Quote:
Originally Posted by Senusret I
I have a few thoughts about this in general.
First, I don't know what NALFO does. But I also don't know what the NPHC does. I actually think the NPHC is less effective now since its reorganization than it was before.
Second, I don't think it matters that an organization has opted to become multicultural as long as it takes the proper steps to be that: constitutionally, programmatically, and leaving NALFO.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I do see NALFO doing things which are good, such as the awards. I think having an organization of peer organizations helps to maintain standards, incentivize strong programs, and to increase awareness and support of LGLOs on the campuses which need to be educated about them.
But my expertise is honestly not in "councils" as much as it is the internal structure of sovereign organizations.
(Shout out to GreekChat for having heavy-hitting topics today)
|
Re:
First: LatinaAlumna may be able to speak more on this, but when I was involved with NALFO, it was literally a "holding group" for the LGLO organizations. The only things that I remember happening were votes regarding member organizations' standing. That's fine if that was the original intent, but it was my understanding that when NALFO and CNHL merged, it was to provide a larger platform for member organizations. The group hasn't used its platform to accomplish much.
Like LatinaAlumna said, though, this is likely due to the fact that many of the groups have internal turmoil.
Re:
Finally: I agree. As I stated earlier, a lot of the negativity I heard from NALFO was due to the fact that the groups didn't seem like peers (outside of their histories). There were large historically LGLOs, small historically GLOs, large current LGLOs, and small current LGLOs. Obviously, these groups wanted to do what was best for them, but it didn't help NALFO as a whole.
Several of the HLGLO groups have left the council, so that may be a step in the right direction to help the group regain focus.
