Alpha Phi Alpha: Image(Un)Conscious

To its credit, for the first time, Vogue magazine is featuring a Black man on its cover. But Vogue is also taking some well-justified criticism for how it is depicting LeBron James aside Gisele Bundchen, a white model. To some, the April 2008 cover is too reminiscent of images of King Kong grasping “White beauty” Fay Wray in his hand. Whites have long-depicted Blacks as savage beasts and more specifically, apes. Some commentators don’t see the connection between the Vogue cover and this racist history. To them, Black critics are seeing more into the cover photo than what is really there. The problem with this logic is twofold, first, as the following images show, there are far too many similarities between the Vogue cover and the Destroy This Mad Brute poster. The poster is a World War I propaganda poster used as a recruiting tool for the US Army. It depicts a drooling, ape (representing Germans) wielding a club bearing the word "kultur" and wearing a pickelhaube helmet with the word "militarism" is walking onto the shore of America while holding a half-naked woman in his grasp. The blonde haired White woman is likely intended to depict Liberty. The poster is dated circa 1917.

The second problem with acceptance of this cover as appropriate, despite LeBron’s acceptance of it is that it plays on long-held unconscious associations among Whites about the Blacks and apes. Contemporary research on implicit (unconscious) social cognition highlights the danger of such images. For example, a study by Phillip Goff and colleagues investigated the relationship between implicit racial attitudes and dehuminaization of Blacks. In their first study, individuals were subliminally shown images of Black faces, White faces, or neutral images. Then they were shown fuzzy images of animals (apes and non-apes), which gradually became clearer. Individuals were instructed to indicate the point at which they could identify the image. Goff and colleagues found that both Whites and non-Whites more readily associated Blacks, as compared to Whites, with apes. In a second study, individuals were first subliminally shown images of ape line drawings or jumbled line drawings. Second, they were given a facial interference task designed to gauge how distracted participants would become when presented with faces prior to a test measuring their attentional bias to Black and White faces. Their results indicated that priming individuals with images if apes demonstrated more attentional bias towards Black faces. Moreover, Goff and colleagues found that implicit anti-Black biases predict this ape-Black association.

Goff and colleagues research also demonstrated that implicit anti-Black bias predicts Whites’ justification of violence against Blacks. For example, Goff and colleagues subliminally primed individuals with images of apes or big cats. They then asked these individuals to view a videotape of police officers beating a suspect who individuals were lead to believe was Black or White. Individuals who believed the suspect was White perceived the police as being no more justified when primed with apes vis-à-vis big cats. Individuals who believed the suspect was Black perceived the police as being more justified when primed with apes vis-à-vis big cats. Moreover, individuals who were primed with big cats did not think the police were more justified in beating the White or Black suspect. In contrast, individuals who were primed with apes thought the police were more justified in beating the Black, as opposed to the White, suspect. Finally, Goff and colleagues discovered that Black, as opposed to White, criminal defendants are more likely to be portrayed as ape-like in news coverage, and this portrayal is associated with higher levels of state-sponsored executions of Black defendants.

Such research points to a bigger problem—that being that when progressive Black organizations project such images, they may be doing significant damage to their image. Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with the “ape” stage in my fraternity’s old pledge process. What is problematic, however, is when brothers use ape imagery to promote their events to the public. Arguably, such imagery from a Black organization unconsciously strengthens associations among Whites and others between Blacks and apes. Additionally, such imagery may also raise levels of unconscious anti-Black bias among Whites. No study looks at this specific issue, but one study by Laurie Rudman and Matthew Lee suggests that violent and misogynistic rap music elevates Whites’ levels of unconscious anti-Black bias. In essence, putting certain sounds (and maybe even images) into the ether that are associated with Blacks works to our detriment. In reference to Alpha, it quite possibly works to unravel this gentleman/scholar/leader image we seek to promote.

One can only wonder how images of dogs and playboy bunnies works against fraternities, Omega Psi Phi and Kappa Alpha Psi, that profess to represent the best of the race.

Excerpt from Book Chapter on Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc.’s Founders

The Vision of Virtuous Women:
Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority’s Founding Twenty Pearls

Stephanie Y. Evans

This chapter traces the lives of the nine founders, seven sophomores, and six incorporators of the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Incorporated. The sorority brought together likeminded women from disparate paths to celebrate scholarship and provide dedicated "service to all mankind." On January 15, 1908, nine women, led by Ethel Hedgeman Lyle and advised by Ethel Esther Maria Tremain Robinson and Elizabeth Appo Cook at Howard University, brought forth an organization dedicated in sisterhood to live and work "by culture and by merit." The motto, translated into Greek became Askosis Kai Axiosis, and the letters AKA, ivy leaf, pink for femininity and green for everlasting life became the signs of the first Black women's collegiate sisterhood.

The Alpha Chapter expanded by inviting seven sophomore honor students to join the organization in late February 1908. The first "line," initiating of new members took place in February 1909, and on January 29, 1913 six members (two of whom were in the sophomore class) banded together to incorporate and expand Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority as the first national, incorporated Greek-lettered organization for Black college women.

The main focus of this chapter is the lives of the founders, sophomores, and incorporators: Alpha Kappa Alpha's "Twenty Pearls." The author provides details about their lives that give clarity, accuracy, context, and additional information to stories that are presumed to be already known. Rare resources such as early twentieth-century editions of Alpha Kappa Alpha's Ivy Leaf and evolving national histories provide an inside look at the organizational contributions of these women, but primary documents also reveal personal characteristics behind the legacy of the premiere sorority for Black women. These primary sources supplement the tireless efforts of Dr. Marjorie Holloman Parker, historian of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority whose work all other historical accounts are indebted to and Dr. Ernestine Green McNealey, author of Pearls of Service, the most recent and complete historical account of the sorority, written to commemorate the centennial celebration.

….

Historian Marjorie Parker has noted that the collective portrait of the founders, sophomores, and incorporators showed that most were born in North Carolina, Washington, D.C. and Virginia with some hailing from New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Missouri, and West Virginia. Twelve of the Twenty Peals, were never married. Twelve were teachers and others were employed in schools, churches, or social work in addition to their homemaking and care taking responsibilities. Significantly, the Twenty Pearls remained dedicated to continuing the growth and expansion of Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Incorporated. Parker noted that "founders were charter members of at least twelve different chapters, and four served as the first Basileus."

The first sororities built on the history of networking and community building established early on in antebellum Black communities. Accordingly, many organizations built on the solid network of sororities founded mainly at Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Lucy Slowe's 1922 copy of the Howard University Student Manual reveals that all Howard students were expected to perform, academically and personally, in a manner that displayed "all that is best and noblest in all the outreachings of humanity." The larger environment in which the women of Alpha Kappa Alpha developed was a culture of high expectations, challenge, and excellence. For the 50th Anniversary celebration, with a theme of "Pride in the Past, Gratitude for the Present, Faith in the Future--Forward to a New Era of Service" reflected the organization's dedication to the past and future; both maintaining tradition and innovating social change.

Though factions formed in the sorority movement, Black women effectively organized and coalesced for community empowerment, but they also pushed for individual achievement. All four of the first African American women to earn a Ph.D. were in a sorority: two in Alpha Kappa Alpha (Georgiana Simpson and Anna Julia Cooper), and two in Delta Sigma Theta (Sadie T. M. Alexander and Eva Dykes). The Twenty Pearls of Alpha Kappa Alpha began an organization that became known for including educators such as Charlotte Hawkins Brown, scholars such as Dr. Maya Angelou, Dr. Toni Morrison, and Dr. Mae Jamison, as well as entertainers from Ella Fitzgerald to Alecia Keys.

On the eve of the one hundredth anniversary, Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority boasts over 170,000 members in more than 930 chapters. Much work "in service to all mankind" has been done in the memory of the original founders; much work still remains to be done. By gaining a clearer picture of the founders' lives, members can reflect on current practices to ensure they are in line with original goals. But these stories are valuable for scholarly research as well. The increased interest in research on Black Greek-letter organizations is essential to a better understanding of organizational, African American, and educational history. These women's personal histories illuminate the gendered, social, cultural, economic, and political dimensions of the United States during a crucial point in developing the Jim Crow and Civil Rights Movement eras. By closely investigating founders' lives, we may increase historical understanding beyond organizations and more closely construct useful portraits of African Americans in history that honor the complexity of women's lives, community service, cultural mores, and social justice movements.

Excerpt from Book Chapter on Zeta Phi Beta Sorority, Inc.’s Founders

Constitutionally Bound: The Founders of Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity, Inc.

and Zeta Phi Beta Sorority, Inc.

Matthew W. Hughey

Despite some advances, the “Roaring 20s” were characterized by an entrenched system of de jure and de facto sexism and racism. Fifteen young women heeded the call for a new sorority to aid in the endeavors of African American women’s social transformation. From the very beginning these women tried to set a new course, to set a higher standard. Unfortunately, the general Howard University campus community was not very kind to the idealistic young women, as some branded them the “praying band” because of their religious character. One by one, the group of fifteen dwindled until only five women remained: The “Pearls” of Zeta Phi Beta known as Arizona Clever, Myrtle and Viola Tyler, Fannie Pettie and Pearl Neal. With the help of Phi Beta Sigma Founder Abram L. Taylor (with the assistance of Sigma brother Charles Robert Samuel Taylor), Zeta Phi Beta Sorority, Inc. was established on 16 January 1920 at Howard University in Washington, D.C. Zeta Phi Beta’s first formal introduction to the Washington D.C. community was held at the Whitelaw Hotel followed by a formal welcome to the campus by the sisters of the Alpha Chapter of Alpha Kappa Alpha and Alpha Chapter of Delta Sigma Theta in the Assembly Hall of the Miner Building on the Howard University campus.

After gaining permission from the Howard University administration, the five Founders of Zeta Phi Beta held their first Boulé (convention) with their Sigma brothers in 1920 (an occurrence repeated in 1936, 1957 and 1991) and immediately began to establish chapters all over the United States. In those early years of the Sorority’s existence, members understood the necessity of ensuring the permanence of the organization. Accordingly, Founder Myrtle Tyler (Faithful) and four other Zeta sisters Gladys Warrington, Joanna Houston, Josephine Johnson and O. Goldia Smith first incorporated the Sorority on 30 March 1923 in Washington D.C. The Sorority was also incorporated in the state of Illinois in 1939. Based on the simple belief that sorority elitism and socializing should not overshadow the real mission for progressive organizations—to address societal mores, ills, prejudices, poverty, and health concerns of the day—the Founders departed from the predominant models for elite black female coalitions and sought to establish a new organization predicated on the precepts of scholarship, service, sisterly love and finer womanhood.

Today, Zeta continues its legacy of service to various communities. Since 1971 Zeta has partnered with the March of Dimes in an effort to encourage women to seek prenatal care within the first trimester of pregnancy, thereby increasing the prevention of birth defects and infant mortality. Since the 1990s the “Z-HOPE” (Zetas Helping Other People Excel) program, as well as the Zeta Organizational Leadership Program, have assisted thousands of young women in leadership development and enhancement. Additionally, the Zeta National Educational Foundation has operated exclusively for charitable and educational purposes and promotes activities that assist in the pursuit of higher education.

Excerpt from Book Chapter on Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity, Inc.’s Founders

Constitutionally Bound:

The Founders of Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity, Inc. and Zeta Phi Beta Sorority, Inc.

Matthew W. Hughey

On Saturday, 18 October 1913, Howard University student A. L. Taylor approached L. F. Morse, his former school roommate, with the idea of forming a new fraternity. After careful discussion, they jointly chose one of their mutual friends, C. I. Brown to be the third Founder. A. L. Taylor recorded for posterity the events which led to the Fraternity’s formation after this fateful encounter: “The first meeting of the organizing committee was held at my home in the 1900 block of ‘S’ Street, Northwest, Sunday November, 2nd. The second meeting was held the next Tuesday at Morse’s rooming place in the 1900 block of 3rd Street, Northwest.” A few short days later on 13 November 1913, the three soon-to-be Founders of Phi Beta Sigma (A. L. Taylor, L. F. Morse, and C. I. Brown) met with nine of their undergraduate colleagues from Howard University (S. P. Massie, J. A. Franklin, J. E. Jones, B. A. Matthews, W. F. Vincent, T. L. Alston, W. E. Tibbs, J. H. Howard, and I. L. Scruggs) about forming the new Fraternity. A. L. Taylor continued: “During the remainder of November and December, meetings were held on the ‘Hill’ (Howard University) during which time nine students were accepted for membership and plans for the fraternity were discussed and developed…”

Just a few short months later in the Bowen Room of the 12th Street Branch Y.M.C.A. in Washington, D.C. on a Friday evening (9 January 1914), the three Founders and nine initial members officially organized the Fraternity around the three principles of brotherhood, scholarship, and service. Founder A. L. Taylor recounts that fateful meeting:

As chairman of the organizing committee, I reported how I had conceived the idea of the founding of the Fraternity and the three years of unrelenting toil I had given to the development of the plans. I closed the report by recommending that we form a permanent organization to be known as Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity. Upon a motion made by Charles I. Brown, seconded by William F. Vincent, the recommendation was accepted and Phi Beta Sigma became a national fraternity in fact as well as in our dreams.

The Board of Deans at Howard University recognized the new fraternity on 15 April 1914 and the Howard University Journal (the student publication at Howard University at the time) for 24 April 1914 made public the organization by stating: “The Fraternity is the result of the efforts of Messrs. A. L. Taylor, L. F. Morse and C. I. Brown; and promises to be a vital force in the moral, social and intellectual life of the University.”

Just weeks later on 4 May 1914 at 2226 Sixth Street, Northwest, fourteen additional members were added to the three Founders and the original nine members. Together, the twenty-six members of Phi Beta Sigma then organized the first chapter within the new Fraternity: Alpha chapter. During the summer of 1914 (only 150 days after the charter of organization was granted) the efforts of I. L. Scruggs led to the Fraternity’s procurement of a house. The three-story, brick, furnished fraternity house at 1907 Third Street, Northwest amazed the campus community partially because of the rapidity of its acquisition as well as the fact that it was the largest facility to be used by any of the existing fraternal organizations at Howard at the time.

Sigma was soon expanding its reach across campus. A. M. Walker, the first initiate of the fourteen person pledge class, was elected Associate Editor of the Howard University Journal and Founder A. L. Taylor was made Circulation Editor. Other brothers soon held notable positions: W. F. Vincent was President of the debating society, W. H. Foster was President of the college Y.M.C.A., J. Berry was president of the Political Science Club, J. Camper became captain of the Howard football team and E. Lawson was president of the Athletic Association.

Seeking to further the Fraternity’s intellectual pool, several affluent African American scholars were inducted as honorary members: Dr. Edward Porter Davis, former Dean of liberal Arts at Howard University; Thomas M. Gregory, noted orator, playwright and theater director; Dr. Alain Leroy Locke, the first Black Rhodes Scholar; and Dr. Thomas W. Turner, nationally known botanist. Davis, Gregory, Locke, and Turner were the first graduate members of Phi Beta Sigma. The presence of such noted members among the undergraduate population was one factor that caused the Fraternity to be approved by the Howard University Board of Deans although both Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity and Omega Psi Phi Fraternity pre-existed Sigma on the Howard campus.

The Fraternity also aimed its expansion toward the racially divided south. On 5 March 1915, Professor Herbert L. Stevens, faculty at Wiley College in Marshall, Texas, was admitted as a graduate member by a special decree of the Fraternity General Board. Later that year on 13 November 1915, Professor Stevens helped found the second chapter: Beta chapter at Wiley College.

It was at this time that the Fraternity had another unique opportunity to expand. The Fraternity received a letter dated 11 December 1915 from Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity Founder and Grand Polemarch Elder W. Diggs. The letter, on official stationery, offered to merge Kappa Alpha Psi with Phi Beta Sigma. At the time Kappa was establishing itself in the Midwest while Sigma was expanding in the East and South. The Fraternity’s General Board considered the proposal, but turned down the offer in its reply to Diggs in a letter written by Founder Taylor dated 18 December 1915. The Fraternity kept progressing: one year later from 27-30 December 1916, Sigma held its first Conclave (National Convention) in Washington D.C.

However, in 1917 the Fraternity’s chapters were beginning to be depleted due to the U.S. government’s “call to arms” to serve in WWI (1914-1918). By this time, only Alpha chapter showed signs of activity and:

[o]nly one new chapter had been added… That same year, 1917, was sadly memorable for the death of one of the most ardent and useful of the original twelve chartermen—W. F. Vincent. Brother A. Langston Taylor recalled the last words he heard from Brother Vincent …: ‘Taylor, carry on for Sigma, until we meet again.’

Founder Taylor called on the National Board to fill the vacancies created by the “call to arms.” By June 1919 the General Board reorganized itself, the Washington D.C. Fraternity house moved to a new location at 325 T Street, Northwest, and reactivated all but one of its chapters. It was largely through the efforts of Founder A. L. Taylor and a few select others that the fraternity was able to continue to operate while numerous Sigma men served on the European battle front. Due to their efforts the Fraternity was also incorporated in Washington, D.C. on 29 April 1920 and the first issue of the Phi Beta Sigma Journal was printed in November of 1921. With Sigma regrouping due to the dedication of its Founders, the next Conclave was held in Atlanta, Georgia (27-31 December 1921) at Morris Brown College, home of the Zeta chapter of the Fraternity. This meeting was also the first ever inter-fraternity Conclave (with Omega Psi Phi Fraternity). As a result, the plan was set in motion to hold an Inter-Fraternity Conference, which occurred the following year (24-26 April 1922) in Washington, D.C.

Such momentous “firsts” characterized the Fraternity’s early years. Due to the continued support of the Founders of the Fraternity, Phi Beta Sigma was able to launch a distinct fraternal praxis that would set the tone for the organization for many years to come. Today, Phi Beta Sigma has blossomed into an international organization and has established the Phi Beta Sigma Educational Foundation, the Phi Beta Sigma Housing Foundation, the Phi Beta Sigma Federal Credit Union, and the Phi Beta Sigma Charitable Outreach Foundation.

Excerpt from book chapter on Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc.'s Founders

The First and the Finest:
The Founders of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc.
Stefan Bradley

“First of all; servants of all; we shall transcend all,” those words comprise the motto of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. In being the first official fraternity for African American college men and in focusing on service to the community, Alpha displayed many of the qualities of black America’s elite class in the early part of the twentieth century. Whether the Jewels realized it, Alpha, by way of its founding and programs, transcended much of black and white America at the time. As such, early Alpha represented the uplift movement by way of the founders’ economic standing, social status, and politically charged push for racial equality—a lofty ideal at the time.

At a time when most black Americans (and much of America in general) concentrated on tilling, planting, cultivating, and harvesting, some Americans looked beyond the fields to make a life for themselves. For those who could afford it, there was the possibility of higher education. This was a relatively new option for African Americans as many institutions for education for black people were established shortly after the Civil War.

By the beginning of the twentieth century, though, a majority of black people stayed in the southern region of the United States and worked jobs associated with agriculture. Some owned the land on which they worked, but a grand majority of others sharecropped or tenant farmed the land that they cultivated. Sharecropping and tenant farming, by most modern accounts, was a glorified version of slavery for many black people. As the owner and sharecropper often based terms of agreements on written contracts, white owners frequently cheated black sharecroppers. This was, in part, possible because of the inability of so many African American laborers to read. In addition to the high illiteracy rates that plagued the black agricultural community, there was little recourse for those black sharecroppers who caught landowners cheating on their contracts. Indeed, Jim Crow justice prevailed throughout the court system and much of the rest of the nation.

By the twentieth century, black leaders attempted to assist the race in different ways. Men like Booker T. Washington attempted to improve the lot of black farmers by offering agricultural, mechanical, and industrial training at institutions like Tuskegee. He offered a plan that socially accommodated racism but encouraged black people to help themselves by becoming indispensable to southern economic progress in the way of agriculture and the service industry. To many of the people whom Washington sought to reach, a liberal arts education at a university seemed unattainable. With that in mind, Washington pushed a platform of economic self help for black people through thrift and ownership.

Other leaders like W.E.B. Du Bois sought to provide different opportunities for African Americans. As a northerner, who was born after slavery ended, Du Bois’s outlook was different from that of Washington. The first to earn a doctorate from the prestigious Ivy League university Harvard, Du Bois urged the best and the brightest minds of black America to pursue professional livings as doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc. He and Washington clashed in their approaches to social and political freedom, but agreed that, to advance, black people must begin to uplift themselves.

The idea of racial uplift took on different meanings in the early twentieth century. Historian Kevin Gaines explained in his work, Uplifting the Race, that for the former slaves, uplift meant “transcendence of worldly oppression and misery.” The founders of Alpha Phi Alpha saw transcendence as a crucial step for the members of the fraternity. Gaines also noted that, in search of this uplift, “African Americans have, with almost religious fervor, regarded education as the key to liberation.” The education and advancement of black men provided the basis of the initial interaction of the fraternity’s founders. Finally, Gaines’s analysis of uplift reveals an aspect of Alpha that has frequently been underemphasized in the past. He suggested that “many black elites sought status, moral authority, and recognition of their humanity by distinguishing themselves, as bourgeois agents of civilization, from the presumably undeveloped black majority.” The founders of the fraternity did attempt to prove that African Americans had a culturally relevant past, and that they, as students at an elite university, represented the best of that legacy.

Excerpt from book chapter on Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc.'s Founders

The Pride of All Our Hearts:
The Founders of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc.
Michael E. Jennings

Kappa Alpha Psi, Fraternity, Inc. was founded on the campus of Indiana University on January 5, 1911. In describing the early years of the fraternity, the official history book of the fraternity asserts that “The Story of Kappa Alpha Psi is to a large extent the story of black students everywhere, whether organized or not, who attended predominantly white colleges or universities in America prior to World War II.” With this in mind, the history of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc. can best be understood if examined within the socio-historical context of the time and place of the fraternity’s inception.

African-Americans in Indiana: Life in the Heartland
From its recognition as a state in the early 19th century through the early years of the twentieth century, the state of Indiana fostered an atmosphere of hostility and violence towards its African-American citizenry. In his 1978 book discussing the history of Indiana, Howard H. Peckham (a noted historian of colonial and revolutionary America) wrote that “Hoosiers were not racially tolerant: they didn’t like Indians and they didn’t like Negroes. They had largely ousted Indians from the area, and had, by stipulations in the new constitution, forbidden Negroes to enter the state.” Journalist and writer John Bartlow Martin wrote of the “old tradition of intolerance” that existed in Indiana prior to Word War I and how it was exemplified by roadside signs that posted signs on their outskirts which read: “Nigger, Don’t Let the Sun Set on You Here.”

Further evidence of the specific hostility directed at African-Americans can be found in the disturbing history of lynching that pervades Indiana’s history. Statistics related to lynching show that at least twenty African Americans were lynched in Indiana between 1865 and 1903. Even at a time when lynching was considered a southern phenomenon, Indiana stood out as a locale where violence against African-Americans was pervasive. In fact, Indiana’s reputation for lynching was so well established during this time that it led the governor of Georgia to cite the record of lynchings in Indiana as a justification for the support of lynching in his own state.

African-American Students at Indiana University: The Early Years
It is within this context of racial intolerance and discrimination that a handful of African-American students matriculated at Indiana University early in the twentieth century. The discrimination, alienation and frequent indignities faced by these students provided the impetus for organizing an African-American fraternity on the campus of Indiana University.

The first African-American sponsored Greek-letter organization at Indiana University was the Alpha Kappa Nu Greek society created in 1903. Little is known about this organization, however it has been speculated that were not enough black students matriculating at Indiana University during this time period to assure continuance of the organization. This speculation was fueled by the realization that the few African-American students who attended Indiana University frequently withdrew from the university after a short period of time so that they could secure employment. In subsequent years however, a critical mass of African-American male students at Indiana University sought to come together again under the banner of fraternalism.

Excerpt from book chapter on Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc.'s Founders

Women of Vision, Catalysts for Change:
The Founders of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc.

Jessica Harris

This chapter traces the lives of the twenty-two founders of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. In 1913, these twenty-two Howard University students embarked on a journey that forever changed the trajectory of the black sorority movement. Together, they formed an organization dedicated to service, committed to the bonds of sisterhood, and the achievement of academic excellence. Taking a stand at a time and in an era marred by legalized racial and gender inequality, the visionary twenty-two set forth to challenge and upset the white patriarchal order of their day. Memorialized most pointedly through their participation in the March 1913 march for women’s suffrage in Washington, D.C., the conviction, courage, and tenacity of the founders was put on display and the impetus of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority as a national organization and movement was congealed.

Because the present and future goals of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority are so closely tied to the pioneering efforts of the organization’s twenty-two founders, it is only fitting that this chapter provide a glimpse into their trailblazing lives. Unfortunately, there are not many sources readily available to complete extensive biographical sketches of the founders. As such, the scholarly inquiry of Paula Giddings provides much of the context for the ensuing account of Delta’s founders. In spite of such constraints, the author hopes to provide the reader with a synthesis of previous works, to show the contribution of these dynamic women to the expansion of the black sorority movement and pay tribute to their persistent pursuit of racial justice and gender equality.

….

Delta founder Bertha Pitts Campbell said of Delta in 1950, “It is a source of great satisfaction and pride to me to see that Delta has grown and prospered through the years, so that now it stands as a beacon, to light the way for good living. May Delta Sigma Theta continue its good work for the benefit of all people.” Since those remarks some fifty-six years ago, Delta Sigma Theta has grown to include a membership of over 200,000 predominantly African American, college-educated women. With chapters all over the world, the vision of the twenty-two founders lives on, as Delta sisters continuously show proof of their commitment to social change. With a lineage and heritage including exemplars of leadership and service such as Sadie T.M Alexander, Mary Mcleod Bethune, and Dorothy I. Height, the future of the Sorority promises to be one of continued assessment, progress, and change. Mirroring the words of the hymn Forward Through the Ages when it says—“Not alone we conquer—not alone we fall. In each loss or triumph, lose or triumph all. Bound by God’s far purpose, in one living whole, move we on together, to the shining goal” together, the women of Delta Sigma Theta move onward and upwards—adhering to and inspired by their ancestor’s directive to stand as catalysts for change.

Excerpt from book chapter on Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority, Inc.'s Founders

Seven Schoolteachers Challenge the Klan and Establish Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority

Bernadette Pruitt, Caryn E. Neumann, and Katrina Hamilton

In postwar 1920s America, Blacks found themselves as targets of widespread racial bigotry. Only a few years earlier in 1918 did scholar-activist W.E.B. Du Bois as editor of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People’s (NAACP) Crisis Magazine urge Blacks to “close ranks” and, at least for the time being, support the Allied Forces in their effort to defeat the Central Powers of Europe. Making up 400,000 in uniform, almost one million in wartime factory personnel, and many more as loyal supporters of the war effort, Blacks did just that. Regrettably, African American patriotism did little to damper racial hatred. Met with random acts of violence, anti-Black labor union strife, unemployment, underemployment, housing discrimination, poor city services, educational inequities, scientific racism, and condescending employers, African Americans turned inward and relied on the principle of self-help to secure autonomy, hope, and constructive resistance.

In the city of Indianapolis seven African American educators masked their anxieties, put aside their individual needs, and formed a self-help organization that sought ways to promote intellectual distinction among female schoolteachers and education majors. Either Midwestern natives or Southern migrants, the women, all from working-class backgrounds, recognized the power of agency for people of color. The teachers founded Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority in 1922 on the campus of Butler College (renamed Butler University in 1923). Community builders and idealists at heart, the educators refined their goals over the course of the next few years. By 1925, they expanded their membership requirements to include Black women outside the realm of education. In an effort to strengthen their collegiate programs and commitment to community agency and racial autonomy, the sorority in 1929 formed alumnae chapters and established scholarships for undergraduate members. A decade later, the organization comprised sixteen undergraduate chapters and four alumnae chapters in thirteen states.

Interestingly, in the backdrop of the sorority’s genesis stood the very powerful and dangerous Ku Klux Klan. Racism, no doubt, thrived in both Indiana and the country; racial injustice therefore sparked the birth of the second the Ku Klux Klan. Established in 1915 in Stone Mountain, Georgia, the new Ku Klux Klan of the twentieth century evolved from two national events that year: the anti-Semitic lynching of engineer Leo Frank in Atlanta; and the release of D. W. Griffith’s masterpiece, Birth of a Nation. Unlike the original Ku Klux Klan of Reconstruction, the second Klan targeted a variety of groups, including Jewish Americans, Catholics, recent European ethnic immigrants, Latinos, East Asians, and feminists. The secret society grew to record proportions in the 1920s, especially in the Midwest. Indiana particularly stood out as a major center of Klan activity. With 300,000 members in the early 1920s, the Indiana Klan comprised one third of the native-born White male population in the state. D. C. Stephenson, the Grand Dragon of the Indiana KKK, since 1924, resided at 5432 University, in Irvington, Indianapolis, literally right next to Butler University. Madge Oberholtzer, the educator Stephenson raped and kidnapped in 1926, also lived in Irvington.

The founders of Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority also faced many aspects of racism on the campus of Butler College. Since its founding in 1855, Butler had been open to African American applicants. However, at least one Board of Regents member supported the KKK. The school itself practiced de facto segregation in numerous ways. The university in 1927 adopted a quota system that admitted only ten African American students annually. As a result, the university’s Black enrollment declined from seventy-four in the 1926-1927 year to fifty-eight, and included nine entering freshmen. In 1925, the university yearbook, the Drift, placed photos of Black graduating seniors in the back of the book, away from the alphabetical listing and pictures highlighting other seniors. These realities suggest that African Americans on the campus were met with a degree of racial hostility.

Nevertheless, the sorority’s founders pressed on. Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority, Inc., founders Mary Lou Allison, Nannie Mae Gahn, Vivian White, Bessie Downey, Cubena McClure, Dorothy Hanley, and Hattie Mae Dulin quietly began their society for teachers and sought to make a difference. In doing so, they indirectly challenged perceived early twentieth-century notions about race and gender. They subtly defied the local KKK when they established their society for college-educated African American women. Ignoring the commonly held view that African American women were intellectually, culturally, and sexually inferior, the seven founders relied on racial autonomy, community building, and constructive activism in an effort to topple racism, poverty, and hopelessness.

Pre-order Our Fight Has Just Begun

Black Greek Letter Organizations in the 21st Century:

Our Fight Has Just Begun
Edited by Gregory S. Parks, Ph.D.

Approximately 700 pages and 30 photos

1. “It’s Time to Set It Off”: Advancing the Idea of a Critical BGLO Scholarship - Gregory S. Parks, Ph.D.
2. The First and the Finest: The Founders of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. - Stefan Bradley, Ph.D.
3. The Vision of Virtuous Women: Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority’s Founding Twenty Pearls - Stephanie Y. Evans, Ph.D.
4. The Last Shall Be First: Omega Psi Phi Fraternity’s Founders - Judson L. Jeffries, Ph.D.
5. Women of Vision, Catalysts for Change: The Founders of Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. - Jessica Harris, Ph.D. candidate
6. True Blue: The Founders of Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity, Inc. and Zeta Phi Beta Sorority, Inc. - Matthew Hughey, Ph.D. candidate
7. The Pride of All Our Hearts: The Founders of Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc. - Michael Jennings, Ph.D.
8. Seven Schoolteachers Challenge the Klan and Establish Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority - Bernadette Pruitt, Ph.D., Caryn E. Neumann, Ph.D., & Katrina Hamilton, M.A.
9. “Not from the Heights to Which We Have Gone, but the Depths from Which We Have Come”: A Narrative Critique of Black Greek Letter Organizations and Social Action - Vernon Mitchell, Ph.D. candidate & Jessica Harris, Ph.D. candidate
10. Black Feminist Thought in Black Sororities - Caryn E. Neumann, Ph.D.
11. Giving and Getting: Philanthropic Activity among Black Greek Letter Organizations - Marybeth Gasman, Ph.D., Patricia J Louison, Ed.D., & Mark Barnes, M.A.
12. Strategic Essentialism and Black Greek Identity in the Post-modern Era - Cynthia L. Shelton, Ph.D.
13. “I’ve Got All My Sisters with Me?”: Black Women’s Organizations in the 21st Century - Shirley A. Jackson, Ph.D.
14. Sisterhood Beyond the Ivory Tower: Exploring Black Sorority Alumnae Membership - Marcia Hernandez, Ph.D.
15. Exploring Black Greek Letter Organizations through a Positive Organizing Lens - Laura M. Roberts, Ph.D. & Lynn P. Wooten, Ph.D.
16. Not on My Line: Examining Attitudes about Homosexuality in Black Fraternities - Alan DeSantis, Ph.D. & Marcus Coleman, M.A.
17. “I Did It For The Brotherhood”: Non-Black Members in Black Greek Letter Organizations - Matthew Hughey, Ph.D. candidate
18. Eating Disorders within Black Sororities - Tamika C. Barkely, Ph.D. candidate & Gregory T. Smith, Ph.D.
19. Modern Fraternities, Ancient Origins - Charles S. Finch, M.D.
20. “‘Cuz I’m Young and I’m Black and My Hat’s Real Low?”: A Postmodern Critique of Black Greeks as “Educated Gangs” - Matthew Hughey, Ph.D. candidate
21. Black and White “Greeks”: A Call for Collaboration - Edward Whipple, Ed.D. & Martin F. Crichlow, Jr., Ed.D. candidate
22. Advising Black Greek Letter Organizations: A Student Development Approach - Ralph Johnson, Ph.D., Darnell Bradley, Ph.D., LaKeisha Bryant, M.Ed., Darren M. Morton, M.S., & Don C. Sawyer, III, Ph.D. candidate


PRE-ORDER INFORMATION:
Check or money order should be made out to: “Gregory Parks” in the amount of $40.00 (per book). Please add $5.00 (domestic) and $8.00 (foreign) shipping and handling for the first book and $1.00 (domestic) and $2.00 (foreign) for each additional book.
Send payment to: 503 Summerhill Drive, #3; Ithaca, New York, 14850.

It is possible that the final price for the book, which has yet to be determined by the publisher, will exceed $40.00, so this offer lasts only until the end of August. Orders must be postmarked no later than August 31, 2007.

Are BGLOs “Educated Gangs”?
An exploration of the claim and in whose interests it is advanced
Matthew W. Hughey

The Culture of Poverty

In 1966 Oscar Lewis published La Vida: A Puerto Rican Family in the Culture of Poverty—San Juan and New York. The text argues that the poor have bad values and habits, which suggests that the poor remain in poverty because of their adaptations to the burdens of poverty. This argument has been mapped onto contemporary discussions of race. While many today do not believe that people of color are biologically inferior, many hold the opinion that non-whites, especially African Americans, are culturally inferior. The idea is that social forces, from racism to poverty, creates a culture of misery and inability to defer gratification such that the culture itself takes on a life of its own and works as a cycle of dependency. Due to reports, publications, and an increasingly publicized conservative agenda first ascended in the 1960s, a new ideology toward race developed. This ideology was first intimated in the 1965 report by Patrick Moynihan entitled the “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action.” It was reproduced in black scholarship like Kenneth Clark’s Dark Ghetto (1965), and it persists today in the vein of Charles Murray and Richard J. Herrnstein’s The Bell Curve (1994), as well as the vitriolics against affirmative action within the work of Thomas Sowell and Shelby Steele. The new conservatism stresses that there is plenty of opportunity in the nation, but that minorities fail to take advantage of opportunities. Such logic supports the “educated gang” thesis. While there is truth that BGLOs develop self-destructive habits, it discounts the social structures of capitalism and white supremacy that work to criminalize people of color despite any meritocracy sensibilities or similarity in the constructions of ethics and values. The tragedy is that both popular culture commentators and the average white U.S. citizen have adopted this theory of poverty as mapped onto race. They have transformed it into a new excuse for racism by simply deemphasizing the role of social structures and white racism, as well as ignoring the everyday experience of prejudice and discrimination affected in the lives of people of color.

Symbolic Violence

Framing BGLOs as “educated gangs” commits a certain “symbolic violence” against not only the BGLO system, but also understandings of “blackness” itself. Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu has analyzed this “naming” or sanctioning of events by a legitimated group on a supposedly “deviant” group. He wrote,

… all the symbolic strategies though which agents aim to impose their vision of
the divisions of the social world and their position in that world… [compel] the
official naming [original italics] a symbolic act of imposition which has on its
side all the strength of the collective, of the consensus, of common sense,
because it is performed by…the holder of the monopoly of legitimated symbolic
violence [original italics] (2002, p. 7).

The naming or the qualification of specific actions committed by BGLOs becomes an act that is more durable than the intrinsic characteristics of BGLOs themselves. It is not the relative value of the action which the BGLO commits that determines the value of the naming. Instead the institutionalized value of the event once named acts as an instrument to serve and defend the value of the namer, the holder of the legitimated knowledge—the white mainstream. Naming and (de)legitimating such events are acts of symbolic violence toward black agency. The struggle over the “educated gang” thesis’ racial meaning and how BGLOs are thus named is not a struggle between mere subjectivism and objectivism. No matter how much is weighed there will be evidence on both sides. Rather, the view of BGLOs as educated gangs is actually mediated by the stake between social agents who are equipped to attain the social markers that legitimate claims to absolute and self-verifying knowledge, and those who do not possess cultural capital of the dominant racial discourse.

White Normalization

If we examine the context that surrounds the discourse of BGLOs as “educated gangs” we open up new possibilities for viewing the striking hegemonic power of such a framing that is able to reinstall white normality and superiority. It is able to do so through three distinct valances. First, portraying black Greeks as a “gang” enables the collective memory of personal hatred and fear, as well as structural racism, to have an easy target. That is, if even the black elite, college-attending youth act like a gang, then they can be used as “evidence” for arguments extending from black biological inferiority to black cultural deficiency. Second, the striking irony of framing organizations like BGLOs is that the black exceptionalism of BGLOs becomes refigured as a deficient form of “otherness.” Behavior, that under a white face would be ignored, excused, or explained away to personal, rogue, or “bad apple” elucidations becomes a sociological accounting book for the “true nature” of BGLO ontology. Third, race then operates relationally. That is, race holds both meaning and power through its relationship with other categories and through how boundaries of difference are drawn between those types. By taking discussions of BGLOs outside of the discussion of the political economy of identity and power, there results a singular, reductionist focus on BGLO shortcomings. Many of those shortcomings do exist, and should not be excused for their deleterious effects in, and outside of, the African American community. Yet, such a myopic focus destabilizes one’s ability to theorize how such conditions got to be that way, how they are maintained, and most importantly how others are excused, or are praised for, similar actions.

Conclusion: Transcending the Framework of Evaluation

The true violence of the “educated gang” thesis is most evident when one compares the lack of that vindictive label in regard to white fraternities and sororities. The effectiveness of the discourse in stabilizing white normativity, at the intended expense of the demise of certain black organizational forms, is illuminated when one engages in comparative analysis. As Norbert Elias wrote, “Only with the aid of comparative studies devoted to understanding devalued power structures and scales of values can we hope to attain a clearer picture of power structures and scales of values that have a chance of greater permanence” (1969, p. 77). The focus on BGLOs, rather than on the entire Greek system; the mysterious absence of discussions on college and university treatment of students of color as commodities for the credentialism of ivory tower demographics under the Foucauldian-like surveillance of our multicultural logic; and the entire delimiting of bad-value choices and unethical behavior by mainstream whites—all these together work to establish blackness as a criminal enterprise and ontology no matter what grand or ethical accomplishments are met by BGLOs.

When BGLOs submit to either assimilative or image-corrective agendas they allow themselves to fall prey to the critique that they are an “educated gang.” In “Black Particularity Reconsidered,” Adolph Reed, Jr. wrote that self-determined black movements like BGLOs have “…construed racial politics within the ideological universe through which the containment of the black population was mediated. Acceptance of this model…prevented Black Power from transcending the social program of the indigenous administrative elite” (2002, p. 51). So long as the predominant BGLO strategy seeks not to transcend such prostitution of self-determination, then representations of their blackness (and Black Greekness for that matter) will continue to fit neatly into a modernist framework that is indispensable for the justification of racial inequality and white supremacy.

Interesting Commentary on Hughey and Parks Article

http://community.livejournal.com/blackfolk/5041519.html

BGLOs as Educated Gangs - II

Are BGLOs “Educated Gangs”?
An exploration of the claim and in whose interests it is advanced

Matthew W. Hughey

Why the label “educated gangs”?

If there is such contrary evidence and mixed results, we must ask the questions: From where did this label come? What new information does calling BGLOs “educated gangs” afford us? In whose interest is such a label advanced?

In answering these questions we must explore the meaning of the word gang. The origin of the word “gang” is unknown, the term lacks a clear definition even in law, and “there is no consensus across the large number of gang-involved cities on types of gangs…[and] efforts to establish a uniform definition of a gang suffer from a major dilemma – lack of consensus” (Weisel 2002, pp. 2, 34). The nominal term “gang” eliminates many other forms of social organization, leaving the core definition as an essentially criminal enterprise. Relying so heavily upon an axiological definition is problematic for several reasons: First, if laws change, do certain groups become, or stop being, “gangs?” The penchant for a value-defined definition can lead to a great deal of conceptual slippage as defined by the changing nature of jurisprudence. Second, because of the negative immoral/unethical underpinning of the word “gang,” many organizations that would technically be included under the definition would not be commonly thought of as gangs. Many would probably express extreme disagreement if Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s (a member of Alpha Phi Alpha) Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) and the illegal marches and sit-ins in which it engaged, was classified as a “gang” and as “gang-related” behavior. Conversely, many might feel that Dr. Huey P. Newton’s (a member of Phi Beta Sigma) Black Panther Party was a gang because they carried guns and recruited heavily from the underclass, yet they were extremely vigilant in not only respecting the law, but in educating people about it and upholding it. Third, gang definitions are also complicated by tendency of tautological explanations. “Using delinquent behavior as a criterion makes a possible outcome of gang activity one of the defining characteristics” (Bursik and Grasmick 1996: 245). That is, if inclusion of criminal activity is a distinctive feature in being able to differentiate gangs from non-gangs, then the logic is circular. Fourth, “gangs,” while often engaging in very violent and illegal behavior, are often responses to some social-structural precondition such as poverty, racism, unemployment, mis-education, etc., and that response is not always negative. As writer and activist Jacob Riis stated, “The gang is a distemper of the slums; a friend come to tell us something is amiss in our social life” (Riis, 1963, p. 342).

Given the obvious aforementioned conceptual and definition problems, why are BGLOs even mentioned within the same breath as gangs? We must realize that the discursive move to call BGLOs “educated gangs” attempts to accomplish and negate certain things, and relies upon already established systems of meaning (from racism to beliefs in cultural deficiencies) to assist legitimate such a demarcation. As Tom Hayden wrote in Street Wars: Gangs and the Future of Violence, “No one is more vilified today than a ‘gang member,’ with the exception of an ‘international terrorist’ or a ‘narco-terrorist,’ …these shadowy personas are increasingly morphed into a single archenemy of society. The mainstream perceptions of order and well-being depend on the projection of an opposite, the barbarian” (2004, p. 86). Using “educated gang” as a disparaging pseudonym for BGLOs enacts a distinct labor of representation whose impact is made real by those that uncritically accept the nominal term.

In acknowledging these dynamics, a critical postmodern lens is offered in order to evaluate this debate. Combining the work of scholars Michel Foucault, Stuart Hall, bell hooks, Kobena Mercer, and Cornel West, I argue that the “educated gang” thesis attempts to arrest understanding of BGLOs within an white normative, capitalist, axiological standard.

Kobena Mercer and Cornel West (1999, pp. 119-148) have discussed how representations of blackness have been cast into simplistic binary oppositions of positive/negative and good/bad that privileges dominate ideology vis-à-vis white aesthetics and normative discursive frameworks. In grappling with the sense of this particular form of “double consciousness,” BGLOs are experiencing a postmodern crisis of identity: they are caught between a quest for white approval and the push to move past internalized racism and feelings of inferiority.

This is nothing new. BGLO’s origins wrestled with the internal conflict of their founding missions that were a mix of a black tradition designed to resist those norms while simultaneously incorporating a highly assimilative, early Du Boisian “talented tenth” agenda. In the more hopeful and positive sense, critiquing this tension offers a glimpse of those selected aspects of human experience and identity that may be used as a moral foundation in the face of the maelstrom of dominant ideology that names BGLOs as “educated gangs” in the first place.

The search for comparisons between good and bad representations of BGLOs, even when predicated by the best of intentions in redressing imbalances in the field of racial representation, are inherently reductive as they fail to address questions of ambivalence or transgression. Scholar bell hooks writes:

Discussions of representation among African Americans usually occur within the
context of emerging identity politics, again with the central focus on whether
images are considered ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ The idea of a good image is often
informed simply by whether or not it differs from a racist stereotype…. Issues
of context, form, audience, experience (all of which inform the construction of
images) are usually completely submerged when judgments are made solely on the
basis of good or bad imagery (1990b, p. 72).

In a time of educational crackdowns on non-white collegiate enrollments, from Proposition 209 in California to the recent University of Michigan affirmative action decisions, and the Michigan constitutional amendments, some expect that rationales linking criminality with blackness will increase. Accordingly, both the “evidence” and “counter-evidence” of this debate are red-herrings, as the import of this debate is understood when we consider whose interests are served by even entering the debate in the first place. Specifically, there are three modalities by which the educated gang thesis appeals to its supporters: (1) a nouveau criminalization argument of BGLO culture vis-à-vis Oscar Lewis’ “culture of poverty” thesis; (2) a modus operandi of social “othering” that sociologist Pierre Bourdieu calls “symbolic violence;” and (3) techniques of defaming blackness in relation to normalization and privileging of whiteness.

BGLOS as Educated Gangs - Part I

Are BGLOs “Educated Gangs”?
An exploration of the claim and in whose interests it is advanced

Matthew W. Hughey

Over the past few years I have heard, with increasing frequency, the claim that BGLOs, especially Black fraternities, are little more than “educated gangs.” The specificity of this unique phrase captured my interest and captivated my sociological sensibilities. The invocation of such a label on the latest stage of the now 100 year tradition of BGLOs is controversial to say the least. Utter the terminology in public and you are libel to invite the gamut of responses, from adamant agreement to ardent animosity.

My investigation of the topic in Parks’ forthcoming volume shows that there is “evidence” to both support and debunk the claim.

The Pros

On the one hand, there are a few similarities between “Greeks and Gangs” to which those who support the claim commonly refer: (1) competition and conflict, (2) aesthetics, and (3) hazing.

Both Greeks and Gangs engage in conspicuous and consequential conflict, especially over place and space. Gangs often claim public areas such as sidewalks and parks as their “turf.” Often used as a parallel to this geographic reclamation, BGLOs have “plots” of land that are viewed as physical representations of the BGLO community on campus. Among both BGLOs and gangs, such disregard of these folkways and mores can lead to a severe verbal chastisement or even a physical confrontation.

There are also various aesthetic similarities between Greeks and Gangs, especially in regard to the performance of individual members’ appearances. The wearing of specific colors, the display of ornate jackets, and the display of hand-signs all mark membership to both sub-cultural insiders and outsiders. Often times BGLO members display their “line names” and gang members display their “street names.” The display of membership is further extended from bodily adornment to bodily modification via tattoos and branding.

Another similarity is that of hazing, substance abuse and sexual violence. From the stages of initiation to prophyte (new member) hazing, both Greeks and Gangs have notorious reputations. With both, there is an initiation ceremony. According to scholars, the process in both venues tends to involve elements of physical strength and endurance. Initiation processes seem to be much more physically violent within gangs, referred to by Robert Rhoads as “Street Baptism,” while BGLO initiation processes tend to be more extended, and can be just as violent, but generally center on extended emotional and mental stress. Other similarities include alcohol and drug abuse, enduring physically taxing activities, or destruction of property.

The Cons

On the other hand, while the three preceding aspects provide strong evidence for the thesis, there is more than enough counter-evidence in regard to the topics of: (1) philanthropy and civic action, (2) substance abuse, and (3) sexual and gender violence.

BGLO members generally serve in leadership positions, participate in service programs, and try to maintain high academic standards. Giving back to the larger community is a key principle for all BGLOs as they sponsor a multitude of service events that either raise money for, or directly assist, agencies in need. For example, the first public service initiative completed by the newly founded Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. was the 1913 Women’s Suffrage March in Washington, DC. Members of Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority, Inc. also showed a unique interest in women’s rights during the early stages of their organization’s existence. Early interests of Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity, Inc., founded in 1914, focused on the anti-lynching laws and international issues occurring in the Republic of Haiti. “Martin Luther King, Jr. attracted many of the staff members for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference from the ranks of black Greeks …today social action and civil rights projects will receive as high a priority as social functions” (McKee 1987, pp. 27-29). Few gangs today involve themselves in community service or direct civil action, although there have been rare exceptions.

Another point of comparison that destabilizes the “educated gang” thesis is that of the topic of underage and over-consumption of alcohol and illegal drugs. At first glance however, the data appears to support the claim. Kuh, Pascearella, and Wechsler (1996) found that members of Greek organizations were much more likely to abuse alcohol than non-Greeks. O’Connor, Cooper, and Thiel (1996) found that alcohol use might be a predictor of fraternity membership itself (669-676), and the research conducted by Martínez (2001) shows that “…gangs may be in the business of selling more drugs than fraternities, and fraternities may have a higher degree of alcohol consumption than gangs, but the commonality between the two is that both of the groups have a high participation in the areas of drugs and alcohol” (2001, p. 5).

In piggybacking off of the latter, Greeks are Gangs are often compared in regard to sexual abuse. In Torn Togas (1996) the author writes, “…many fraternities glorify drinking and may deliberately encourage women to overdrink. …clearly a strong link exists between the use of alcohol and rape, which explains how sexual assault has become so prevalent at fraternities (Wright, 1996, p. 53). Some studies have shown that a woman’s chance of being sexually assaulted as a college student is as high as 20-25 percent (Hennessy and Huson, 1998, pp. 61-77). Copenhaver and Grauerholz reported that key aspects of fraternity practices like loyalty, group secrecy, alcohol use, and emphasis on competition and secrecy created a structural atmosphere conducive to rape (1991, pp. 31-41). Martínez writes, “One of the most common crimes committed between the two groups [Greeks and Gangs] is sexual assault on females” (2001, p. 4). Scholars like Palmer and Tilley (1995) and Rhoads (1995) find that one of the main reasons for joining a gang or a fraternity is the access to females that such membership is rumored to increase.

However, such findings often ignore BGLOs and concentrate solely on white Greeks. BGLOs are strikingly different than their white Greek counterparts. Alcohol and drug use fall way off in regard to BGLOs and failure to distinguish between the white and black Greek system will lead to spurious results. BGLOs often have a better reputation than their white Greek counterparts in regard to both substance abuse and issues of sexual harassment and rape. Black, Belknap, and Ginsburg (2005) found several differences between the white and black Greek systems. The most notable in regard to alcohol and sexual assault is the structural difference between white and black Greeks. White Greek parties often occur in private settings, while BGLO parties are generally in public settings that prohibit many forms of sexual assault. “[D]uring parties, white fraternities can consume alcohol and drugs, play loud music, have access to bedrooms, and behave in a sexually aggressive manner in the privacy of their own houses, whereas black fraternity parties are formally supervised, which makes each fraternity member more accountable for his own behavior and that of his brothers and others” (Black, Belknap and Ginsburg, 2005, p. 386).

Most research shows that BGLOs do not partake or engage in the same high-risk activities that promote alcohol/drug abuse and sexual assault as white Greek organizations or common gangs. However, it is important to note that this does not mean that such actions are absent within BGLO circles.

Matthew W. Hughey is currently a Ph.D. candidate in Sociology and an adjunct instructor in African American Studies, Media Studies, and Sociology at the University of Virginia. His scholarship is published/forthcoming in a wide variety of academic journals: Research in Race and Ethnic Relations; The Journal of African American Studies; The Western Journal of Black Studies; Journal of Black Studies; Race, Ethnicity, and Education; Journal of Contemporary Ethnography; Social Thought and Research; Educational Foundations, and; The Journal of Religious Thought. Mr. Hughey is chair of the Racial and Ethnic Studies Division of the Cultural Studies Association, is co-editor (with Dr. Parks) of The Empirical BGLO Project, and is a member of Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity, Inc. For more information on his research and forthcoming publications, visit http://people.virginia.edu/~mwh5h/.

Article on the Future of BGLOs

http://diverseeducation.com/artman/publish/article_7432.shtml

Response to a Christian Critique of BGLOs

Rev. Kenneth I. Clarke wished to submit a piece that was more lengthy than a typical blog comment as a response to Fred Hatchett's comments on Rev. Clarke's post last week. Below, are Rev. Clarke's words. For a bio of Rev. Clarke, please see the end of his other blog entry.

I write in response to the commentaries made to the initial blog, “What Are You For …” particularly with respect to Minister Fred Hatchett’s reflections.

You indicate that I did not address your “personal interpretation” of scripture. The issue at heart is whether one’s “personal interpretation” of scripture is consistent with what is really in the scripture. Is our personal interpretation aligned with what the writer of the scripture intended to convey to his/her readers? Is the historic and cultural context in which the writer wrote taken into consideration when one make’s one’s interpretation?

For instance, when Paul writes in I Cor. 14:34 that women should be “kept silent in the churches,” Paul was dealing with a specific situation in the church at Corinth related to the need for order in worship. However, this text has been misinterpreted in contemporary times to deny God’s call of women to ministry. Secondly, Paul in I Cor. 14 makes reference only to married women, not single women, again in the context of a larger concern about order in worship. Further, Paul in I Cor. 5:5 had already made reference to women speaking (“prophesying”) in the church.

A failure to take into consideration the historic and other related circumstances in which a scripture was written will lead to misinterpretation and misapplication of the scriptures. In my humble opinion, this seems to be the method of operation at work with your interpretation of the scripture as relates to your anti-BGLO mission. When misinterpretation and misapplication happens, harm is done to the integrity of the Word of God. These are things I learned at my “liberal” divinity school where feminists and liberation theologians, among others, provide the tools that help one’s efforts to “rightly divide the word of truth (II Tim. 2:15) and think critically about the world in which one lives.

Bro. Hatchett, if you have not done so already, I would encourage you to consider the pursuit of theological education, in keeping with the scriptures that encourage the love of God with one’s heart, soul and mind (Mt.22:37). Don’t put down what you may not have experienced firsthand. Our black communities are in profound need of ministers who are full of the fire of the Spirit and the light of intellect. To put it in a biblical framework, revelation and preparation go hand in hand. Jesus himself prepared for the ministry that came to him by divine revelation by spending forty days in the wilderness. We can do no less.

As relates to the comment about students being provided “two different pictures of Jesus,” it appears that there are at least four different “pictures” of Jesus provided in the Bible. They are called the Gospels: four related but distinct interpretations (“pictures”) of Jesus. It is a mistaken assumption to expect fraternal organizations, irrespective of the degree to which they may have been influenced in their origins by Christianity or incorporate scripture, to be spiritual organizations per se. They are not and never have been. They are primarily social organizations. One has to look to the religious institution of one’s choice—we live in a democracy, not a theocracy—to grasp the reality of God for oneself.

Further, in response to the questions raised in Minister Hatchett’s blog, it is not required for anyone to submit to anyone’s litmus test—even those of fellow Christians—to authenticate one’s belief in Jesus Christ or the validity of whatever one’s belief may be. Simply because my understanding of faith is distinct from Minister Hatchett’s or Gail Gray’s does not consign me to hell. The good minister may be concerned about my soul. I am not because that is an issue settled between God and I forty years ago, long before he was born.

Ultimately, God—and not any one of us humans, however spirit-filled we are—is the final arbiter of truth and the one who knows the eternal destination of each individual. Jesus warns about judgmental attitudes in Matthew 7: “Do not judge and criticize and condemn others, so that you may not be judged and criticized and condemned yourselves” (verse 1). Additionally, when one does not know an individual, never met that individual, knows nothing about the spiritual or life journey or any of the particulars of an individual—even if they are Greek-affiliated—how can one make an assessment of one’s spiritual status or eternal destination? To assume that knowledge is to assume that one IS God.

The commentaries posted in response to my initial blog seem to infer that if one does not believe as I believe or made the choice one has made to denounce membership in a BGLO based on personal convictions that do not have universal application, one is going to hell. Conversely, even if I held convictions similar to those of Minister Hatchett and Ms. Gray, it seems that a more biblically grounded approach for evangelization is found in John 4.

In that passage Jesus talks with a Samaritan woman at a well. Religious and cultural customs forbade a Jewish man, such as Jesus, to talk in public with a woman (women had few rights in Jewish culture) or with a Samaritan because of ethnically-based conflict between Jews and Samaritans. Jesus—the progenitor of “liberation” and “feminist” theologians—broke those cultural taboos.

Jesus established a relationship with her bereft of condemnation and self-righteousness for having 5 husbands and being in a live-in arrangement with a sixth man. His rapport with her spiritually transformed her life while also holding her accountable for her past life. The biblical model for evangelization—spreading the Good News—is about relationship-building that leads to changed lives and communities, not blanket and often unfounded condemnations.
As a challenge to blanket condemnations, please provide the evidence as to where is it stated in the program of any of the nine BGLOs that they endorse abortion. It seems to me in such organizations of diverse individuals with a wide range of religious beliefs, philosophies of life, etc. which is not, I repeat, a religious organization that there is a wide range of belief and conviction about abortion. Even if the organizations supported a woman’s right to choose, individual members of the organization will disagree. Every BGLO member would not be in lockstep with such a policy decision.

The fact of the matter is that there is a debate about Christianity and Greek life that is taking place, right here and right now. Part of it is operative on this blogsite, democratically open to a variety of points of view, including those who feel BGLOs are anti-Christian. Just because one’s point of view is not the dominant point of view or is being challenged does not mean a debate is not taking place.

Earlier I stated that Jesus is the prototype for liberation theologians. Jesus in the Jewish and Christian scriptures was the fullest manifestation of Jewish law and the prophetic tradition (stated as “the law and the prophets;” Mt. 5:17). The prophetic tradition is where I want to focus here. It was the tradition manifest in the work of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and others in the prophetic literature that challenged Israel to be in right relationship with God and others (tsedequah: righteousness) and to rightly order relations (mishpat: justice). It’s in the text! In other words, the prophets were about the business of promoting personal and social transformation, to ensure that tsedequah and mishpat were at work in their nation at the personal and the social level.

This is why Jesus began his ministry, according to Luke 4:18-19, quoting from the prophet Isaiah (Isa. 61:1ff.): “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised (the oppressed, according to the Amplified Bible—AB-- “who are downtrodden, bruised, crushed and broken down by calamity); to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord (i.e., the “the day when salvation and the free favors of God profusely abound, “ again from the AB).”

Martin Luther King, Jr. and Jesse Jackson, whom are dismissed in Minister Hatchett’s previous blog as “liberation theologians,” took their cues for a ministry from that Jesus, who came to make soul and society whole. The best traditions of the black church have exemplified this kind of ministry and paved the way for the Ken Clarkes, Fred Hatchetts, Gail Grays, Greg Parks and so many others. A number of fellow Christians—and may I dare say others whose belief in God is reflected in other faith traditions—who are also involved in BGLOs are animated by the same example. I’d be reluctant to be so dismissive of liberation theologians, inasmuch that without them one wouldn’t enjoy what relative freedom one exercises today, even the freedom to critique.

It seems to me that Jesus himself was a liberation theologian, given the fact that liberation theology came into being to provide voice for those who are poor and oppressed, whose personal souls and spiritual growth was challenged by unjust social forces. That’s good religion, in my view. On the other hand, as Dr. King, my brother in Alpha, put it: “Any religion which professes to be concerned with the souls of men and is not concerned with the slums that damn them, the economic conditions that strangle them, and the social conditions that cripple them, is a moribund religion awaiting burial.”

There seem to be several fundamental questions that arise from this debate:

1. What kind of religion does one practice? Does that religion reflect what one is for or what one is against?
   
2. Are BGLOs to be held accountable for what they are not—religious organizations with a specific religious identity—or are they organizations inspired originally by Christian principles but whose members reflect a wide range of belief (and, to be frank, no belief, since religious belief is not requisite for membership)?
   
   

Anti-Intellectualism and Hypermasculinity in Black Fraternities

Anti-Intellectualism and Hypermasculinity in Black Fraternities

by Alan DeSantis

In our three-campus ethnographic research investigating attitudes on masculinity and homosexuality, we have found a recurring strain of what John McWhorter (2000) has called “anti-intellectualism” running through black male Greek consciousness. Too many of our respondents associated being academic—or what interviewee Greg called “bookish” or what interviewee John called “nerdy”—with being both white and gay.

This dangerous bifurcation is also seen in the career choices brothers make once they leave campus. “Being street,” according to Leroy, “means that you have not forgotten . . . . You don’t want to be like the ‘business type.’ They are the sellouts. It is also, like I said before, a gay image.” A thoughtful Alex agrees with this perception found in the black community, but posits an explanation grounded in historic forces. “You see, white men have been able to define their manhood by their career, but in many instances, we were limited, or thought we were limited.” He continued to assert that because of this lack of opportunity, “black men turned to something they can control [e.g., their image, their body, their attitude]. They became hyper-masculine. If you are not that way, though, you are viewed a feminine. A soft brother.”

As many of these men claimed, however, it is not just the positive aspects of masculinity that must be accentuated; there are certain feminine qualities that must be eschewed. You cannot be too “refined,” “immaculate,” or “well-dressed.” Benjamin, for example, sees men who are “well-dressed, and well-versed as being suspect. You know, there is a chance he is homosexual.” Raymond feels the same suspicions: “It is almost, for a man, to be refined, well dressed, . . . speaking white, unless he is over the age of 40, is almost a given he is gay or just a complete geek.”

Speaking directly to this concern, James, a refined, well-dressed alumni, told us of his personal experience of not fitting into this limited mold of masculinity:

"There is one time when I was pledging and a big brother came in and asked me is I had ‘sugar in my tank?’ I said ‘excuse us big brother, what do you mean?’ I mean ‘are you gay?’ But this happens. . . Just recently again, I was talking to one of my brothers and he said he thought I was gay when we first met because I was too polished and I spoke the queen’s English and I am fairly reserved."

This conception of masculinity was closely associated with different fraternal organizations. “The Alphas,” Jefferson claimed, “they are the smart ones, the immaculate ones. They are very precise, and, of course, there is the stereotype that they are the gay ones.” Robert sees the Alphas as “The ones they are bookish, straight. I think that’s why people think they are more non-masculine, feminine right. Not that it is bad, you know. It is just different.”

Even the Alphas we spoke with were aware of their reputation. Some argued that this perception is new. “We are more traditional. We are Dr. King and Thurgood Marshall. The younger brothers don’t know their history so that’s not cool to them.” Others Alpha brothers think it stems from the culture that is strategically cultivated by the organization: “We work on our image as gentleman. So I think a different type of brother comes to us. We are also not interested in gang bangers. So it goes both ways. We look and they look for us.”

Not all Alphas, however, are proud of their contemporary public perception. “I try to flip the script,” explained one younger Alpha. “People meet us [his chapter] and they think geeks or nerds. After they meet us, they say “I thought Alphas was like this, now I changed my mind. So I try to work on that. I don’t glorify the stereotype.”

This anti-intellectual spirit, however, did not go unchallenged. In fact, an uneasy dialectical tension marked most of our discussions about academic achievement and masculinity. One the one hand, these men viewed manhood as being antithetical to life of the mind. Being too intellectual, refined, or well-spoken cast doubt on both their commitment to the race, i.e., selling out to the white culture, and their heterosexual status. On the other hand, however, these men were also proud to be at college and competitive about their grades. This sense of pride was especially pronounced by brothers who overcame myriad social and personal obstacles to gain admissions into their universities. This dialectical push and pull compelled many of these men, therefore, to walk the thin line between being too refined and too street. Chuck D, from Public Enemy fame, aptly termed this paradoxical clash of identities as life of the “college thug.” We have optimistically been assured by many of the older alumni in this study, however, that “these young brothers will outgrow this stage” of life (Ron).

What Are You For? A Commentary on the Anti-BGLO Movement

Kenneth I. Clarke, Sr.
Chaplain, Iota Iota Lambda Chapter
Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc.
Minister, campus religious affairs administrator and educator

Inspiration is not garnered from litanies of what is flawed; it resides in humanity's willingness to restore, redress, reform, recover, reimagine, and reconsider. Healing the wounds of the Earth and its people does not require saintliness or a political party. It is not a liberal or conservative activity. It is a sacred act.
--Paul Hawken

It has always seemed odd to me when individuals and groups attempt to inspire others to join a campaign or movement which primary foundations are grounded in what they oppose. This clearly is the case among former members of Black Greek Letter Organizations (BGLOs) and their allies who are part of the most recent manifestation of the “Anti-Greek” movement.

Since the early 1980s I have been aware of a conservative contingent within black churches that has viewed with suspicion BGLOs, Masonic and Eastern Star orders, etc. They have demonized these organizations, asserting their involvement in satanic, cult-like activity and so forth. I suspect that this antipathy toward BGLOs may extend beyond the eighties.

The question of the moment is whether this recent manifestation of anti-BGLO animus is more of the same from “back in the day” or if this is an effort gaining traction and influence in the age of race-denying megachurches (with large African-American constituencies and, in many cases, leadership) and toxic theological teachings that also evince some measure of "ethnic neutering" and have gained increased public access and influence.

Claiming to be “true Christians” who denounce BGLOs as adherents of polytheism which initiation rituals require them to choose the organization instead of the lordship of Jesus Christ, these attempts to “expose” BGLOs are grounded in the negative—what they are against—than what, presumably, they are for (i.e., authentic Christian witness).

Hence, in my view, the premise of these initiatives—from the websites of former AKA Gail Gray to http://www.divinetruthishere/ (currently disabled) to that of Minister Fred Hatchett—is deeply flawed. They would claim, as the above quote by Paul Hawken states, their mission is to restore, recover, redress, reform, reimagine and reconsider. However, their so-called spiritual and biblical reclamation work is obscured by their screeds against BGLOs. A brief perusal of these websites makes one wonder if the departure of some of these persons from their BGLOs may have been related more so to personal pet peeves than the hyper-spirituality they use as a rationale.

Further, these anti-BGLO proponents, through their citation of portions of the secret rituals of the “Divine Nine” organizations, are engaged in a fundamental violation of integrity and ethics. Their opposition to BGLOs is a choice they may exercise freely. However, it is difficult if not impossible to claim moral and ethical high ground—allegedly exposing BGLOs in the service of Jesus Christ--while at the same time violating the integrity of these organizations by making public secret rituals held dearly by their members, simply to prove a point. Martin Luther King, Jr.—member of Alpha Phi Alpha and the subject of criticism on Minister Hatchett’s site via Hatchett’s out-of-context citations of Dr. King’s presumably “errant” theology—said that the means one uses (e.g., in the pursuit of truth) must adhere with one’s ends (truth) because the ends are inherent in the means. Illegitimate means are not justified by presumably legitimate ends.

In addition, the anti-BGLO folks not only violate integrity—they do grave harm to the scriptures by misappropriation. Their failure to distinguish between symbolic and literal applications of language as used in the rituals (references to “gods”) and self-references of BGLOs (e.g., Alpha Phi Alpha: the light of the world)—something which, it seems, would at minimum be expected of college-educated people—leads them to the misapplication of biblical texts.

As a result these individuals make claims that membership in a BGLO is incompatible with being a Christian. It is clear that these adherents are biblical literalists who exhibit little if no engagement in in-depth biblical study. In the terms of biblical scholarship this in-depth study is called exegesis: a “lifting up” out of the text what is there, equipping one to apply the text accurately to contemporary reality (the work of hermeneutics), as opposed to isexgesis—reading into the text the meaning one wants the text to have.

By blurring the line between symbolic and literal appropriations of language within BGLOs and then taking biblical texts out of context (which, said Rev. Jesse Jackson, member of Omega Psi Phi, leads to pretext) the anti-BGLO contingent does disservice to the very Christian cause it claims to support. Their claims that these organizations demand one’s full allegiance and are therefore antithetical to a commitment to Christian discipleship, based on such flawed logic, are false.

Some of the information on these websites seems to reflect the beliefs of persons who may be in an embryonic and/or literalist stage of Christian faith. For those who are not members of BGLOs, they lack a grasp of the nature or meaning of the rituals. Nor should any such person have such a grasp, anymore than I, a member of Alpha Phi Alpha, should comprehend the meaning of the Kappa's rituals. As for those who are former members of BGLOs, such persons should know better. In either case they shed no light but add heat to the debate.Whether former Greeks on non-Greek, what is also clear is that for the most part these persons appear to have little grasp of the racial history, political economy or broad American cultural dynamics that gave rise to these organizations. Iota Phi Theta, for instance, was founded at my alma mater, Morgan State University, in a watershed year of the Civil Rights Movement, 1963. In that year the March on Washington, the largest civil rights demonstration to that time, occurred. Joined with graphic media depictions of police dogs and fire hoses being set upon peaceful demonstrators in Birmingham, Alabama; the bombing of the Sixteenth Street Baptist Church, killing four teenage girls four months later; the assassinations of NAACP leader Medgar Evers and U.S. President John F. Kennedy; these events and the agitation of civil rights activists—many of whom were members of BGLOs, whose organizations contributed to the movement—led to historic civil rights legislation signed into law in 1964.

The other eight organizations were established between 1906 and 1922, the period called by historian and past General President of Alpha Phi Alpha Rayford Logan as the “nadir” or low point of the black experience in American society. Blacks were disenfranchised in the south and discriminated against in the society at large; lynchings were rampant; the Ku Klux Klan reigned in power; the “Red Summer” of 1919, replete with race riots and wanton killing of African-Americans, greeted the black veterans of World War One upon their return home from fighting to make the world safe for democracy. Instead they found themselves, as Malcolm X would say over forty years later, “the victims of democracy.”

The anti-BGLO contingent seem to ignore this history that influenced the founding and service orientation of these organizations, not to mention the authentic Christian spirituality that influenced their founders, and the ways in which these organizations have positively influenced black life and welfare. They fail to recognize they would not even enjoy the freedom they exercise to critique BGLOs had it not been for the Martin Kings, Whitney Youngs, Dorothy Heights, Patricia Hill Harrises, among other unsung heroes of the movement who were also BGLO members and many of whom were also Christian.

Misguided Christian zeal has trumped historical and biblical accuracy. Alignment with ideological and ecclesiastical forces oppositional to the black struggle for survival and full justice in this society, engaged in smear campaigns that are bereft of facts, much less truth (see Minister Hatchett’s comments on his website regarding AKA member Faye Wattleton and Delta’s national chaplain, Bishop Vashti McKenzie, on the link “Biblical Contradictions”) has distorted the perspective of the anti-BGLO campaigners.

I make these assertions as a Christian minister of the gospel and an educator who is also a member of the first continuous fraternal organization for African-American men, Alpha Phi Alpha. There is no incongruence with my belief in Jesus Christ as my savior and lord and the organization of which I am a part. I know who comes first because I know in whom I have believed. Membership in Alpha has never caused an internal struggle in my soul because Alpha never demanded that I make it my ultimate concern.

If one is clear about the meaning of one’s own faith one is less likely to engage in spiritual witch hunts to demean organizations they have either left for whatever reasons or to which they never belonged. Instead, one can be about the business of faith: sharing the good news—not spewing the venom of negativity—being servant leaders to others, sewing seeds of generosity, building up lives, transforming communities.

The problem with the critique of BGLOs by the persons previously discussed seems to be a lack of clarity about what Christian faith is and what Christian faith is not. Christian faith is about the pro side of life—what we are for (i.e., biblical values of love, justice, freedom and equality), not what we are against.

___________________________
Rev. Kenneth I. Clarke, Sr. is Director of Cornell United Religious Work. Prior to coming to Cornell in July 2001, Rev. Clarke was Director of the Center for Ethics and Religious Affairs at the Pennsylvania State University (1997-2001). He was the Center's Assistant Director from 1990-96 and Acting Director in 1996-97. From 1987-90 Rev. Clarke worked for the Third Baptist Church of San Francisco, initially for the church's Ethiopian Refugee Resettlement Project and later as Assistant Pastor/Administrator. A native of Baltimore, MD, Ken earned a B.A. in English from Morgan State University, a Master of Divinity degree from Colgate Rochester Divinity School and is currently enrolled in the Doctor of Ministry Program of United Theological Seminary, Dayton, Ohio. A member of the Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc., he serves as Chaplain of the Iota Iota Lambda Chapter in Ithaca. Ken and his wife, Yolanda, Assistant Dean in the College of Arts and Sciences, co-pastored the Albright Bethune United Methodist Church in State College, Pennsylvania from 1996-2001. They are the parents of Fatima Rose and Ken, Jr.

Can There Be a Critical BGLO Scholarship

In February of 2005, my book (co-edited with Drs. Tamara Brown and Clarenda Phillips) entitled African American Fraternities and Sororities: The Legacy and the Vision was published. Later that month, a friend of mine forwarded me a posting on the NPHC list-serve from Brenda Vasser--the group's National Historian. Her post, a critique of the the book, indicated that the book was merely a rehashing of what was already known about BGLOs. She further noted that "the book is heavy with acknowledgements of personal interviews, previously published references, academic presentation dates and academic validations in relationship to master and doctorial thesis." She went on to write that my co-editors and I "do a great job at name dropping." Shortly after the book was released, another NPHC member, an expert on the groups if you will, emailed me an noted that my co-editors and contributing authors were nothing more than "ivory-tower thinkers engaged in intellectual masturbation over the topic of [BGLOs]."

I think any work has flaws and should be subject to criticism. That includes my own. However, I wonder how difficult it will be for any serious study of BGLOs to take place when the likely consumers and critics of such scholarship will be non-scholars. Though most BGLO members are highly educated and bright people, they are also devout and sometimes blind devotees to their organizations. Can they help usher along a serious study of their own groups or will they hinder such progress mainly because they are uncritical about their groups, not sure what BGLO scholarship should amount to, or because of various allegiances cannot make way for a variety of scholars, lines of though, or methodologies in this area?

What Vasser's comments suggested to me was that she failed to understand that not all people reading a book like ours would have a full understanding of BGLOs, as she seemed to. She seemed to fail to understand that good research relies on personal interviews, previously published scholarship, academic presentations, or theses and dissertations. Vasser also failed to understand that good research cites sources--what she described as name dropping. What is most problematic about Vasser's critique is not so much what she said but the fact that she may represent a line of thinking among BGLO members, which fundamentally misunderstands the nature of scholarship. Given this fundamental failure to understand scholarship, those who subscribe to this line of thinking are, thus, unable to understand Critical BGLO Scholarship for what it is and utilize it for the benefit of BGLOs. And this is why the comment from the BGLO expert was disheartening. It not only suggested a certain level of anti-intellecutualism among a BGLO member and expert. It also suggested his failure to see the connection between scholarship and practical change within BGLOs. As is my concern with Vasser's comments, I am concerned that this too may be a attitude among enough BGLO members--that there is little connection between serious scholarship on these groups and how they have, do, and can/should function.

I have my thoughts about what a Critical BGLO Scholarship should be, but I realize that the greatest obstacle to it is a lack of critical self-examination, anti-intellectualism, and a fundamental misunderstanding of what scholarship on these groups should be among BGLO members. Am I accurate in my assumptions? Do you think BGLO leadership would or should look at such scholarship in formulating organizational policies? Who should dictate what BGLO Scholarship is--BGLO leadership, media-appointed experts, university professors? Are all topics related to BGLOs fair game for research, or should certain issues be off limits? Should BGLOs help facilitate research on their groups? Are BGLO members more interested in lighter treatment of their organizations in books, and if so, why?

Our Fight Has Just Begun...has just begun

This past Friday was a good day! I received an email from The University Press of Kentucky--a scholarly press--and they indicated that my manuscript entitled Our Fight Has Just Begun: The Relevance of Black Fraternities and Sororities in the 21st Century received a unanimous vote of approval from the editorial board. That means that the book will be contracted this week or next and will be well under way for publication and release in early 2008. This is a big deal considering all of the steps a scholarly book must go through in order to reach publication.

For example, here are the steps: An author/editor submits a very detailed proposal--including book purpose, outline, table of contents, author/editor qualifications, formatting, competing titles, a marketing plan, etc...) to a publisher. If the publisher does not reject the proposal outright, the author/editor is encouraged to send a complete manuscript of the book. Once the author/editor submits a complete manuscript, the manuscript is sent out to several university professors at various institutions with expertise in the area the book purports to cover. These readers then submit fairly detailed reports about the book and ultimately indicate whether the manuscript should be published. The author/editor must then address all of the concerns raised in the readers' reports. The reports and author/editor comments are then sent to the scholarly press' editorial board, which is comprised of faculty at that university. The editorial board votes on whether the book should be published based on the academic pedigree of the author/editor and general scholarliness of the book based on the readers' reports and the author/editor's responses. From there the book goes through copy-editing, type-setting, indexing, and then off to the readers.

As you see, we are well on our way.