated working toward a solution via dialogue.”
It’s interesting to see some of the comments. The article is asking the “relevancy” question based on a factual lack of ROI. From a business standpoint, who wouldn’t do that? I think BLGOs are faced with real challenges and the NPHC could be the catalyst to transform all of the ‘Divine 9’ organizations. The hazing issue will continue to happen until we as BGLO members let loose the gang mentality of brutality and one-upping each other. Pledging is good; hazing is bad! There is a distinct difference between the two. I digress…the NPHC needs to serve it’s membership. The council leadership shouldn’t be concerned with attacks on them nor should the people leaving comments here. The question for us all should be…”How can we leverage the diverse talent of the NPHC to conquer the diverse issues that we are facing?” We need real solutions which is what I think the article is highlighting. If the NPHC isn’t being utilized to formulate those solutions then why should it continue to exist? Absent a solution to hazing and our collective relevancy to our community…we will all slip into extinction.
Frater Parks, I have enjoyed your work and the ideas and arguments you have presented in your books, articles and presentations for years. But in the words of the young brothers and sisters I work with, this is “sum bullsnit.” I currently advise an undergraduate chapter of NPHC. I offer the opinion that without question, now is not the time to disband NPHC. NPHC and the operations of the National Office and local chapters need to be strengthened to meet the challenges you outline and more. The recently restructured National NPHC, Inc.’ was changed seeking to bring together the national/international heads of the 9 historically Black member Greek-Letter Orgs to shape what NPHC is doing. Yes, more support could be rendered to members in the form of training and informational sessions at national conferences. But to say that nothing is provided speaks to the limited information that you’ve been exposed to. NPHC has in recent years held new member conferences, and trainings designed to support undergraduate members.
I did not attend AFA. I would have hoped that; even if the Chair of NPHC’s Counicl of Presidents, (and my Fraternity President) Bro. Hammock and Soror Jones answered the questions as you suggest; some better informed attendee could have recounted the NPHC training offerings I mentioned here. As Mr. Chaney remarks above, NPHC is a gathering of energy and talent. We, the active members of the Divine Nine, are responsible for the outcomes produced in our local chapters and by the umbrella group/governing council(s) we belong to. I trust that the elected presidents of the Divine 9 member organizations in concert with the elected officers of NPHC, Inc. will help shape a more effective operating NPHC at the national and local levels. This only happens in an environment of support and high expectations by the members. What would disbanding get us?
Disbanding isn’t the answer; neither is tiptoeing around what we REALLY need to do. We have enough great minds within our ranks to bring back the PLEDGE process and take it back to what it was intended to be — a journey and an education. You learn about yourself, you learn about working with others, thinking outside the box and MAKING things happen, and in some cases, you learn that Greek life isn’t for you and you drop. All the while, you are learning about the legacy and principles of your organization.
@Jessica Elmore The author is not posing the idea of getting rid of Black Greek Lettered Organizations. He is posing questions on if the NPHC COUNCIL is necessary. Which it isn’t. BGLOs can still thrive without NPHC. I never seen a benefit of NPHC either. When I was in a sorority in undergrad, everyone hated going to NPHC meetings. They were a waste of time. There was no benefit, outside of unity- which is a joke.
The author has a valid point and I’m of the firm belief that as long as there’s money involved, you will never get a solid, sound answer. The obvious, and dare I say “expected”, thing to do is scream foul and cry against disbanding of NPHC because you feel some blind allegiance to it. I have been an active apart of NPHC and obviously a divine 9 sorority at the undergrad and grad level for nearly ten years and I TRULY do NOT see its purpose. Each of the divine 9 organizations have their OWN national platforms that will thrive and be self sufficient with or without an NPHC. Each of the divine 9 orgs’ chapters also pay an annual assessment to their national body and in return we are rendered services, liability, etc from their national body. What do the NPHC dues go towards? Let’s even take disbanding out of the equation for a millisecond just to get an answer to that simple question. WHY do NPHC dues need to be paid, WHERE/TO WHOM is the money going and WHY has no one ever demanded the answer to this before??? Can ANYONE provide a mature, factual and sound argument FOR it? I’ll wait.
The state and condition of fraternities/sororities and the NPHC for that matter is a direct reflection of the values of black culture at large. The same issues/challenges that these groups face are in direct correlation with those of the larger AA population segment. Not rocket science…. Black culture as a whole doesn’t demand virtues of lawfulness, respect, personal responsibility, a love for truth and knowledge….
I have been an Omega for over 50 years, have served as a National Officer and hold a life time membership. I have found your scholarship to be quite informative and decry the lack of such scholarship throughtout BLGO’s. I do however disagree with the abolishment of the NPHC and certainly do not favor abolition of undergraduate chapters of BGLO’s. BGLO’s were founded by undergraduates for undergraduates but have been hijacked by graduate members who have shut the undergraduates out of the leadership process. The responses to hazing have not involved undergraduate input, but graduates who simply imposed moratoriums and abolished pledging. The plegdge process, absent physical abuse, was a valuable means of introducing new members into the organizations. The abolishment of pledging was not based on any scholarly research but was merely a knee jerk reaction to the extremes of hazing. If the graduates would make the decision to pass the mantle of leadership to the undergraduates for whom the BLGO’s were founded, then perhaps they could address their own needs and restore the idealism of the founder’s of these organizations. Officers and committee chairpersons should be undergraduates not graduates. Except, perhaps for serving in the full-time paid position of Executive Director, graduates should only serve in advisory roles and on the Board of Directors of these organizations. We need to give these organizations back to the undergraduates instead of proposing that undergraduate chapters be abolished. Without undergraduates, there would be no BGLO’s.
Brother Parks,
I know your research and find most of it off base.. I am sorry that there are brothers like you in Alpha and NPHC. Additionally, as a professor I find your research to be inadequate and unuseful. I would be shocked if you received ternure and promotion with the type of writing you do. Finally, I needed to leave a greek listerve that you are on because you are always promoting some book you’ve written. You appear to have a great deal of loathing towards the Divine Nine…maybe because you did not cross Alpha at Howard when you were there. Get help brother and stop driving to bring NPHC down!!
Zeus,
I am willing to bet that your “knowledge” of my research is shallow at best. Whenever someone likes you weighs in with one of your critiques, especially when they aren’t even willing to post their actual name, I am quite convinced–and it has always been the case–that they have read little if any of my research.
I am not sure if you are claiming to be a professor or highlighting the fact that I am. But as for my research, my brotha, I have published extensively in leading peer-reviewed and legal journals as well as with top-academic book publishers. Please, there is no need to worry about my tenure-status viz. my scholarly out-put. I have it on good authority that I’m good! But, if you have or can produce better, I’d love to read your work.
As for not joining Alpha at Howard, that was my choice. And while I have many friends who are Beta bros, I have no regrets about my choice.
Finally, if you left a list-serve because I publicized my writing there, I doubt your real issue with me is because you don’t like my writing. Nobody would jump ship over such a matter. Sadly, when NPHC groups comes to an end, it will be because of members like you–individuals with their head in the sand and unwilling or unable to accept growth, change, and transformation.