Quote:
Originally Posted by LatinaAlumna
I had not heard that NALFO came about because there were restrictions on participating in the CNHL. My understanding (and I was still an active at the time  ) is that CNHL was formed by primarily East Coast founded organizations, and at the same time, we had West Coast Latino Greek Council. In discussions I attended locally on the topic at the time, NALFO was developed in an attempt to get everyone under one umbrella. But it very possible that it was a combination of many factors that lead to NALFO.
Whether LGLOs and HLGLOs can collaborate under one council (NALFO or otherwise) is doubtful to me at the present time, because many in LGLOs don't know quite what to make of the new "HLGLOs"--are you still Latina/o orgs? Are you saying that your orgs were founded by Latinas/os but now you are focusing your programming elsewhere? Is your demographic no longer predominately Latina/o, so that a student seeking a brotherhood/sisterhood with members of his/her own culture might not find what they are looking for in your org?
In my view, organizations that are no longer predominately Latina/o, and no longer place their primary focus on serving the Latina/o community will not have much in common with LGLOs, and therefore, it would be problematic to have them under the same council with LGLOs. I would not feel comfortable with having an organization so dissimilar to mine voting on issues that impact my organization (i.e. GPA requirements, pledging requirements, etc.). |
As you say, many factors came together for the founding of NALFO. I was also active at the time and I remember one of the factors being the size difference between CHNL orgs and most orgs that eventually became NALFO founding members.
I didn't think that the west-east was not such a big factor, but I could be wrong. Back then, of the 9 founding members of NALFO, 1 was Midwest founded (APsiL), 1 was founded in the South (ODPhi), 3 were West Coast founded (GZA, LThN, NAK) and 4 were East Coast founded (SLU, LAU, OFB, ARL), while in CHNL, 2 were from the Midwest (SLB, SLG), 2 from the south (ODPhi, KDChi), and the rest were from the East (LTPhi, LTA, LSU, CUS, Phiota, SIA, LUL).
Yet, if you look at the list, there is a 30+ difference in chapters today, as it was back then, between the smallest CNHL fraternity and the largest NALFO's. As for the Sororities, SLU could have been easily in CHNL, while there is a 15+ difference to the next NALFO sorority. Size does matter for each org strategy making process and NALFO can't really serve the same way an LTA with 100+ and an APS with 10-.
I agree that the strategies and goals of LGLO's and HLGLO's are different, but a trade org, such as NIC, does not govern its member organizations. I cannot speak for other orgs that left NALFO, but SLB left due to NALFO's increasing regulatory policies. If the council is a governing council, LGLO and HLGLO's might not fit together, but under a trade org, which main purpose is lobbying for its members and creating programing that help them, and not so much governing them, there would be no problem.
Although I do see you point LatinaAlumna and I agree with you. I don't want want anybody imposing policies that affect my organization's government.
