Bringing back a dead fraternity?
 

I've looked at the Wikipedia page for Delphic Fraternity and then the history page on the national site at http://delphic-gst.org/history/

From this, it looks to me like they simply took the history of a dead fraternity and went with it, which rubs me the wrong way. Do others get the same feeling from the history text?

I don't get from the text on the site that the organization was actually dead--just that it had all or most of its chapters dormant for a period. Assuming there's a continuity in membership, while things certainly in recent years are moving in a different-than-historical direction, it doesn't seem odd at all.

It looks like that to you. But what you think it looks like isn't necessarily so.

I have followed Delphic since I was an undergraduate and I have met their members over the years. Anything they did to revive Delphic was with the consent and participation of their alumni.

To me that is something that I'd deliberately made clear in the history. Also, the old fraternity definitely doesn't appear to have Multiculturalism as a guiding principle...

Delta Kappa Alpha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_Kappa_Alpha seems like a much *cleaner* example of bringing things back. Same type of group, same emphasis, a connection to the people involved in maintaining the history of organization...

Who are we to criticize how any private organization conducts its own business? If there is at least some continuity of membership, i.e., old members took part in some aspect of the resurgence, and the resurgence was conducted with the consent of the existing membership, what is the issue? Who is to say there is a better way when this is the way this organization chose to operate?

The old fraternity didn't have multiculturalism as a guiding principle because such a thing did not exist back then (or rather the word for it didn't).

Honestly, I think when it comes to the SUNY schools and the regional Greeks you just have to throw out the window what would be considered "normal" and go with it.

I've dealt with at least one situation where GLO in the Philippines claimed history from a group which had gone inactive in the US 50 years earlier. *That* I have every right to criticize about. (And actually I have the right to criticize everything, since I'm old enough to sit on my porch and yell at the kids not wearing belts and listening to that new-fangled music like Elvis and the Beatles)

The change to multi-culturalism is considerably less of an issue than having consent of the existing membership and *that* simply isn't apparent to me in the history on the website...

But it doesn't have to be apparent to you. You're not trying to join.

Multi-culturalism 150 years ago was being willing to take in "Hebrews" 1/2 :)

I would expect wierdnesses from a multi-chapter fraternity if it had been hit by Webb vs SUNY in 1954, but Delphic was down to a single by then...

Do you have some sort of proof of any sort that this is a situation where people in a foreign country are appropriating the history of an organization which has been inactive for 50 years without the consent of the existing membership?

If not, how is this any of our business? They are a private organization and entitled to behave as they wish.

Your point is moot. They didn't take a dead fraternity and run with it. There has been at least one chapter of this organization in operation continuously since 1871. Their direction and focus morphed over the years, but the fraternity never "died."

The main reason that this became an issue is that I was adding categories to Wikipedia pages like [[Category:Student organization established in 2008]]

The question in my mind is whether the group should be
[[Category:Student organization established in 1871]] or
[[Category:Student organization established in 1987]].

I *have* chosen 1871, but it still doesn't seem as clear as having Omega Psi Phi listed as [[Category:Student organization established in 1911]]...

Actually no. The last undergraduate chapter died in 1962.

"The historic Zeta Chapter of Delphic was founded at the New Paltz Normal School in 1899. In the 1950s, the chapter had a brief affiliation with a large national organization. In 1962 the organization became a legal not-for-profit membership entity by initially incorporating as The Delphic Fraternity of New Paltz, Inc. In the early 1970s, because of turbulent times and the decline of student interest in Greek life, the chapter became inactive."

"In the fall of 1986, twelve young men became interested in re-establishing the Delphic Fraternity. They were also interested in creating the first multicultural Greek-letter organization at SUNY-New Paltz..."

Foreign Country no. But ideally things like an establishment should reflect secondary sources, not primary. To pick a more well known situation, Kappa Sigma is categorized as [[Category:Student Organization established in 1869]], *not* [[Category:Student organization established in 1400]].

The best comparison that I can make is if "Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities" instead of organizing by type of fraternity and type organized by date of founding, should Delphic Fraternity be listed in order by 1871 or by 1987.

As a result of the discussion here, I've changed my issue to a much more minor one. Now, I just want better documentation of continuity for the 1871 date, not that I'm doubting it...

I think most people who really pay attention to these things understand what Kappa Sigma's 1400 establishment date is. If you want to look, it appears they acknowledge the lack of continuity even on their Wikipedia page. If they want to claim some kinship or shared ideals with some organization from 1400, why does anyone care? And really, I don't see them getting too worked up defending that claim. Kappa Sigma as an organization is impressive enough as it stands. A 150+ year old history, one of the largest and best known American Fraternities, they are what they are

From what I can gather here and from the Delphic site, the new iteration of their organization was founded with the help, participation or consent of existing membership. If that's the case, where is it written that to be a legitimate organization, you have to have a collegiate chapter in continuous existence? Where is it written that your Board of Directors must meet regularly and keep minutes for your history to reflect a continued existence? I think you're creating some rules which don't exist.

Especially when the gap in active chapters would probably leave many members still alive at the time of refounding--differing significantly from the Kappa Sigma gap from 1400 (or so) to 1869.