[LatinaAlumna]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

In Texas (for the most part), all non-NIC/NPC/NPHC groups are looped into "other/multicultural" councils. The multicultural groups don't seem to be the ones that have issue with this -- it tends to be other NALFO/LGLO/HLGLO groups that cause problems.

I can see the LGLOs having an issue with this because the term "multicultural" does not describe their focus, or for the most part, membership demographic.

I'm not sure if looping smaller organizations in with the larger ones will end well. That's one of the large complaints I remember hearing about NALFO. I can see organizations like ODPhi, KDChi, SLB, SLG, and others coming together, as we seem to be moving in similar directions. I can't see some of the smaller organizations benefiting from being looped in with groups like these.

Since there are four major orgs. that were founded as LGLOs but now have a different emphasis, it is conceivable that they might want to start their own umbrella organization--but what would that be? Since I'm not a member of one of the forementioned orgs., I can only speculate, but I don't think a new LGLO umbrella would fit the bill, nor would a new MGLO council necessarily be appropriate. The only direction I can see these orgs moving toward is being part of the IFC/NPC councils on campus, while making an emphasis on their various special interests during recruitment.

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.

In part, this is what NALFO was/is supposed to do:

NALFO was/is supposed to be a solution to the issue of "which council should we join?" for LGLOs. In the 1990s, when LGLOs began to really see a surge in expansion across the country, it became apparent that most universities did not know how to handle these new chapters (which were not members of the NPHC and were resistant to becoming affiliate members of the local IFC/NPC councils). NALFO was/is supposed to be a way to satisfy university requirements of being a member of a council, while still giving chapters the ability to maintain their own customs, traditions, etc. (especially with regard to the new membership process). It was/is also supposed to promote collaboration among the member organizations and foster unity. To a certain degree, I believe NALFO has been a positive force for LGLOs, but the bottom line is that it started off with way too many organizations. NALFO has been around in some form for about 12-13 years now, and I think it could have been further along in some of its objectives had it started off with a smaller group of orgs.

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Just curious - how will this be determined?

This is a great question, and it is something that should have been clearly defined by NALFO a long time ago. As a LGLO member, I can say what this phrase ("Latino Fraternal Organization") means to me, but it can be interpreted differently depending who you talk to, and/or depending on an organization's agenda.

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Now that Gamma Eta is part of the NMGC, I could see other Latino-based, multicultural orgs (biting my tongue so hard lol) following suit.

I did not know that. I'm not sure if you can share, but was there much controversy? (I'm guessing they had to be voted in by the current member organizations.)

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

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.

Yep--these two points (internal turmoil and having orgs that are not truly peers) have contributed largely to the current state of NALFO.

I also agree that it was a positive step for some of the former NALFO orgs. to take a hard look at themselves and decide to pursue other options.