University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Student perceptions and experiences: deconstructing race in fraternity/sorority life

(USC Thesis Other)

Student perceptions and experiences: deconstructing race in fraternity/sorority life

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 1

STUDENT PERCEPTIONS AND EXPERIENCES: DECONSTRUCTING RACE
IN FRATERNITY/SORORITY LIFE

by

Melissa Enanoza

A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERISTY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Education
(Postsecondary Administration and Student Affairs)

December 2013

Copyright 2013 Melissa Enanoza
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 2
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my parents, my brother, and my family for their love and support
throughout my educational journey. Thank you to my chair, Lynette Merriman, for your
thoughtful feedback, educational guidance, and professional mentorship. My thesis
journey would not have been as smooth as it was without your teachings and help. Thank
you to Kristan Venegas and Heather Larabee for your time, energy, and thoughts into
making this a stronger document. I appreciate all of my friends and PASA family who
have encouraged me throughout this arduous process. Finally, thank you to my partner,
Matt. You have been a continual source of love and support.
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 3
Table of Contents
ABSTRACT 5

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 6
Overview of Fraternity and Sorority History 7
Purpose of Study 10
Overview of Research Methods 12
Conclusion 13

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 15
History of Fraternities and Sororities 15
Fraternity and Sorority Experience 29
Fraternity/Sorority Racial and Diversity Issues 35
Conclusion 50

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS 52
Theoretical Lens: Critical Race Theory 52
Site 55
Participants and Recruitment 55
Data Collection Procedures 58
Validity and Reliability 62
Limitations 63
Conclusion 65

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS 66
Is Race Part of the Fraternity/Sorority Culture? 67
Do Students Recognize the Role of Race? 72
How Do Students Perceive the Role of Race? 76
What Actions Do Community Members Make that Reinforce the Role of Race? 81
Conclusion 86

RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 4
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION 88
Race and Membership 88
Race as an Issue 90
Race is not part of the Culture 93
Reinforcing the Status Quo 96
Direction for Future Research 98
Implications and Recommendations for Practitioners 99
Conclusion 101

REFERENCES 103

APPENDIX A: Sample Recruitment Email 115
APPENDIX B: Informational Sheet 116
APPENDIX C: Information Questionnaire 118
APPENDIX D: Interview Protocol 120

RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 5
Abstract
According to critical race theory, race is an everyday and ordinary experience (Delgado
& Stefancic, 2012). While critical race theory assumes that race matters, fraternities and
sororities may or may not be a community where students believe the role of race to be
present and to be relevant to the community culture and norms. This thesis will use
critical race theory and qualitative research methods to explore the perceptions and
experiences of sixteen current fraternity/sorority students from the Interfraternity
Council, National Panhellenic Council, National Pan-Hellenic Council, Asian American
fraternal organizations, and Latino/a fraternal organizations. Even though students
acknowledge race is in the community, they do not believe their community is
discriminatory because any student can join any organization and the institution treats all
organizations in an equitable manner.
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 6
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
Fraternity and sorority members’ experiences are multi-faceted: experiences may
include social activities, alcohol use, student engagement and learning, hazing, leadership
development, and racial/diversity experiences. Racism is an ordinary, pervasive, and
everyday experience (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Tate,
1997; Villalpando, 2004). Fraternities, sororities, and colleges are not exceptions. Racism
is one of the main reasons why African American, Asian American, and Latina/o
fraternal organizations exist (Binder, 2003; Chen, 2009; Kimbrough, 2003; Muñoz &
Guardia, 2009; Torbenson, 2009). As critical race theory assumes that race matters,
affiliated students may or may not believe that race is relevant or applicable to their
fraternity/sorority experience and to the community culture.
This thesis will use critical race theory to explore (1) whether or not race is
present in the fraternity/sorority culture, (2) if and how affiliated students recognize the
role of race, and (3) how affiliated students perceive the role of race in the community
and (4) what actions members make, if any, that reinforce the role of race. Critical race
theory explains that race and racism matter because race is reinforced through social,
institutional, and individual norms, practices, attitudes, and beliefs (Delgado & Stefancic,
2012). Delgado and Stefancic (2012) add that race and racism is historical, and history
contextualizes the role of race in today’s society. Race correlates to the privilege of
Whites and oppression of people of color, and race and racism are pervasive, resulting in
an ordinary, daily experience (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). As historical context is one of
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 7
the elements of critical race theory (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012; Villalpando, 2004), the
next section will provide a brief overview of fraternity and sorority history.
Overview of Fraternity and Sorority History
Fraternities developed in the 19
th
century as primarily social organizations. The
fraternity was unlike its precursor, literary societies, which were academic organizations
(Rudolph, 1990; Torbenson, 2009). The first fraternity was Phi Beta Kappa, established
in 1776 at William and Mary College (Binder, 2003; Torbenson, 2009). Kappa Alpha
fraternity was founded 36 years after Phi Beta Kappa in 1813 (Torbenson, 2009). As Phi
Beta Kappa and Kappa Alpha added chapters, in addition to the establishment and
expansion of other fraternities, the fraternity movement swept American colleges in the
1800s (Rudolph, 1990; Torbenson, 2009). Over 100 years after their founding,
fraternities organized themselves into the North-American Interfraternity Council (NIC)
in 1909 (North-American Interfraternity Conference, 2012).
Once women sought higher education in large numbers, they were the first group
to be excluded from fraternities. American colleges were originally single-sex institutions
(Torbenson, 2009). Starting in the 1830s, when universities adopted co-educational
populations, fraternities experienced a new situation: whether or not to accept women
members. A handful of women were accepted into fraternities, but women were generally
denied membership. The women resigned to form their own fraternal organizations,
labeling themselves as either fraternities or societies. The term ‘sorority’ was adopted
after a professor at Syracuse University in 1882 suggested Gamma Phi Beta society use
the word “sorority” instead of society (Torbenson, 2009). In 1902, sororities established
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 8
the National Panhellenic Council (NPC) to agree upon fair and honorable recruitment
practices (National Panhellenic Council, 2009).
Fraternities and sororities denied membership to religious and racial minorities
(Binder, 2003; Torbenson, 2009). Jewish students founded 14 fraternities and 5 sororities,
and most were established from 1900 to 1909 (Torbenson, 2009). Formal racial
exclusionary clauses were adopted and not formally removed from NIC and NPC
organizations’ governing documents until the 1960s (Binder, 2003). However, White
fraternities and sororities still did not permit membership to racial minorities (Binder,
2003). While all racial minorities were denied membership, African Americans were the
first to organize and form African American-centric fraternal organizations (Kimbrough,
2003; Torbenson, 2009). Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity. is distinguished as the oldest
African American fraternity (although not the first as will be explained in chapter two)
(Kimbrough, 2003). Five African American fraternities and sororities banded together to
form the National Pan-Hellenic Council on May 10, 1930 (National Pan-Hellenic, 2010).
Four additional African American organizations eventually joined the council, and
collectively they are commonly known as the Divine Nine (National Pan-Hellenic, 2010).
The rise and proliferation of Asian American and Latino/a fraternities and
sororities on college campuses would not occur until later and somewhat at the same
time. Like African Americans, Asian American students were denied membership into
NIC and NPC organizations (Chen, 2009). Asian American fraternities and sororities
have existed since 1916. The organizations were mostly founded on the West coast
because the West is where most Asian Americans lived. Asian American fraternities and
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 9
sororities struggled until the 1980s due to World War II and immigration discrimination.
Since the 1980s, Asian American organizations rapidly grew through the establishment of
new fraternities and sororities and the expansion of older organizations (Chen, 2009).
Latino students experienced the same membership exclusion as African American
and Asian American students. The oldest Latino fraternity, Phi Iota Alpha, traces its
history to 1898 when the “Union Hispano American” organization was founded (Muñoz
& Guardia, 2009). The student organization behaved similarly to a fraternity and
eventually merged with other fraternities to form Phi Iota Alpha. Latino fraternities and
sororities experienced no growth and little expansion from the 1930s to 1950s. They
more firmly established themselves since the 1970s and at least 36 are still in existence
today (Muñoz & Guardia, 2009). Kimbrough (2003) noted that the exact number of
Latino fraternities and sororities is unknown because most are not recognized by national
organizations. Latino fraternities and sororities created two national umbrella
organizations: Concilio Nacional de Hermandades Latinas (National Council of Latino
Brothers and Sisters) in 1991 and National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations
in 1998 (Muñoz & Guardia, 2009).
Today, the fraternity and sorority spectrum includes not only White, Jewish,
African American, Asian American, and Latino/a centric organizations but also
multicultural, Native American, and homosexual (Torbenson, 2009). Fraternity and
sorority membership grew immensely two decades ago. By 1990
1
, an estimated 700,000
students were affiliated members. The surge in numbers is partially due to the increase of

1

No recent membership statistics have been collected and published
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 10
students in colleges and universities as well as a diverse student body. However, the
majority of fraternities and sororities remained primarily White organizations
(Torbenson, 2009). The historical practice of racial discrimination was the impetus for
the creation of todays’ race-oriented fraternities and sororities. The practice remains
important because it contextualizes potential differences among fraternal organizations
and whether or not those differences occur along racial lines. This study aims to explore
whether or not such historical context (the role of race in fraternity and sorority practices)
is relevant and impacts today’s fraternity and sorority students.
Purpose of Study
Historically, fraternities and sororities practiced racial discrimination through
denying membership to racial minorities. Minorities responded by creating their own
fraternities and sororities. Fraternities and sororities generally remained racially
segregated, and the majority of affiliated students are racially White (Chang, 1996).
Because fraternal organizations practiced discrimination by race and many are identified
by race, the role of race may or may not be relevant or applicable in today’s fraternity and
sorority community.
The role of race in American society remains important today because “race
continues to be a significant factor in determining inequality in the United States”
according to Ladson-Billings & Tate (1995). What is race? “Race is a sociopolitical not a
biological construct, one that is created and reinforced by social and institutional norms
and practices, as well as individual attitudes and behaviors,” defines Bell, Castañeda, and
Zúñiga (2010, p. 60). Race is historical and justifies White dominance over all people of
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 11
color (Bell, Castañeda, & Zúñiga, 2010). The role of race is inescapable and can be found
in the fraternity and sorority community. For example, Park’s (2008) study explains that
sororities, who are perceived by students to be higher on the social ladder, are more
selective regarding membership and therefore less racially diverse than sororities who are
not perceived as desirable.
Race closely relates to racism. Bell, Castañeda, and Zúñiga (2010, p. 60) define
racism as “the set of institutional, cultural and interpersonal patterns and practices that
create advantages for people legally defined and socially constructed as ‘White,’ and the
corollary disadvantages for people defined as ‘non-White’ in the United States.”
Solrozano, Ceja, and Yosso (2000) add that racism contains three parts: one group
believes it is superior to the others, the superior group has the power to use racist
behavior, and racism affects multiple groups and peoples. Racism is a pervasive and
ordinary experience (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). Critical race theory assumes that race
matters because race is reinforced through social, institutional, and individual norms,
practices, attitudes, and beliefs; race and racism is historically embedded into society,
including fraternities and sororities; race correlates to the privilege and power of Whites
and oppression of people of color; and race and racism are pervasive, resulting in an
ordinary, daily experience of all people and of fraternities and sororities (Delgado &
Stefancic, 2012).
While critical race theory assumes that race matters, race may or may not be
relevant to the daily experiences and overall culture of fraternities and sororities. Students
may perceive or experience the culture as White-over-color through social, institutional,
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 12
and individual norms, practices, attitudes, and beliefs. The applicability of critical race
theory to fraternities and sororities will be studied in this thesis. The purpose of this study
is to determine whether or not students believe race is present in the fraternity and
sorority culture, how they perceive the role of race, and what, if any, actions community
members make that reinforce that role. Race correlates to the privilege of one group
(Whites) and the oppression of all other races (Bell, Castañeda, & Zúñiga, 2012; Delgado
& Stefancic, 2012). This thesis aims to explore whether or not students perceive a
connection between the role of race and fraternities and sororities. The research questions
are:
1. Is race part of the fraternity and sorority community culture?
2. Do students recognize the role of race in their fraternity/sorority experience?
3. If so, how do fraternity/sorority students perceive the role of race in the
community?
4. What actions, if any, do community members make that reinforce the role of
race?
Overview of Research Methods
This thesis uses a qualitative approach and critical race theory (CRT) as the
framework. In CRT, race and racism is considered an ordinary experience resulting in a
White-over-color societal system (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). Scholars use CRT to
uncover and understand patterns of racial inequality and racial discrimination in college
settings (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012; Dixson & Rousseau, 2005; Ladson-Billings & Tate,
1995; Villalpando, 2004). This thesis applies CRT to the fraternity and sorority
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 13
community to explore whether or not students believe race is relevant. The theory
determines if race is present in social, institutional, and individual norms, practices, and
behaviors; if the system is White-over-color; and if race and racism is an ordinary,
everyday experience in fraternities and sororities.
To answer the research questions, the researcher utilized in-depth, semi-structured
interviews. In-depth and semi-structured interviews allowed flexibility for the researcher
to probe for deeper meaning and answers to the interview questions (Hesse-Biber &
Leavey, 2011). The investigator interviewed a total of 16 affiliated students from NIC,
NPC, NPHC, Asian American, and Latino/a fraternities and sororities. The research site
is a large, public university with 16, 671 undergraduates and is located in a large
Midwestern city. The university boasts a diverse population with approximately 55%
non-White and 45% White students. The site has NIC, NPC, NPHC, Asian American,
and Latino/a councils, fraternities, and sororities. Interviews were recorded, transcribed,
and coded. The researcher recorded personal thoughts and reactions throughout the data
collection and data analysis process. Finally, the researcher sent findings and data
interpretation to participants to verify the researcher’s conclusions.
Conclusion
Historically, fraternities and sororities discriminated against racial minorities.
College student racial minorities created their own fraternities and sororities in response
to the discrimination. This historical practice contextualizes why race separates fraternal
organizations today. Because of these racial lines, race may or may not be relevant in
fraternity and sorority communities, and this thesis aims to explore this question through
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 14
a qualitative research design and critical race theoretical framework. This thesis will next
provide background regarding the history of fraternities and sororities; the current
experiences of members including alcohol use, student engagement and learning, hazing,
and leadership development; and perceptions and experiences of race from White,
African American, Asian American, and Latino/a students.

RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 15
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
Fraternities and sororities may be a community where race is relevant through the
lens of critical race theory (CRT). As CRT uses historical context and narratives, the
history of fraternities and sororities is necessary to understand how the organizations
behave and how students are affected by organizational behavior and culture. The history
of fraternity/sorority membership is selective and exclusive. Students of racial minorities
have historically been excluded from fraternal membership, leading to the creation and
proliferation of African American, Asian American, Latino/a, and other ethnic-affiliated
fraternities and sororities. The following section will present history from the start of
fraternities and sororities to today. Next, this thesis will introduce current common
fraternity/sorority research topics, as Perkins, Zimmerman, and Janosik (2011)
determined, which are alcohol use, student engagement and learning, hazing, and
leadership development. This overview will serve as a means to understand common
experiences of current fraternity and sorority students and fraternity/sorority culture.
Finally, the paper will review White, African American, Asian American, and Latina/o
students’ perceptions of the role of race in the fraternity/sorority community and the
campus environment.
History of Fraternities and Sororities
The first fraternities developed because students needed social support that was
not provided by universities. As the college student body slowly became increasingly
diverse, minorities were frequently denied membership, so they formed their own
fraternities and sororities (Chen, 2009; Muñoz and Guardia, 2009; Kimbrough, 2003;
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 16
Torbenson, 2009). Racial/ethnic-oriented fraternities and sororities were established as
supportive environments to combat the racism, segregation, discrimination, and isolation
racial/ethnic minority students faced daily (Kimbrough, 2003). To contextualize the
historical behavior and culture of fraternities, this section will provide details about how
the first fraternities and sororities, as well as African American, Asian American, and
Latina/o fraternities and sororities, began.
Early Beginnings
Fraternities and sororities emerged from Freemasonry and literary societies. To
organize the Freemasons as early as the 1300s, they built lodges for shelter and meeting
places, similar to fraternity and sorority chapter houses (Kimbrough, 2003). They also
screened and identified other Masons through secret handshakes and passwords
(Kimbrough, 2003; Torbenson, 2009). Freemasonry expanded through the 17
th
and 18
th

centuries: a time when race became a form of social discrimination (Kimbrough, 2003).
Like general society, race was a factor for Masonry membership (Kimbrough, 2003).
African Americans were not welcomed into Mason Lodges, so they applied to create an
all-African American Mason lodge (Kimbrough, 2003). Houses, handshakes, passwords,
and racism were evident, as they still are today, when fraternities began.
The second influence was literary societies, which peaked in popularity from
1760 to 1860 (Torbenson, 2009). The first literary society was established at Yale
University in 1753 as an academic debate club (Rudolph, 1990). During the 17
th
and 18
th

centuries, the college curriculum was highly structured and did not allow for any
deviation. Students did not analyze or critique information; rather they memorized and
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 17
recited Greek and Latin (Torbenson, 2009). Literary societies helped students express
intellectualism and cultivate writing and speaking skills undeveloped in the classroom
(Rudolph, 1990; Torbenson, 2009). They brought thought-provoking speakers,
established student magazines, and supported a library typically larger than the university
library (Rudolph, 1990). Literary societies functioned as academic organizations more
than social clubs. As soon as universities took over the function of literary societies,
fraternities would arise to fulfill a new void in the university setting: students’ social
lives. Freemasonry and literary societies were the precursor to fraternities. Borrowing
several characteristics from Freemasonry and literary societies, the first fraternity evolved
in 1776. The fraternal movement proliferated college campuses until mid-19
th
century.
Fraternal Movement
The first fraternity was Phi Beta Kappa, established at William and Mary College
in 1776 (Binder, 2003; Torbenson, 2009). The organization expanded to Yale College,
Harvard University, and Brown College from 1780 to 1830 (Torbenson, 2009). The
second fraternity, Kappa Alpha, originated from the University of North Carolina, 36
years after Phi Beta Kappa was founded (Torbenson, 2009). Kappa Alpha established
chapters at Union University in 1813, Yale in 1821, and Princeton in 1824. From the
1820s to the 1840s, the fraternal movement spread throughout American universities.
Sigma Phi, Delta Phi, Psi Upsilon, Chi Psi, and Theta Delta Chi were established from
1825 to 1847 (Torbenson, 2009). By the 1840s, most New England and New York
colleges were introduced to the fraternity (Rudolph, 1990). The movement proliferated
college campuses without any university approval. Soon, college presidents unexpectedly
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 18
dealt with the rise of fraternities and questioned whether or not they belonged. College
president perceived that fraternities created class differentials and factions as well as
challenged Christian values (Rudolph, 1990).
Fraternities differentiated themselves from literary societies in a number of
different ways. The most important distinction was that fraternities filled an emotional,
social, and advocacy void whereas literary societies filled an academic void (Rudolph,
1990; Torbenson, 2009). Fraternities were small communities, mimicking the family and
home community that students missed (Rudolph, 1990). The organizations advocated for
students’ needs to the university administration (Torbenson, 2009). To escape academic
life, fraternity men smoked, drank, played cards, and womanized—social behaviors that
became institutionalized in the fraternity culture (Rudolph, 1990; Torbenson, 2009).
The common characteristics of a fraternity, which are still evident today, were
taken from Freemasonry and literary societies. Fraternities pulled from their Masonic
roots (Binder, 2003; Kimbrough, 2003; Rudolph, 1990; Torbenson, 2009). For example,
some fraternal rituals were patterned after Freemasonry (Rudolph, 1990). Chapter houses
mimicked Freemason lodges (Kimbrough, 2003; Rudolph, 1990). Like literary societies,
fraternities used pins, badges, secret initiation rites, and mottos (Torbenson, 2009). The
end of the fraternal movement solidified several fraternity characteristics: the social
purpose, chapter and houses, pins, badges, secret initiations, and mottos. Interestingly,
colleges and universities questioned the fraternities’ value added to university life since
their inception because university administration perceived they created class
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 19
differentials and challenged Christian beliefs (Rudolph, 1990). These defining
characteristics would be found in sororities and ethnic-oriented fraternities and sororities.
Start of Sororities
Since the 1830s, colleges and universities slowly became co-educational
(Torbenson, 2009). Naturally, fraternities faced the question of whether or not to admit
female members. Because of the unprecedented nature of the issue, fraternities did not
have any formal exclusionary clauses (Torbenson, 2009). A few women were inducted,
but generally women were excluded from fraternities according to Torbenson (2009). He
(2009) adds that women decided to create their own fraternal organizations, preserving
several of the defining features (Greek letters, set of values and principles, secret rituals,
mottos, shields, etc.). The first national women’s fraternity was Pi Beta Phi in 1867 at
Monmouth College in Illinois, and it established its second chapter in 1869 (Torbenson,
2009). Soon after Pi Beta Phi, Kappa Alpha Theta was organized at DePauw University
in 1870 (Torbenson, 2009). At Syracuse University, Gamma Phi Beta society was formed
(Torbenson, 2009). The organization established the term ‘sorority’ at a professor’s
suggestion (Torbenson, 2009).
National Umbrella Organizations
Fraternities and sororities eventually organized themselves into umbrella
organizations. National sororities first met in April 1891 (National Panhellenic
Conference, 2009). Alpha Phi, Kappa Kappa Gamma, Delta Gamma, Delta Delta Delta,
Gamma Phi Beta, Kappa Alpha Theta, and Pi Beta Phi met to discuss honorable and
ethical recruitment (also known as rushing), according to the National Panhellenic
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 20
Conference (2009). The meeting did not come to a full resolution until they met a second
time on May 24, 1902 (National Panhellenic Conference, 2009). The same organizations,
plus invitations to Alpha Chi Omega and Chi Omega who were unable to attend, formed
the Inter-Sorority Conference, which was later renamed as the National Panhellenic
Conference (NPC) (National Panhellenic Conference, 2009). Because the umbrella
organization formed from concerns regarding recruitment practices, membership
concerns were established as, and continue to be, a primary concern of fraternities and
sororities. A few years after NPC was established, fraternities created their own umbrella
organization. The National Interfraernity Conference, now known as the North-American
Interfraternity Conference (NIC), was organized in 1909 to serve the needs of fraternal
men (North-American Interfraternity Conference, 2012).
NPC, NIC, and Exclusion
Membership selection was one of the main concerns of NPC and NIC
organizations. Similar to American society of the time, fraternities and sororities
discriminated against religious and racial minorities (Binder, 2003; Kimbrough, 2003;
Torbenson, 2009). Exclusionary clauses were written into governing documents (Binder,
2003). For example, the 1917 constitution of Alpha Chi Rho fraternity (a current NIC
member) states, “Pledging and initiation: Statute 42: EXCLUSION OF NEGROES: All
persons of African descent shall be excluded from membership in the Fraternity” (pp.
34). Exclusionary clauses were not removed until the 1960s (Binder, 2003). In response
to the discrimination, religious and racial minority students created their own fraternities
and sororities (Binder, 2009; Kimbrough, 2003; Torbenson, 2009). Even though
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 21
exclusionary clauses were later removed, NIC and NPC fraternities and sororities
continued to discriminate in practice (Binder, 2003). African Americans were the first
racial minority group to establish fraternities and sororities.
African American Fraternities and Sororities
The first racial group to establish a fraternal organization was African American
men. Their attempts to join predominately White fraternities were unsuccessful since
1891 (Kimbrough, 2003). Because of the discrimination, African American men
attempted to establish their own fraternities. The first attempt was Alpha Kappa Nu in
1903 at Indiana University. In different historical records, Alpha Kappa Nu and Kappa
Alpha Nu simultaneously existed at the beginning of the 20
th
century (Kimbrough, 2003).
Kappa Alpha Nu was the original name of Kappa Alpha Psi, which was officially
established in 1911 at Indiana University. In actuality, Alpha Kappa Nu, Kappa Alpha
Nu, and Kappa Alpha Psi fraternities were the same organization (Kimbrough, 2003). A
year after Alpha Kappa Nu existed in 1903, six men formed the graduate organization
Sigma Pi Phi. Gamma Phi fraternity was founded at Wilberforce University, which is a
historically Black university, in 1905 and flourished for 30 years but eventually died for
unknown reasons. Another organization, Pi Gamma Omicron, was known to exist at Ohio
State University but the university did not officially recognize the organization
(Kimbrough, 2003). While other African American fraternities were established, Alpha
Phi Alpha fraternity was the first organization to be officially recognized and persists
through today.
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 22
Alpha Phi Alpha, commonly known as the first African American fraternity, was
established in 1906 at Cornell University (Kimbrough, 2003). Cornell University was a
predominately White institution (PWI) and discriminated against African Americans
through several methods (Kimbrough, 2003). The institution denied access to student
housing, university public facilities, organized athletics, and White social groups
(fraternities included), explains Kimbrough (2003). He (2003) adds that these practices
were consistent with the general American society at the time. Due to the racism,
segregation, and discrimination at Cornell, seven African American men formed a
student organization (Kimbrough, 2003). The group struggled to decide whether or not it
should be a literary society or a fraternity (Kimbrough, 2003). Eventually the group
became the fraternity Alpha Phi Alpha in 1906 to make the group purposeful and
permanent (Kimbrough, 2003). For much of the same reasons as Alpha Phi Alpha,
African Americans at PWIs experienced racism, discrimination, and isolation on a daily
basis, and they formed Kappa Alpha Psi and Sigma Gamma Rho to be supportive
communities (Kimbrough, 2003; Whaley, 2009).
African American fraternal organizations established at historically Black
colleges and universities were founded for different reasons than those at PWIs. Howard
University, a historically Black college, was the cradle for African American fraternities
and sororities (Kimbrough, 2003; Whaley, 2009). The first Howard African American
fraternal organization was Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority, established in 1908 (Kimbrough,
2003; National Pan-Hellenic, 2010; Whaley, 2009). Even though the organization was
not created under the same conditions as those at PWIs, African American women were a
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 23
minority group at Howard. The Alpha Kappa Alpha community stressed academic
achievement and sisterhood, as well as alleviated women’s issues (Whaley, 2009). Five
other African American fraternal organizations were founded at Howard University
(Kimbrough, 2003; Whaley, 2009). Omega Psi Phi was established in 1911 (Kimbrough,
2003; National Pan-Hellenic, 2010; Whaley, 2009). Delta Sigma Theta sorority was
founded at Howard in 1913 when a group of women separated from Alpha Kappa Alpha
(Kimbrough, 2003; Whaley, 2009). Phi Beta Sigma fraternity was established in 1914,
and Zeta Phi Beta sorority was founded in 1920 at Howard University (Kimbrough, 2003;
Whaley, 2009). The burgeoning period of African American Greek-lettered fraternal
organizations started from 1905 and concluded in 1930 (Kimbrough, 2003).
African American fraternal organizations banded together to form their own
national organization: National Pan-Hellenic (NPHC) on May 10, 1930 at Howard
University (National Pan-Hellenic Council, 2010). Four of the five Howard University
organizations, Omega Psi Phi, Alpha Kappa Alpha, Delta Sigma Theta, and Zeta Phi
Beta, and Kappa Alpha Psi founded NPHC according to National Pan-Hellenic Council
(2010). Alpha Phi Alpha and Phi Beta Sigma in 1931, Sigma Gamma Rho in 1937, and
Iota Phi Theta in 1997 joined NPHC in their respective year and thus became known as
the Divine Nine (National Pan-Hellenic Council, 2010). The original purpose of NPHC
was “unanimity thought and action as far as possible in the conduct of Greek letter
collegiate fraternities and sororities, and to consider problems of mutual interest to its
member organizations” (National Pan-Hellenic Council, 2012). African American
fraternal groups were founded as small communities to support African Americans in
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 24
higher education when the students faced racism, segregation, and discrimination from
American society (Kimbrough, 2003; Whaley, 2009). The development of such
organization occurred within 25 years, culminating in the establishment of the NPHC.
The next racial minority fraternal groups to organize were Asian Americans.
Asian American Fraternities and Sororities
The earliest wave of Asian American fraternities and sororities started in 1915
and ended in 1970 (Chen, 2009). Only 11 Asian American fraternities and sororities
existed during this 60-year time period according to Chen (2009). Like African
Americans, Asian Americans experienced similar forms of racial discrimination and legal
segregation on college campuses (Chen, 2009). Some NIC and NPC organizations with
West Coast chapters included the term “Orientals” in their exclusionary clauses (Chen,
2009). Asian American students banded together to establish their own fraternities and
sororities.
The first wave of Asian American fraternities and sororities were national origin
specific, such as Chinese and Japanese, and typically founded in California, either Los
Angeles or San Francisco (Chen, 2009). The first Asian American fraternity, Rho Psi,
was established in 1916 at Cornell University as a Chinese American organization (Chen,
2009). Pi Alpha Phi fraternity was organized in 1926 at University of California,
Berkeley by six Chinese American men (Chen, 2009). Chen (2009) explains Japanese
sororities, such as Chi Alpha Delta (University of California, Los Angeles, 1928) and
Sigma Omicron Phi (San Francisco State Teachers’ College, 1930), became inactive
during World War II due to mass Anti-Japanese sentiment. They were later re-established
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 25
along with the additions of Sigma Phi Omega at University of Southern California in
1949 and Theta Kappa Phi at University of California, Los Angeles in 1959 (Chen,
2009).
Asian American fraternities and sororities moved away from primarily Chinese
and Japanese organizations to become pan-Asian during the 1970s and 1980s (Chen,
2009). Like the first wave of Asian American fraternities and sororities, most were
founded on the West Coast (Chen, 2009). Two of the largest Asian American fraternities
and sororities were founded at this time. Lambda Phi Epsilon fraternity, the largest Asian
American fraternity and also part of the NIC, was established at University of California,
Los Angeles in 1981 (Chen, 2009). Alpha Kappa Delta Phi sorority was organized in
1989 at University of California, Berkley (Chen, 2009).
During the last 15 years, Asian American fraternities and sororities grew at a
rapid rate (Chen, 2009). The growth of such organizations was mostly due to the increase
of Asian American students on college campuses (Chen, 2009). Chen (2009) explains
that most of these students were children of Asian immigrants, including South Asians,
who came to the United States post the 1965 Immigration and Reform Act. As more of
these second generation Asian Americans entered colleges, the number of Asian
American fraternal organizations, which expanded to include South Asian, grew (Chen,
2009). Additionally, the growth of Asian American fraternal organizations occurred post
Civil Rights when formal exclusionary clauses were removed from fraternal governing
documents (Binder, 2003). The development of Asian American fraternities and
sororities during this time period hints at possible discrimination, alienation, and isolation
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 26
that Asian American students experienced, and thus the need for a safe and supportive
community in ethnic-oriented fraternities and sororities. Currently, over 64 Asian
American fraternal organizations with over 300 chapters nationwide exist (Chen, 2009).
Alpha Phi Gamma, alpha Kappa Delta Phi, Delta Phi Lambda, Pi Alpha Phi, Sigma Beta
Rho, and Sigma Psi Zeta organized the National Asian Greek Council (NAPA, 2012)
Eventually, the name changed to National Asian Pacific Islander American Panhellenic
Association (NAPA) because the original name implied strong governance over the
member organizations which was not the goal (NAPA, 2012). Asian American fraternity
and sorority growth jointly occurred with the development of Latino/a fraternal
organizations.
Latino/a Fraternities and Sororities
The first Latino fraternity, Phi Iota Alpha, traces its origins to 1898 when its
precursor, Union Hispano American, was founded (Muñoz & Guardia, 2009). The Union
Hispano American functioned more like a fraternity than an average student organization
(Muñoz & Guardia, 2009). Eventually the Union Hispano American merged with Pi
Delta and Phi Lambda Alpha in 1921, creating Phi Lambda Alpha (Muñoz & Guardia,
2009). Ten years later, Phi Lambda Alpha and Sigma Iota morphed into Phi Iota Alpha in
1931, establishing chapters across the nation (Muñoz & Guardia, 2009). The organization
experienced a period of hiatus and inactivity until 1973 and resurfaced in 1984
(Kimbrough, 2003). Latino/a fraternities and sororities resurged in the 1970s (Muñoz &
Guardia, 2009). Lambda Theta Alpha Latin Sorority and Lambda Theta Phi Latino
Fraternidad were both established in 1975 (Muñoz & Guardia, 2009). A group of men
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 27
created Lambda Sigma Upsilon fraternity at Rutgers University because they felt that the
university failed to support minority students, especially Latino students (Muñoz &
Guardia, 2009).
The major period of Latino/a fraternal organizations growth occurred from 1980
to the 1990s (Muñoz & Guardia, 2009). The notable additions were: Alpha Psi Lambda,
the first co-ed Latino fraternity 1985 at Ohio State University; Lambda Theta Nu sorority
in 1986 at California State University, Chico; Sigma Lambda Beta International fraternity
in 1986 at University of Iowa; and Kappa Delta Chi sorority in 1987 at Texas Tech
University (Muñoz & Guardia, 2009). While only two Latino fraternities were founded in
the 1990s, seventeen sororities were established most likely due to poor communication
amongst Latina sororities and women suggests Muñoz and Guardia (2009). Latino/a
organizations were heavily influenced by NPHC organizations, adopting call signs, letter
jackets, and line numbers, but added a cultural twist such as Spanish phrases (for
example, Hermandades instead of brothers) (Kimbrough, 2003). Latino/a fraternities and
sororities were also organized into umbrella organizations (Kimbrough, 2003; Muñoz &
Guardia, 2009). One umbrella organization was founded as the Concilio Nacional de
Hermandades Latinas (National Council of Latino Brothers and Sisters) in 1991 (Muñoz
& Guardia, 2009). The National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations (NALFO)
was the second umbrella organization, established in 1998 to unify and facilitate
communication among Latino/a fraternities and sororities (Muñoz & Guardia, 2009).
The establishment of Latino/a organizations connected to the increase in first
generation Latino/a college students (Kimbrough, 2003). As first generation college
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 28
students, many Latino/as need a stronger level of support due to the unfamiliar and alien
college environment asserts Kimbrough (2003). The students sympathized and
understood the importance of giving back to disadvantaged populations (Kimbrough,
2003). These factors merged and were expressed through fraternity and sorority life
(Kimbrough, 2003).
Current Fraternities and Sororities
The NIC, NPC, NPHC, Asian American, and Latino/a American are common
fraternities and sororities on college campuses. African American, Asian American, and
Latino/a organizations continue to thrive for similar reasons as they began: to serve as
safe, supportive communities from racial discrimination, alienation, and isolation.
Fraternities and sororities for other minority populations, such as homosexual, Native
American, and multi-cultural, is on the rise (but due to the smaller number of
organizations were not included in this literature review) (Torbenson, 2009). The
common characteristics of all fraternities and sororities are the social activities, a set of
values and principles, secret rituals to represent those values, typically Greek letters to
represent the name of the organization, mottos, shields, and handshakes.
As fraternities and sororities evolved through the last two hundred years, the
member’s experience becomes multi-faceted. Universities and researchers identify
important and concerning aspects of fraternity/sorority culture such as alcohol, student
engagement and learning, hazing, and leadership development. Researchers summarize
the fraternity/sorority membership experience through recent and notable works. Often,
this research combines all races, thus ignoring the separation of fraternal organizations
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 29
and the historical context of the formation of racial minority organizations. Some
researchers separate African American, Asian American, and Latino fraternity/sorority
members’ experience but typically for research areas discussing race or ethnicity. Next,
the paper will review important findings regarding the general fraternity/sorority
experience.
Fraternity and Sorority Experience
Today’s fraternity and sorority student experience is multi-faceted, and research
focuses on the different elements. While the research is vast, this section will review
recent and notable studies of four common fraternity/sorority research topics: alcohol,
student engagement and learning, hazing, and leadership. A fifth common topic is race
and diversity, and this paper will cover this topic in depth in the following section.
Research consumers should consider using caution when using fraternity/sorority studies,
as the majority participants are usually White, thus the White fraternity/sorority
experience overshadows the experience of African American, Latino/a, and Asian
American fraternity/sorority students.
Alcohol
Alcohol use among fraternity/sorority students is well documented through
research. Fraternity/sorority membership strongly correlates to increased alcohol use and
alcohol abuse among college students (Hutching, Lac, & LaBrie, 2007; Lo & Globetti,
1995; Park, Sher, & Krull, 2009; Sher, Bartholow, & Nanda, 2001). In a survey of 808
freshmen (85.4% White, 13.5% African American, and 1.1% Asian/Pacific Islander or
Hispanic), Lo and Globetti (1995) connect fraternity/sorority affiliation to drinking
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 30
intensity. The researchers conclude that fraternity/sorority students are more likely to
drink and consume in higher quantity and frequency compared to non-members. This
finding is consistent with Sher et al. (2001); McCabe, et al. (2005); and Park et al. (2009).
Fraternity/sorority students increase alcohol consumption from senior year of high school
to first year of college at a significantly higher degree than non-affiliated students (Lo &
Globetti, 1995). McCabe et al. (2005) and Park et al. (2009) add that higher rates of
alcohol use in fraternity/sorority students were present before the students started college.
The difference between members and non-members drinking habits no longer exists three
years after college (Sher et al., 2001).
A gender difference in alcohol use exists between fraternity men and sorority
women. Three times more sorority women than non-members move from low quantity
drinking in senior year high school to high quantity drinking in college (Lo & Globetti,
1995). Hutching et al. (2007) suggest that the attitudes among fraternity/sorority students,
norms of the fraternal community, and perceptions of the inability to refrain from
drinking correlate to sorority women drinking more than non-affiliated women. Overall,
fraternity/sorority membership is associated with higher levels of perceived peer drinking
norms for men and women (Park et al., 2009). Because of the strong relationship between
affiliation and drinking, fraternity and sorority students are more likely to consume
alcohol at higher rates than non-affiliated students.
Student Engagement and Learning
A second common fraternity/sorority research theme is student engagement and
learning, which are activities and experiences related to personal development and
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 31
academic learning. Affiliated students anecdotally claim that they have better academic
performance than non-members, but this claim is debated in the research community.
One research study concludes that fraternity/sorority students are no less academically
engaged than non-members but are not necessarily more engaged than non-members
(Asel, Seifert, and Pascarella, 2009). Fraternity/sorority membership positively correlates
to academic dishonesty (McCabe & Bowers, 2009). On the other hand, Pike (2000)
asserts members have higher levels of cognitive development. Affiliated students
typically participate in practices that are linked to high levels of student learning and
personal development more than other students (Hayek, Carini, O’Day, & Kuh, 2002).
Pike (2003) argues that affiliated seniors report significantly greater gains in academic
development.
Using data from the National Survey of Student Engagement’s The College
Report, Pike (2003) concludes affiliated seniors report significantly greater gains in
academic development, student engagement, and student learning than non-affiliated
seniors. The research participants include 6,782 undergraduates, of which 79% White,
4.3% African American, 6.8% Asian American, 4.2% Hispanic, and 0.4% Native
American (Pike, 2003). In a comparison between first-year and senior year students at a
single institution, Asel et al. (2009) conclude that fraternity/sorority students substantially
participate in more co-curricular, extracurricular, and community service activities than
non-affiliated students. Affiliated students report higher levels of social gains compared
to non-members (Pike, 2000). While academic gains are debatable, fraternity/sorority
students have gains in student engagement, student learning, and social involvement.
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 32
Hazing
The third common fraternity/sorority research topic is hazing. Hazing is defined
as acts that are implicitly or explicitly required activities that endanger the health and/or
emotional well-being of potential members, can result in psychological and physical
damage including death, and are done in secret to initiate potential members (Campo,
Poulos, & Sipples, 2005). The most common hazing activities are drinking
contests/games, forced consumption of alcohol, and sleep deprivation (Campo, Poulos, &
Sipples, 2005). Hazing activities in fraternities and sororities is common. In a sample of
342 undergraduates, fraternity/sorority members experience the greatest number of
hazing activities (Owen, Burke, & Vichesky, 2008). Of the 160 self-identified
fraternity/sorority members from a sample of 2,000 undergraduate students, Campo,
Poulos, and Sipples (2005) discover that 38.3% self-identify as being hazed and 23.3%
self-identify as hazing new members. Fraternity/sorority students may engage in hazing
because they believe hazing is fun (Campo, Poulos, & Sipples, 2005). Hazing may also
occur because it is embedded into the history and culture of the organization (Kimbrough,
1997).
Hazing in NPHC organizations is a common practice, possibly due to the history
and traditions of hazing in the organization “Black Greek-Letter Organizations have
largely come to be known by their association with pledging and hazing-initiation rituals,
rites of passages, and other time-bound processes intended to ‘make’ individual
members…” asserts Rogers, Rogers, & Anderson (2012, pp. 43). According to
Kimbrough (1997), hazing has been incorporated into the NPHC pledge process, which is
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 33
the initiation process to become an official member of the organization, from the early
stages and continues through today. The early hazing activities stressed organizational
unity and de-emphasized individuality through activities such as single file lines and
dressing alike (Kimbrough, 1997). The pledge process became violent in the 1960s and
1970s when hazing activities resulting in death, alcohol poisoning, broken limbs, and acts
of assault were recorded (Kimbrough, 1997). In February 1990, NPHC organizations
resolved to end the pledge process and adopt the new membership intake process which
is an intensive education period lasting a few days (Kimbrough, 1997). However, many
members expressed an outcry that traditions were lost, so some undergraduate chapters
attempted to keep pledge traditions through ‘pre-pledging’ activities and ‘underground
pledging’ (Kimbrough, 1997). Underground pledging is a new member process that
occurs secretly. Hughey and Hernandez (2012) analyzed nearly 30 years of newspaper
coverage of NPHC organization and found 50 newspaper articles related to hazing—the
largest newspaper theme that facilitated a stigma about NPHC organizations. The
newspaper stories often emphasize injuries, legal costs, and potential legal and collegiate
penalties (Hughey & Hernandez, 2012). Hazing is a concern of the research community
and is one of the few topics that incorporate differential experiences among race/ethnic-
oriented fraternities and sororities.
Leadership Development
Fraternities and sororities often claim their organization develops leaders and
leadership skills in its membership. To verify the claim, researchers study the relationship
between fraternity/sorority membership and leadership. Adams & Keim (2000) use the
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 34
Student Leadership Practices Inventory to compare the leadership development between
fraternity men and sorority women. Participants include 233 undergraduates (101 men
and 132 women) at 3 public universities. Findings conclude that women chapter
presidents are less experienced than men chapter presidents (Adams & Keim, 2000).
Women utilize ‘enabling others to act’ more than men (Adams & Keim, 2000). Women
leaders are more comfortable ‘challenging the process’ than men, but the skill is the least
developed for both genders (Adams & Keim, 2000). Finally, men are more comfortable
in their abilities that women (Adams & Keim, 2000).
Dugan (2008) examined fraternity/sorority membership and socially responsible
leadership using the social change model. Using data from the Multi-Institutional Study
of Leadership national research project, the participants were 79% White, 7% multiracial,
5% Asian American, 3% African American/Black, 3% Latino, 2% not listed, and 2%
Native American. The fraternity/sorority leaders scored highest on the ‘commitment’
value and lowest on the ‘change’ value. These scores are normative of the national
college student data set. Women report higher scores than men across all areas of the
social change models (Dugan, 2008). Fraternity/sorority leadership research suggests
women are stronger leaders than men. Both genders develop skills through time spent as
leaders in their organizations.
Summary
The research debates the value of fraternities and sororities. While the
organizations provide benefits (student engagement gains and leadership development),
alcohol and hazing are parts of the fraternity/sorority culture. As another consideration,
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 35
the majority research participants are White and do not account for the varied experiences
of African American, Asian American, and Latino/a American affiliated students. The
findings from this summary of research may not be the same for these racial groups. A
fifth topic is common in fraternity/sorority research: racial and diversity issues. The next
section will discuss diversity and racial issues and fraternity/sorority students’
experiences separated by race.
Fraternity/Sorority Racial and Diversity Issues
Critical race theory asserts, “racism is ordinary, not aberrational […]” (Delgado &
Stefancic, 2012, pp.7), and therefore racism is part of the common, everyday experience.
Fraternities, sororities, and colleges are not exceptions. The inception and continued
growth of race/ethnic-oriented fraternities and sororities are examples of how racism is a
common experience of today. Racism, racial conflict, and interactive diversity occur in
fraternities and sororities. For White fraternity/sorority students, the experience has a
negative impact on their understanding of race and racism. For African American, Asian
American, and Latino/a college students, their respective race/ethnic-oriented fraternities
and sororities are safe, supportive communities from the regular isolation, alienation, and
racism they experience on college campuses.
The following section discusses fraternity/sorority race and diversity issues from
the perspective of White, African American, Asian American, and Latino/a affiliated
students. The sections synthesize fraternity/sorority perspectives and the racial minority’s
viewpoint of race, racism, and diversity on college campuses. Most likely due to the
recent growth of Latino/a and Asian American fraternities and sororities, Latino/a and
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 36
Asian American fraternity/sorority peer-edited research is less than White and African
American fraternity/sorority research, although White fraternity/sorority student
perceptions is also scarce.
White Students and White Fraternity and Sorority Students
Fraternities and sororities are majority White organizations (Chang, 1996).
2
The
near racial homogeneity of fraternities and sororities is mostly due to the historical
practices of NIC and NPC, which are the largest fraternity and sorority organizations, to
deny membership of any minority (Binder, 2003; Kimbrough, 2003). As the majority
population, White students’ perception of race and diversity can considerably influence
the fraternity/sorority community’s racial climate. For example, fraternity and sorority
membership for White students has a significant negative effect to diversity openness
(Pascarella, Edison, Nora, Hagedorn, & Terenzini, 1996). Pascarella et al. (1996)
hypothesize that this finding occurs because fraternities and sororities are homogeneous
and insular organizations. As homogeneous organizations, White affiliated students have
less interaction with students of color than non-members (Chang & Deangelo, 2002).
White fraternity/sorority members maintain the same number of interracial friendships
throughout college whereas non-members White students gain interracial friendships
during college (Stearns, Buchmann, & Bonneau, 2009). Both groups begin college with
the same number of interracial friendships (Stearns, Buchmann, & Bonneau, 2009).
White students, not just White fraternity/sorority students, overall experience little

2

Data is from the 1985 Student Information Form and the 1989 Follow-Up Survey.
Participation rates may have changed due to the rise in ethnic-oriented fraternities and
sororities. Unfortunately, current data is unavailable.

RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 37
discrimination and are unable to recognize interracial tension (Ancis, Sedlack, & Mohr,
2000).
Porter (2012) utilized a mixed methods research design to study how
fraternity/sorority leaders’ co-curricular involvement either fosters or inhibits interaction
with diverse (racial, religious, family background, and life philosophies) peers. Seventy-
three students (5.3% African American and 90.7% White) participated in the survey, and
six students were interviewed (Porter, 2012). The fraternity/sorority leaders were least
involved in organizations related to promoting diversity, such as international/language-
interest groups and minority/ethnic groups, than they were involved with other student
organizations (Porter, 2012). The interview participants explained that race is an
important part of diversity, but they expanded their definition to include other forms such
as religion and family background (Porter, 2012). They hesitated to claim that their
organization includes all kinds of diversity (Porter, 2012). Porter (2012) corroborates
statistical testing and participant response to conclude that the students view diversity as
a “melting pot.” Critical race theory defines this viewpoint as “colorblind,” and therefore
the attitude ignores the subtle forms of race and racism (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012).
Colorblindness also overlooks the different history and voices of separate racial and
ethnic groups (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). Porter (2012) identifies the two most
important factors to create interactional diversity opportunities: a sense of community
and information opportunities.
An additional experience White fraternity men have is the access to privileges
unavailable to racial minority fraternal organizations. In an ethnographic study, Ray and
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 38
Rosow (2012) uncovered the privilege of White fraternity men. Fifty-two men from three
White fraternities and four men from African American fraternities at a predominately
White institution participated in the research (Ray & Rosow, 2012). White fraternity
privilege manifests through invisibility, unaccountability, exclusivity, intergenerational
security, and control over social environments (Ray & Rosow, 2012). White men are able
to disassociate themselves from their fraternity (Ray & Rosow, 2012). Ray and Rosow
(2012) explain that White men have the ability to misbehave once they take off any
fraternity paraphernalia. Another privilege is White fraternity men are connected to
affluent members, members’ parents, and alumni, and therefore they know that they can
easily rectify situations with university administration (Ray & Rosow, 2012). At social
gatherings, White fraternity men can (and actually do) deny entrance to minorities,
homosexuals, lower-status Whites, and they purposefully invite desirable women (Ray &
Rosow, 2012). Compared to White fraternity men, African American men are vigilant
about how their behavior affects the fraternity (Ray & Rosow, 2012). Their status as
African American fraternity men makes them hyper-visible in the African American
community (Ray & Rosow, 2012). In essence, African American fraternity men cannot
disassociate from their fraternity (Ray & Rosow, 2012). African American organizations
are more policed than White fraternities (Ray & Rosow, 2012). The NPHC organizations
often do not have houses, and thus rely on universities to provide spacing for social
events (Ray and Rosow, 2012). According to Ray and Rosow (2012), using campus
facilities results in additional rules, surveillance, and costs such as hiring security, that are
not required for White fraternities who can use their own houses as social event spaces
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 39
(Ray & Rosow, 2012). When African American organizations and members do get into
trouble, they do not have the same network as White fraternity men— specifically the
connections (affluent members’ parents and alumni) that facilitate resolving problems
with university administration (Ray & Rosow, 2012).
White students are the majority of fraternity and sorority members
(Chang, 1996). Because of the less frequent (Chang & Deangelo, 2002) and
informal nature of their interactions (Porter, 2012), White students may not know
about the different experiences of students of color. They may be unaware of the
privilege afforded to them as both a White person and a White person in a
historically and majority White organization (Ray & Rosow, 2012). Research has
not fully explained how White affiliated students make sense of race and racial
diversity in the fraternal community. The next section will provide an overview of
African American fraternity and sorority students’ perceptions of race and
diversity.
African American Students and African American Fraternity/Sorority Members
The National Pan-Hellenic Council (NPHC) organizations support African
American pride and culture. The NPHC organizations take White fraternity and
sororities practices and add an African American cultural twist (Chen, 2011;
Kimbrough, 2003). For example, stepping and step shows, which evolved from
African drumming minstrel shows, rap, and church gospel, is uniquely African
American (Kimbrough, 2003). Other cultural twist examples include plots, hand
signs, and calls (Kimbrough, 2003). These practices create a sense of closeness to
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 40
African American ancestry for NPHC fraternity men (McClure, 2006). The
NPHC fraternities and sororities support Black pride in its community and
members (Chen, 2011). For women, mainstream society defines beauty,
according to Chen (2011), by White standards such as blonde, thin, blue-eyed,
and straight, flowing hair. This definition puts down African American features
like dark-skinned and kinky hair (Chen, 2011). African American sororities
reclaim and redefine beauty, often referring to themselves as “the lovely ladies
of…” or “the beautiful women of…” (Chen, 2011). The NPHC women’s
organizations foster African American or Black pride to reject societal (White)
definition of African Americans as inferior and reclaim beauty and power (Chen,
2011). Through their common practices and behaviors, NPHC fraternities and
sororities are places where African American students can be proud of their
African American heritage.
Communities where African American college students can feel proud of
their heritage and be supported are important because these students report
feelings of isolation, alienation, and discrimination on campus, especially at
predominately White institutions (Feagin & Sikes, 1995; Solorzano, Ceja, &
Yosso, 2003; Swim, Hyers, Cohen, Fitzgerald, & Bylsma, 2003). Feagin and
Sikes (1995) explain, “One reason for this alienating environment is that college
desegregation in the 1960s has not brought fundamental changes in the character
and cultural norms of white [sic] institutions” (pp. 91). Students feel they have to
assimilate and integrate into the dominant White culture in order to belong
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 41
(Feagin & Sikes, 1995). Even though African American students feel pressure to
assimilate and experience racism, NPHC organizations are communities where
African American students feel safe, comfortable, do not feel the pressure to
assimilate, and celebrate their African American ethnicity.
Racism specific to African American college students occurs through
varying methods. In Swim et al. (2003) research, forty students recorded their
racial experiences in a daily diary. The students reported an average of one race-
related incident per every other week. Major incident types include staring, verbal
expressions of prejudice, bad service in public establishments, and miscellaneous
interpersonal offenses like rude or awkward moments with European Americans
(Swim et al., 2003). Other forms of racism include racist joking, others’ (students
and teachers) expectation to be a representation of all African Americans, others’
reaction as surprised that the African American student is smart, and a
Eurocentrism curriculum (Feagin & Sikes, 2003). Racial discrimination can occur
through more subtle acts such as micro-aggressions, which are conscious or
unconscious subtle acts of racism (Solorzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000). The micro-
aggressions African American students rep2ort are feelings of invisibility in the
classroom, negative interactions with faculty (presuming the African American
student is unintelligent or unethical/immoral), and an increase in campus police at
African American events. As a result of racism and microaggressions, African
American students report a chilly or negative racial climate, self-doubt, and
isolation (Solorzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000). To combat these feelings, African
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 42
Americans create safe, community spaces. African American fraternities and
sororities act as supportive environments for African American students (Smith &
Moore, 2000; Solorzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000). The NPHC organizations
celebrate African American ethnicity and provide a forum where African
American students can talk about African American concerns. However, these
communities cannot shield students from racism and micro-aggressions, and
therefore racism can be a part of the fraternity/sorority members’ college
experiences.
Asian American Students and Asian American Fraternity and Sorority Members
Asian American fraternity/sorority research is not as robust as NIC, NPC,
and NPHC research (Chen, 2003). Chen (2003) asserts that like other racial
minority fraternities and sororities, Asian American fraternities and sororities
continue to exist because they are safe spaces for Asian American students to
affirm cultural pride and values. Much of the research focuses on the experiences
of Asian American sorority women and not Asian American fraternity men. The
Asian American fraternity men experience subtly manifests in current events.
Societal expectation defines men as competitive, physically tough, and
heterosexist (Chen, 2003). For Asian American fraternity men, this societal
expectation surfaces through pledging and violence (Chen, 2003). Lambda Phi
Epsilon and Pi Alpha Phi are well known to openly haze their members (Chen,
2003). The rivalry between the two organizations resulted in a fight and a student
death as well as serious injuries of other members (Chen, 2003). Even though the
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 43
men are pressured to a narrow definition of manhood, many members believe
these are isolated incidents and the positive value (racial identity development and
community service) outweighs the harm from these incidents (Chen, 2003). The
Asian American fraternity/sorority research is limited by the experiences of solely
women participants and of women not in Asian American sororities. This section
will review Asian American fraternity/sorority research and Asian American
college students’ experiences with racism.
Asian American women in the NPC community subtly experience racism
(Park, 2005). In Park’s (2005) research, 18 Asian American sorority women
participate in qualitative interviews at a highly selective, private university
located in Southeastern United States. Although the participant selection is small,
the findings from the in-depth interviews are indicative of the role of race in
fraternities and sororities. The participants explain that they believe race is
irrelevant in the community and in membership selection (Park, 2005).
Recruitment and participation are perceived to be open to everyone and the
individual’s choice. (Park, 2005) The selection process depends on the comfort
and fit between sorority and individual (Park, 2005). The participants believe the
lack of diversity in sororities is due to the lack institutional diversity (Park, 2005).
Interestingly, one participant remarks how sororities pick and perpetuate the same
type of person in membership selection (Park, 2005). Although the participants
believe race is irrelevant in the fraternity/sorority system, through the use of
critical race theory, Park (2005) concludes that race is relevant. Sororities that are
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 44
perceived to be higher on the social ladder have less diversity than the
organizations at the bottom (Park, 2005). Park (2005) adds that the use of
“comfort” and “fit” are politically correct explanations instead of race to deny
women membership (Park, 2005). While the university lacks diversity, the
number of African American and Asian American members is under-
representative compared to the institution’s demographic. Park (2005) concludes
that sororities are communities where race matters.
Chen (2011) comes to similar conclusions as Park (2005). In Chen’s
(2011) study, she explored the experiences of Asian American women in African
American sororities. The prestigious African American sororities are more
racially homogeneous and less willing to accept Asian American women than less
prestigious African American sororities (Chen, 2011). The manner of exclusion
occurs through more informal practices than a formal policy explains Chen
(2011). The participants explain that they chose the less prestigious/ newer
African American sororities because they perceived these sororities as more open
and diverse (diversity defined here to include personal history and background,
career paths, and life philosophies) (Chen, 2011). Asian American women in
African American sororities are still able to develop Asian pride even though their
organizations celebrate African American pride (Chen, 2011). The discrimination
Asian American women may encounter is much more subtle than racial
discrimination before the Civil Rights movement. Even though Asian American
women will be able to join a sorority dominantly comprised of a different race,
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 45
Asian American college women are unlikely to be selected into the most
prestigious sororities.
Asian American college students experience racial discrimination, much
like other ethnic minorities. In a sample of 155 college students, 72% of Asian
American students perceive sometimes to almost always feeling they are treated
differently because of their race (Yoo & Lee, 2005). Sue, Bucceri, Lin, Nadal, and
Torino (2009) uncover eight types of micro-aggressions Asian American college
students experience: alien in own land or forever foreigner, ascription of
intelligence, exoticization of Asian women, invalidation of interethnic differences
(all Asians are the same), denial of racial reality, pathologizing cultural
values/communication styles, second class citizenship, and invisibility. When the
students receive these micro-aggressions, they react with anger, frustration,
alienation and invalidation (Sue et al., 2009). The effects of the micro-aggressions
are long lasting, strong, and negative (Sue et al., 2009). The repetition of
microaggressions can lead to the perception of a negative campus racial climate.
Cress and Ikeda (2003) discover that a negative campus racial climate and Asian
Americans’ self-reported levels of depression are related. Asian Americans are
more likely than any other racial group to perceive a negative campus racial
climate and to experience self-reported feelings of depression (Cress & Ikeda,
2003). Asian American college students can employ coping strategies, like social
support, cognitive restructuring, and problem-solving coping, to mitigate racism
(Yoo & Lee, 2005). A strong ethnic identity associates with the more frequent use
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 46
of social support and problem-solving coping when students’ face racism (Yoo &
Lee, 2005). One community where Asian American students can develop a strong
ethnic identity is Asian American fraternities and sororities. Asian Americans
experience racism in sorority life and on the college campus. Ideally, Asian
American fraternities and sororities are communities where members can be safe
and feel comfortable away from racism on the college campus.
Latino/a Students and Latino/a Fraternity/Sorority Members
Much like Asian American fraternity/sorority research, Latino/a fraternity
and sorority research is limited. Most of the Latino-specific fraternity and sorority
research are Master’s theses and Doctoral dissertations, but their research has yet
to be published in peer-reviewed journals (Muñoz & Guardia, 2003). This section
will review available, peer-edited Latino/a fraternity and sorority research and
Latino/a perceptions and experiences of campus racial discrimination.
Like NPHC, Latino Greek-Lettered Organizations (LGLOs) are safe,
supportive spaces for Latino/a college students (Muñoz & Guardia, 2003). The
LGLOs celebrate Latino/a heritage by adding Latino/a variations onto fraternity
and sorority practices such as Spanish wording in rituals (Kimbrough, 2003).
Latino/a affiliated students, as well as Latino/a students in religious student
organizations, have a significantly stronger sense of belonging compared to
nonmembers (Hurtado & Carter, 2007). The LGLOs can be a source of
adjustment and integration into college life (Zurita, 2004). One drawback of
fraternity/sorority affiliation for Latino/a students is that membership negatively
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 47
influences academic performance for Latino men but not Latina women (Baker,
2008).
Latino fraternity affiliation aids ethnic identity development for Latino
men at Hispanic serving institutions (Guardia & Evans, 2008). In one of the few
peer-edited journal articles about Latino fraternity men, Guardia and Evans
(2008) studied the ethnic identity development of one Latino fraternity at a
Hispanic serving institution. Guardia and Evans (2008) discovered that the
fraternity itself is a place where the men feel supported in their ethnic identity
development. Other fraternal organizations and fraternity/sorority practices
indirectly influence ethnic identity development (Guardia & Evans, 2008). For
example, the men report they feel welcomed by minority fraternity and sororities
organizations, but not from White fraternities and sororities because the Latino
men are labeled as “thugs” and “bad boys” by White fraternities and sororities
(Guardia & Evans, 2008). The men add that the overall fraternity/sorority
practices inhibit culture and ethnic identity development (Guardia & Evans,
2008). The Latino fraternity is a member of the campus’ IFC who does not serve
their needs as a Latino fraternity organization (Guardia & Evans, 2008).
Specifically the council extensively discusses rush, the recruitment period and
related practice connected to IFC organizations, but the Latino fraternity does not
participate or adopt rush practices in their recruitment methods (Guardia & Evans,
2008). The research site did not a have a Multicultural Greek Council (MGC) or
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 48
equivalent, but the student participants believe that a MGC would alleviate their
frustrations (Guardia & Evans, 2008).
Similar to other college student racial minorities, Latino/a college
students, not specifically Latino/a fraternity/sorority students, experience racial
discrimination. One in four Latino/a American students report a lot of campus
racial conflict and little trust between minority student groups and administration
(Hurtado, Dey, Gurin, & Gurin, 2003). Latino/a college students describe feeling
conflicted between their Latino/a heritage and the White, American college
campus environment (Hernandez, 2002). Rodriguez, Guido-Dibrio, Torres, and
Talbot (2000) cite institutional marginalization as one barrier to Latina college
students’ success. Latino/a college students experience a negative campus racial
climate, possibly resulting as a barrier to student satisfaction and success.
Racism, alienation, isolation, and marginalization can be mitigated
through supportive coping strategies. Rodriguez et al. (2000) suggest “The
alienation and isolation that many Latina college students experience can be
alleviated through participation in ethnically oriented support networks” (pp. 522-
523). Latino/a fraternities and sororities are one such support network. The
organization is able to scale down the size of the university so that the student can
get to know the institution (Rodriguez et al., 2000). While participation in a
Latino/a organization often appear to be self-segregating, Villalpando (2003)
concludes that affiliating with students of the same ethnicity is beneficial.
Latino/a college students are able to develop a cultural consciousness that is
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 49
empowering and positive through associating with students of Latino/a heritage.
The group reaffirms Latino/a students’ cultural pride, practices, values, and
beliefs (Villalpando, 2003).
Summary
The experiences of White, African American, Asian American, and
Latino/a fraternity and sorority students vary. White fraternity and sorority
students are the overwhelming majority of fraternity/sorority members (Chang,
1996). As the majority, White affiliated students impact the fraternity/sorority
community with their lack of diversity openness (Pascarella et al., 1996) and
inability to recognize interracial tension (Ancis, Sedlacek, & Mohr, 2000). They
have access to privileges that are not given to minority fraternity/sorority students
(Ray & Rosow, 2012). The White-over-color system, which is the second tenet in
CRT (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012), is present in fraternities and sororities because
White fraternal organizations have privileges over racial minority organizations,
such as invisibility, unaccountability, exclusivity, intergenerational security, and
control over social environments (Ray & Rosow, 2012). Because of their lack of
diversity openness, inability to recognize interracial tension, and privileged
experience (Ancis, Sedlacek, & Mohr, 2000; Pascarella et al., 2996; Ray &
Rosow, 2012), White fraternity/sorority students may lack the ability to recognize
and understand how race affects the fraternity/sorority community. Regardless of
their understanding, their perceptions are worthy of study so that advisors can
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 50
help them develop the knowledge and sensitivity to better interact with minority
racial fraternity/sorority students.
A commonality among African American, Asian American, and Latino/a
students is experiencing racism, isolation, and alienation on college campuses. To
counteract the experiences, the students can participate in racial/ethnic-oriented
fraternities and sororities, finding safe, supportive communities where their
heritage is celebrated. They have the ability to connect to their ethnicity and
develop pride through their fraternity or sorority.
Conclusion
Racial inequalities exist in the history and current experiences of
fraternities and sororities. Throughout the history of fraternal organizations,
membership was defined by who could not join. The excluded groups mirrored
society’s oppressed populations, such as women, Jews, African Americans, Asian
Americans, and Latino/as. The oppressed groups were unable to gain membership
into fraternal organizations, resulting in the creation of sororities, religious
minority fraternities and sororities, and ethnic-oriented fraternal organizations.
For women and racial minorities, the development of their organizations
depended upon when the populations gained access into higher education as well
as maintaining sustainable numbers. Women were the first, followed by African
Americans, Asian Americans, and Latino/as. The NPHC, Asian American, and
Latino/a fraternities and sororities thrived because they were safe communities
from the daily experiences of racism, alienation, and isolation. Students of color
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 51
were able to celebrate their ethnic heritage in their respective fraternities and
sororities.
Current fraternity and sorority members have several common
experiences. Fraternities and sororities are communities where alcohol abuse and
hazing occur. However, they are also communities that foster student engagement
and leadership skills. The role of race and racism, which are influenced by the
overall campus culture and climate, are another common experience of fraternity
and sorority members. African American, Asian American, and Latino/a affiliated
students are likely to report negative campus climates and experience racism
while White students, who are the overwhelming majority of fraternity/sorority
students, are not.
As race was important to the development of fraternities and sororities, the
role of race is likely to still be relevant in todays’ fraternal communities. This
thesis explores whether or not affiliated students believe the role of race is
relevant in the fraternity/sorority community. Furthermore, the paper investigates
how fraternity/sorority students recognize race in their community, how they
perceive race, and what actions, if any, community members make that reinforce
the role of race. These practices and perceptions may vary depending upon the
individual’s racial identity and the racial identity of his or her fraternity or
sorority. Next, the research methods utilized will be reviewed.
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 52
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODS
A qualitative approach was used for this research design. Qualitative research
allowed for the pursuance of the deeper understanding and meaning as to how and why
something happens (Hesse-Biber & Leavey, 2011). This thesis used in-depth interviews
to (1) explore whether or not students believe race is in the fraternity/sorority community
culture, (2) answer if and how affiliated students recognize race in the fraternity/sorority
community, and (3) explore how fraternity/sorority students perceive the role of race in
the community and (4) what actions, if any, do community members make, if any, that
reinforce the role of race. This chapter will review the theoretical lens of this research,
critical race theory (CRT), the site and participants, data collection procedures, data
analysis procedures, validity, reliability, and limitations.
Theoretical Lens: Critical Race Theory
Critical race theory studies the relationship among race, racism, power, and
oppression through analyzing patterns of racial inequalities and other forms of racial
discrimination (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Villalpando,
2004). Racial inequality issues are placed in the broader context of history, economics,
group- and self-interest, feelings, and the unconscious (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012).
Some people may conclude that race and racism are solely conceptual because legal
racial discrimination no longer exists (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). Ladson-Billings
(1998) counters, “[…] thinking of race strictly as an ideological concept denies the reality
of a racialized society and its impact on people in their everyday lives” (pp. 9). The CRT
helps scholars analyze how racial discrimination exists in more covert manners and in
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 53
everyday experiences (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995;
Villalpando, 2004).
The theory arose in the mid-1970s as a means to understand race theory post-civil
rights movement (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). Originating in critical legal studies, CRT
expands to other disciplines such as education, political science, ethnic studies, American
studies, psychology, and philosophy (Crenshaw, 2011; Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). How
does the legal foundation of CRT apply to education? Ladson-Billings (2010) explains
that as education is not specifically outlined in the US constitution, individual states
relegate education. Thus, state and federal legislatures enact laws to shape education
(Ladson-Billings, 2010). Educational critical race theorists apply CRT to understand
affirmative action, high stakes testing, and hierarchies of schools and districts (Delgado
& Stefancic, 2012). Scholars have expanded the use of CRT to understand the racial
inequalities in higher education communities. Dixson and Rousseau (2005) explain,
“Much of the literature on CRT in education has focused on the theory’s application to
‘qualitative’ research. Qualitative methodology [is] certainly consistent with particular
elements of CRT: (pp. 22).
According to Delgado & Stefancic (2012), the theory has six tenets.
1. “Racism is ordinary, not aberrational […]” (pp. 7), meaning racism is common
and every day;
2. The “system of white-over-color ascendancy serves important purposes, both
psychic and material [and this is] sometimes called ‘interest convergence’ or
‘material determinism’” ( pp. 7-8). Delgado and Stefancic (2012) further explain
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 54
that racism benefits White elites materially and working Whites psychically, thus
a large portion of society has little incentive to rid racism;
3. Race is socially constructed and not biological;
4. The dominant society racializes different minority groups at different times and
in different manners, shifting stereotypes over time. For example, an ethnic group
may be depicted as monstrous at one point and hard working at a later time. Each
race has its own origins and evolving;
5. No person has one, singular identity
6. The minority status means the presumed ability to talk about race and racism as
part of the story
Delgado and Stefancic (2012) acknowledge that not every critical race theorist may
believe in all of these tenets, but they assert that most agree with the majority of them.
Critical race theorists use storytelling and voice to understand how Americans
understand race in everyday interactions (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012; Ladson-Billings,
1998; Villalpando, 2004). Storytelling is a valid source of data because it provides
experiential knowledge and context (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012; Ladson-Billings, 1998).
The voice in storytelling gives racial minorities the ability to communicate their story of
oppression, helping others to understand the complexity of race (Ladson-Billings, 1998).
Delgado and Stefancic (2012) explain, “people of different races have radically different
experiences as they go through life” (pp.47). Thus, CRT accounts for the divergent
experiences of Whites and people of color through storytelling and voice. This thesis
develops storytelling and voice through interviews.
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 55
Site
The site, Metropolitan University [MU], is a public, urban, research, four-year
institution located in the Mid-West. Approximately 16,671 undergraduates, 8,119,
graduates, and 2,722 professional students were enrolled at the time of data collection. In
2011, the university was comprised of 0.1% Native American, 17.8% Asian, 8.1% Black
or African American, 16.5% Hispanic/Latino, 0.4% Pacific Islander, 45.4% White, 1.9%
multi-racial, 7.1% International, and 2.6% unknown. The university has a long history
tracing its origins back to 1891, but the current university officially opened in 1965,
making MU a relatively young university. Fraternal organizations were recognized since
the 1970s. Forty-four fraternities and sororities were recognized on the campus at the
time of data collection: seven IFC, six NPHC, three NPC, eight Asian-American-interest
organizations, six Latino/a-interest organizations, and eleven local organizations. The
organizations were divided into IFC, Panhellenic council (PC), NPHC, Latino Greek
Council (LGC) and Asian Greek Council (AGC)
3
. A diverse general student population
and fraternity/sorority population was desired because the researcher believed that the
research questions would be best answered at a diverse site.
Participants and Recruitment
Purposeful sampling, which is selecting participants who are knowledgeable
about the research topic, was used (Hatton, 2002; Hesse-Biber & Leavey, 2011; Maxwell,
2005). The ideal participant was to have been initiated for at least one year and have
community-level leadership. Fraternity/sorority members who have been a member less

3
Pseudonyms used for council names to protect confidentiality
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 56
than on-year may be too new to the community and therefore may not be knowledgeable
about the community and community practices. Ideally, interviewees had community-
level experience such as a council leadership roles or a chapter presidency. Community-
level leaders were ideal because it was assumed that they may have had cross-council
interactions and may be able to compare and contrast experiences with different councils.
When collecting data, the researcher discovered that some councils were small in size and
therefore their members lacked the desired one-year requirement. Even though some
participants had not been initiated members for one year at the time of data collection, the
fraternity/sorority advisor identified the participants as being prominent members in the
fraternity/sorority community. The researcher thought that membership of over a year
membership, community-level leadership, and/or prominent members were ideal because
they would have the experience to be knowledgeable about the community and its
practices. The sample included two students of IFC and NPC, as well as two male and
two female students from NPHC, AGC, and LGC, totaling to sixteen interviews. The
student participants’ race ideally mirrored that of the dominant race of their respective
organization. For example, White students from IFC and NPC organizations, African
American students from NPHC, etc. The researcher interviewed a minimum of two male
and two female students per racial group so that the data reflected an even representation
of the groups and gender. The participant demographic requirements were to take into
account the inter-sectionality of the participants’ race and gender as well as the
participant’s racial identity and the organization’s dominant racial identity. Student
participant names are pseudonyms to protect participants’ confidentiality.
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 57
Table 1

Student Participant Demographics
Name Year in
School
Race/Ethnicity Gender Council
Affiliation
No. of
Years
Initiated
Leadership
Position
Adam Senior Caucasian &
Asian
American
Male IFC 3.5 Council
president
Beth Junior Caucasian Female PC 2.5 Chapter and
Council
president
Brenda Junior Asian
American
Female AGC 1 Chapter
secretary
Christine Senior Latina Female LGC 2 Chapter
secretary
David Junior Latino Male LGC 1 Chapter
academic
chair
Jay Junior African
American
Male NPHC 1.5 General
member
Jess Info not
collected
African
American
Female NPHC 0.5 Chapter vice
president
Lucy Senior Latina Female LGC 3 Council
president
Martin Junior Latino Male LGC 3 Chapter
president
Michael Senior Asian
American
Male AGC 2 Council
president
Norma Senior Asian
American
Female AGC 0.5 Chapter
recruitment
chair
Rachel Senior Latina Female PC 3.5 Council
President
Robert Senior African
American
Male NPHC 1.5 Council
president
Steve Junior Caucasian Male IFC 1 Chapter
president
Tiffany Info not
collected
African
American
Female NPHC 1 Chapter
secretary
Tommy Info not
collected
Asian
American
Male AGC 1.5 Council
president

RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 58
The researcher collaborated with MU’s fraternity/sorority staff advisor to
organize interviews. The advisor informed the potential participants of the research and
provided an email (located in Appendix A), information sheet (located in Appendix B),
and informational questionnaire (located in Appendix C). The university advisor
scheduled interview times.
Data Collection Procedures
The data collection procedures were designed to answer the research questions
(Maxwell, 2005). In-depth and semi-structured interviews, both terms will be explained
fully later, were used to explore the role of race in the fraternity/sorority community from
the perspective of affiliated students. As race is often a taboo topic in society, in-depth
and semi-structured interviews were utilized to provide some flexibility for the sensitive
topic. This section will review the sensitive nature of the topic, confidentiality, in-depth
and semi-structured interviews, procedures, and data analysis procedures.
Sensitive Topic
This research was considered a sensitive topic because it has either consequences
or implications for the participant or researcher (Lee, 1993). Race and racism could have
been emotionally charged for the participant, and therefore may have caused some level
of threat due to the stress induced (Lee, 1993). For example, interviewees shared
personal, experiential knowledge of racism. Additionally, the researcher interviewed
representatives from different councils and organizations. Students might have had fears
that the findings may favor one council or group over the others (Lee, 1993). This fear
may be exacerbated for some students, as the researcher is an Asian American woman
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 59
who is a member of an Asian American sorority. The researcher understood and
acknowledged the potential threats of this study. In-depth and semi-structured interviews,
which will be explained in a later section, helped the researcher diminish potential stress
for the participants. Confidentiality was ensured to ease undue stress to participants.
Confidentiality
Participant confidentiality was safeguarded through several methods. Pseudonyms
were used during the data collection and data analysis. The researcher kept one key of
participants’ names and pseudonyms only on her password-protected laptop. All
recordings, transcriptions, and memos were stored and accessed on only the researcher’s
password-protected laptop. Hand-recorded notes were copied onto the password-
protected laptop then destroyed. Original recordings were destroyed once transcriptions
were completed, including re-checks of transcriptions. Interviews took place at an
enclosed, small, private conference room on the participants’ campus. Upon completion
of the thesis, all identifiers and key codes were destroyed. The findings of this thesis do
not reveal the participants’ identities. If the study is to be published in a journal article
and/or presented at conferences, no information that reveals participant identities will be
disclosed.
Interview
Because the research topic was sensitive, the researcher utilized in-depth and
semi-structured interviews. In-depth interviews were collaborative between participant
and researcher and allowed participants to share ‘thick descriptions’ of social life in
fraternities and sororities (Hesse-Biber & Leavey, 2011). In-depth interviews were used
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 60
for the ability to go past surface answers. In-depth interviews provided the flexibility to
display greater sensitivity required for sensitive topic research, especially when
interviewees gave emotional responses or ambiguous answers (Lee, 1993). Structured
interviews are focused questioning and low-structured interviews are broad questioning
(Hesse-Biber & Leavey, 2011). Semi-structured are in-between structured and low-
structured (Hesse-Biber & Leavey, 2011), and therefore allowed flexibility to expand,
develop, and clarify informants’ responses (Scott & Morrison, 2006). All interviews were
done in-person.
Procedures
The interview procedure was designed to infuse validity and reliability into the
research design. Validity and reliability will be further discussed in a later section. Prior
to finalizing the interview protocol, the protocol was piloted with three students and
revised accordingly. Pilot-test interviews were used to determine if the interview
questions answered the research questions as well as for clarity (Maxwell, 2005). The in-
person interviews began with a verbal review of the informational sheet. The researcher
re-iterated confidentiality and the ability to stop at any time during the interview without
recompense. After the review, the researcher asked if the interviewee wanted to continue
participation and if the participant agreed to voice recording of the interview. A copy of
the interview protocol is located in Appendix D. The researcher took notes throughout
interviews, recording emotional reactions or anything that impacted or disrupted the
interviews (such as phone calls and texts), reactions to questions (respondent is not
interested or ambivalent toward the question), and respondent body language (Kvale,
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 61
2007; Hesse-Biber, 2011). At the end of the interview, interviewees were de-briefed
about the purpose of the research, confidentiality, and next steps in the process. The
researcher attempted to write memos documenting the primary investigator’s initial
thoughts after each interview but due to time constraints was limited to writing memos at
the end of the day. Fifteen out of sixteen interviews were recorded and transcribed
verbatim. The researcher failed to properly record one interview and thus relied on notes.
She emailed the participant to check if her notes were accurate. He did not respond, so
the researcher assumed her notes were accurate as is outlined in the procedure regarding
validity.
Data Analysis
Data analysis was incorporated throughout the research process. After
transcribing at least one interview, the researcher utilized an open-coding method, which
means codes were derived from the data, to analyze the transcriptions (Gibbs, 2009).
Hesse-Biber and Leavey (2011) suggest “The coding process can start as soon as [the
researcher begins] to collect some data; [the researcher does] not need to nor should
[s/he] wait for all [the] data to be collected” (pp. 307). Maxwell (2005) agrees that
analysis should begin immediately and will continue as long as the researcher is working
on the project. The researcher utilized a grounded theory approach, which is using the
data to create ideas and theories, to generate major ideas and concepts from the data
(Gibbs, 2009; Hesse-Biber & Leavey, 2011). Again, the researcher utilized memos to
summarize thoughts and interpretations of codes themselves and the analysis of
transcribed interviews (Maxwell, 2005). The process of coding, re-coding, and memoing
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 62
were repeated, as this repetition is part of the qualitative research process (Hesse-Biber &
Leavey, 2011). From the codes and memos, the researcher determined overarching
themes and findings.
Validity and Reliability
To ensure validity in the project, the researcher used data triangulation (Gibbs,
2009; Hesse-Biber & Leavey, 2011; Mathison, 1998; Maxwell, 2005; Patton, 2002).
“Data triangulation refers simply to using several data sources, the obvious example
being the inclusion of more than one individual as a source of data,” explains Mathison
(1998, pp.14). As indicated in the data collection procedures section, the researcher
interviewed 16 students. Mathison (1998) asserts that data triangulation expands to time
and space. This study is limited by the short engagement the researcher had with the
participants.
Member checking was used to strengthen the validity of the thesis (Hesse-Biber &
Leavey, 2011; Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2006). Member checking means the researcher
will receive feedback about the data, interpretations, and conclusions from each
participant (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2006). After the researcher analyzed and interpreted
the data, she emailed the participants the sections pertaining to them for feedback.
Participants had one week to email their feedback. If the researcher received no feedback,
she concluded that the interviewees approved the data and conclusions. Two participants
provided feedback. One (Adam) provided further clarification, and the other (Norma)
stated the researcher’s conclusions were correct.
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 63
Reliability was difficult to achieve, as this project had only one researcher.
However, the researcher used several methods to strengthen the reliability of this thesis.
One, the researcher checked and re-checked the transcription (Gibbs, 2009). The
interview transcriptions were decontextualized forms of data, and checking often the
transcription alleviated discrepancies, mishearings, and misinterpretation of the
recordings (Kvale, 2007). A second method was writing memos. During the analysis, the
researcher may have coded data at the beginning differently than at the end (Gibbs,
2009). This problem is called a definitional drift in coding (Gibbs, 2009). Memos were
used to remind the researcher about the definition of the codes and reasoning as to why
they exist. These two methods relate to the third: audit trail. The researcher maintained an
audit trail of the study’s documents, records, and data (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2006).
The material included handwritten notes from the interviews, interview recordings,
memos about interviews, memos about codes, and memos about interpretations and
conclusions. Together, data triangulation, member checking, check and re-check of data,
memos, and the audit trail ensured the validity and reliability of this thesis.
Limitations
The most significant limitation to the study was time. The university advisor
contacted and scheduled interview times between all of the participants and the
researcher. The advisor scheduled interviews to be conducted over three days, six hours
per day. Interview times were schedule without breaks between interviews. Interviews
were conducted until mid-evening ending at approximately 6 p.m. or 7 p.m. Because of
the short turn around between interviews and the late interview hours, the researcher did
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 64
not have ample time to reflect about each interview and memo about her findings. In
addition to the limited data collection time, data analysis was significantly limited in time
because of the short timespan nature of this thesis.
The second limitation was the limited interview participants from NPHC. Most of
the NPHC organizations were city-wide chapters, meaning the MU membership shared
membership with other nearby schools. The MU-NPHC organizations’ membership
typically consisted of three students per fraternity or sorority. Only one NPHC
organization had a MU only chartering, but the organization’s members were unavailable
for interviews. For this metropolitan area, many NPHC organizations socialize primarily
with other NPHC organizations and typically visit other nearby colleges and universities
for social activities. The NPHC perspective was limited because the NPHC participants
may not have been as engaged in the MU fraternity/sorority and campus community as
the NPC, IFC, LGC, and AGC students.
The third limitation was the lack of numerical data available to the researcher.
Neither the university nor the researcher was able to collect demographic information
about the fraternity and sorority community. The researcher was unable to obtain the
racial and ethnic demographic data for the overall fraternity and sorority community or of
each council. Anecdotally, the fraternity/sorority advisor stated that the community was
very diverse and councils had many members who do not reflect the dominant race of
that council, such as Latino/as in NPC. Neither the university nor the researcher collected
information about events, such as number of cross-council events initiated by either the
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 65
university or students or number of race/ethnic-related events specific to fraternities and
sororities. The researcher relied on students’ knowledge of such events.
Conclusion
Using critical race theory and qualitative research design, the researcher believes
thesis will help fraternity/sorority advisors and student affairs professionals understand
whether or not the role of race is present in the fraternity/sorority community. The
perspectives of 16 current fraternity/sorority students from different councils and ethnic-
oriented fraternities and sororities were analyzed to determine (1) whether or not race is
relevant in the fraternity/sorority community, (2) if fraternity/sorority students recognize
the role of race in the community, and (3) how they perceive the role of race and what
actions community members make that reinforce race.

RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 66
CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS
“Damn, race plays a big part in the Greek system. It really does,” says David, a
junior in a Latino Greek Council (LGC) fraternity.
“I don’t think [race matters]. I don’t think so. Some people may. But personally, I
don’t,” says Jay, a general member of a National Pan-Hellenic Council fraternity.
While critical race theory assumes that race is an everyday and ordinary
experience (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012), students may or may not perceive or experience
fraternities and sororities to be communities where race is interwoven into the everyday
interactions and experiences. The two opening quotes are two contrasting perceptions
about how much race is a part of the everyday experience in fraternities and sororities. By
analyzing interviews from 16 members of the Metropolitan University [MU] fraternity
and sorority community (2 from the Interfraternity Council, 2 from the National
Panhellenic Council, and 4 from the National Pan-Hellenic Council, Latino Greek
Council, and Asian Greek Council), student perceptions and experiences reveal answers
to the following research questions.
1. Is race part of the fraternity/sorority culture?
2. Do students recognize the role of race?
3. If so, how do students perceive the role of race?
4. What actions do community members make that reinforce the role of race?
This chapter will discuss major themes for each research question. Sub-themes are
derived from the data. Overall, students vary in how much they perceive and experience
race to impact their fraternity/sorority experience.
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 67
Is Race Part of the Fraternity/Sorority Culture?
Students responded to the question with a range of answers. Some students
believe race is in the fraternity/sorority culture, and some do not. Generally, students
acknowledge that fraternities, sororities, and councils are divided along racial lines,
however the participants interpret the community on two different connotations:
segregation and diversity. As participants recognize that organizations are categorized
into racial groups, they also see that traditions reflect the dominant racial group. Twenty-
five percent of the students interviewed believe race has no overall impact on their
fraternity/sorority experience. Other participants acknowledge that race plays a part in
some aspects of the experience but that it has no impact on other experiences such as
membership and treatment from the institution. Students perceive race to be a part of
their fraternity/sorority experience in a range of activities from no influence to impacting
the experience.
Race Separates and Divides Fraternities, Sororities, and Councils
Segregation or diversity. Race categorically divides fraternities, sororities, and
councils, meaning that organizations are labeled according to the dominant race. Students
describe this separation negatively (describing as segregation) and positively (describing
as diverse). When prompted how they describe their community, six students from all
four councils describe it as segregated, creating a significant barrier amongst
organizations. Christine, a senior and chapter secretary, from LGC describes the
community,
At [Metropolitan University], I feel like we’re really segregated, kinda keep
to ourselves. Latino Greeks keep to themselves. Black Greeks keep to
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 68
themselves and so on and so forth. I don’t feel like we really have a
community…Like I can go on and on about how sad it is, how segregated
we are, how we don’t know about, how we aren’t educated about each
others’ customs.

Beth, who is a NPC chapter and council president, says, “You have your IFC and
your [NPC] that always stick together, and then you have your multi-culturals that do
stuff together. There is a fine line between who hangs out with who.” Beth is a senior and
a member of the fraternity/sorority community for two and a half years. Students describe
the community as segregated, explaining that the groups are insular and closed-off. Five
students, who are council presidents, described the community as diverse compared with
the six students who describe the community as segregated. Even though the council
presidents believe the council is diverse, the IFC president remarks that the community is
not united. The student interviewees interpret the abundance of different fraternities and
sororities differently. Some may say it is segregated while others describe as diverse.
Traditions and practices reflecting the organization. The majority of students
believe that the dominant race or ethnicity impacts the traditions and practices of its
respective organization. They comment on how stepping and strolling are traditions
unique to culturally-affiliated organizations David from LGC discusses NPHC tradition
and ethnic history, “For me, I was always told that stepping and strolling is an African
American tradition because it originates from slavery.” The IFC and NPC organizations
have different traditions and practices. Steve from IFC says, “[IFC] emphasizes sports a
lot and others don’t. Others emphasize that stepping and dance traditions and stuff like
that, so that’s definitely a cool thing.” Members of culturally-affiliated fraternities and
sororities speak about how their organization and council plan events that empower their
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 69
respective race or ethnicity. For example, an AGC member shares that her sorority
organizes an Asian American pageant during the national Asian/Pacific Islander
American heritage month. More will be discussed in the section devoted to the second
research question.
Race has no Impact to the Fraternity and Sorority Experience
Although fraternities, sororities, and councils are divided according to their
dominant race, two AGC co-presidents, a NPHC general member, and a LGC chapter
president do not perceive or experience race to impact any other part of their
fraternity/sorority experience. While Tommy, who is an AGC co-president, believes that
race is embedded into American society, he does not believe race is part of
fraternity/sorority life because the institution treats all organizations equitably. The
participants agree that race does not have an impact because anyone can join any
organization and the university treats all organizations equitably. Jay, who is a NPHC
general member and initiated for one and a half years, summarizes, “…I wish people
would get out of the mind frame of race being a part of our organization…Not saying that
it is a huge issue, just that if people would step out of their box more, it would definitely
help. …I don’t think [race] is a big issue. I don’t think it needs to be talked about unless
something blatantly bad happens which we haven’t had happen here at [MU].” Because
race does not affect membership or treatment from MU, these student participants do not
believe race has a significant impact on their fraternity/sorority experience.
Membership into any organization. Student participants believe that any
potential member can join any fraternity or sorority no matter his/her race or the
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 70
dominant race of the fraternal organization. Participants commented on how their
organization does not discriminate and how they see other organizations as racially and
ethnically diverse. The AGC representatives speak about how their organizations are
Asian-interest and not Asian-exclusive. The NPHC male participants pride their
organization because it never had a discrimination clause. The LGC council president,
Lucy, perceives the community as very diverse in membership. She explains, “I see that
within other sororities that tend to be more Caucasian [NPC], they have a lot of
Latinas…or a lot of Asians.” To the students interviewed, race should not and does not
play a significant role in membership of a fraternity or sorority.
Treatment from institution. Although race categorically separates fraternities
and sororities, student interviewees overall believe MU treats all fraternities and
sororities in an equitable manner. The university has minimum standards regarding
philanthropy, community service, GPA, etc., and the participants believe that these
standards are equally enforced among all fraternal organizations. Institutional resources
are available to all fraternities and sororities as long as student leaders follow the proper
protocol and seek out the opportunities. The participants believe that their
fraternity/sorority advisor is available and willing to help any organization as long as the
student leaders ask for help. The majority of student participants believe that the
fraternity/sorority advisor and the institution itself treat all organizations equitably.
The two female AGC students believe the institution does not treat Asian/Asian
American fraternities and sororities the same as other organizations. At an AGC meeting,
where Norma, who is a chapter leader and an initiated member for half a year, was a
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 71
liaison for her sorority, the fraternity/sorority advisor stated that the university has no
need for Asian Greeks. Since that meeting and statement, she believes that her
organization and other Asian Greek organizations receive less support and are more of an
afterthought compared to other fraternities and sororities. Norma believes that the
fraternity/sorority advisor does not value Asian-interest organizations and may not devote
as much time to her council as he might to other councils. She believes her organization
has a harder time accessing university resources like room reservations. Brenda, who is a
chapter secretary and initiated for a year, experienced inequitable treatment in connection
to office room reservations. At MU, student organizations can have office spaces, and
they must apply for the spaces. Office spaces are limited, so the university has a process
that takes place in the spring semester. Brenda explains, “I don’t think there is equal
support from everybody. I mean, we try to get a room here, and we applied way back in
the summer, and we still don’t have one. I heard from other people that they still got to
keep their rooms.” For the female AGC members, the university does not provide the
same support to Asian/Asian American fraternal organizations as it may to other fraternal
groups.
Summary
Student participants perceive and experience race as part of the fraternity/sorority
culture in varying degrees. Some students believe race relates to a significant divide in
the community. Other students, specifically council presidents, respect the diversity of
organizations and membership as well as how the different organization traditions,
practices, and events reflect the dominant race. Some students acknowledge that race has
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 72
an effect on the culture; other students believe that race has no or almost no impact on
membership and treatment from the university.
Do Students Recognize the Role of Race?
Student participants acknowledge race is used to categorize fraternities and
sororities, and therefore separate the community. The participants frame the categories as
the White/Caucasian, typically IFC and NPC, African American (NPHC), Latino/a, and
Asian/Asian American fraternities and sororities. As noted earlier, how interview
participants perceive these categories can be negative (segregation) or positive
(diversity). As part of acknowledging race as a division, student participants connect the
organization’s dominant race to history, traditions and practices, events and
labeling/grouping. The participants link advantages to certain councils. The IFC/NPC
organizations have four advantages not given to culturally-affiliated organizations,
whereas culturally-affiliated groups have two advantages not provided to IFC and NPC.
This section will respectively review the previous themes.
Acknowledgment of Race
Student participants recognize that fraternities and sororities are categorized and
divided into racial groups. At an over-arching level, interviewees acknowledge race
divides the overall fraternity/sorority community when they label and group fraternities,
sororities, and councils according to the dominant race. The practice is ingrained into the
participants. Beth, who is a NPC chapter and council president, explains, “People just
know who Hispanic sororities are, who the Black sororities are, who the White sororities
are, people just know that.” When describing fraternal organizations, student participants
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 73
often say “Latino Greeks, Black Greeks, Caucasian fraternities, etc.” Student participants
link race to the history of the organization, traditions practiced by the fraternity/sorority
and the events organized by the organization.
History, tradition, and events. The fraternity’s or sorority’s history, traditions,
and dominant race/ethnicity connect to one another, especially for a culturally-affiliated
fraternity or sorority. The NPHC council president explains that his fraternity began
because African Americans were discriminated against on college campuses at the time
of the fraternity’s establishment. Because of the historical discrimination, NPHC
organizations often discuss the African American race in their events and traditions,
empowering their members to succeed. Robert, the NPHC council president, describes
the importance of traditions to NPHC organizations, “When you talk about Black Greek
organizations in particular…we glorify a lot of things like stepping and strolling and
doing chants and stuff, you know. That’s what we do. …it’s disrespectful if anyone else
outside of our organization does something like that.” Two LGC members and one
NPHC member echo Robert regarding the sacredness of culturally-affiliated traditions
and practices. One LGC member, David, believes race is present in traditions, stating,
“That [is] another time race [plays] a big part in the Greek system…Cause people get
pissed off if they think you’re [stealing] their traditions or that you’re doing something
that relates to their culture and not yours.” The IFC and NPC participants recognize that
stepping and strolling are unique to culturally-affiliated fraternities and sororities.
Culturally-affiliated fraternities and sororities often organize events regarding the
organization’s dominant race or ethnicity. For example, Latina sororities regularly plan
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 74
educational events regarding Latina women empowerment. The NPHC events typically
discuss issues regarding African American men and women. Because events are catered
to a race/ethnicity, the events create a divide. Norma from AGC describes
…the different types of events we host, it kind of sets a divide, but, at the
same time, it’s not on purpose. So, for us, we’re hosting [a spring event
for] Asian American awareness month. Naturally, we want to showcase
our culture. Naturally, the Asian American sororities and fraternities are
gonna put on an Asian show.

Culturally-affiliated fraternities and sororities regularly organize and execute events that
cater to their respective race/ethnicity.
Race Provides Some Advantages to Some Organizations
The IFC and NPC advantages. The IFC and NPC organizations have four
advantages specific to their organizations at MU. Historically, IFC and NPC were the
only organizations that participated in MU’s “Greek Week.” This is the first year that all
councils and organizations can participate in the week. Traditionally, the week consisted
of sporting events, but this year the week will incorporate a variety of events
representative of the entire community because the fraternity/sorority advisor, who is new
in the role, challenged the councils to be inclusive and to research other university’s
Greek Weeks. The councils are planning the week with the guidance of the advisor. At
the time of data collection, students were still on the early planning process and had yet
to establish any events. Because IFC and NPC have more experience planning Greek
Week and the large membership size of IFC/NPC, the council presidents share their
councils can easily lead discussions, but their intention is to have inclusive decisions of
all fraternal organizations. One of the AGC co-presidents believes that council decisions
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 75
are made collaboratively. Because IFC and NPC have more practice planning Greek
Week, they have an advantage over culturally-affiliated organizations. Second, the IFC
and NPC organizations receive additional help for recruitment from the university. The
fraternity/sorority advisor devotes significant time helping the organizations recruit for
the fall and spring semesters, as IFC and NPC members have identified. The following
two IFC/NPC advantages are from the perspective of culturally-affiliated members. A
LGC member believes that because IFC and NPC have a larger membership size, their
organizations can organize events easily. A large size helps IFC and NPC organizations
to be easily recognized by the general campus population according to two AGC
members. The IFC and NPC organizations are significantly older than Latino- and
Asian/Asian American-affiliated fraternities and sororities, so students believe that they
have a stronger support network and are better known in the campus community. The
IFC and NPC organizations lead community programming discussions, receive additional
help from MU for recruitment, have a larger membership size, and are older
organizations.
Advantages of the culturally-affiliated organizations. Culturally-affiliated
fraternities and sororities have two advantages that are not given to IFC and NPC. At
MU, fraternities and sororities occupy the Quad to promote their organization for an
event called “Meet the Greeks.” The entire campus community is exposed to MU’s
Fraternity/Sorority Life. During “Meet the Greeks,” culturally-affiliated organizations
showcase their stepping, strolling, or saluting traditions while IFC and NPC are unable to
participate in such a way. This visual promotion is an advantage for only culturally-
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 76
affiliated organizations. As a second advantage, African American, Latino/a, and Asian
American fraternities and sororities receive support from their respective cultural center
at MU. The centers provide space and university-sponsorship to their respective
culturally-affiliated fraternities and sororities. Full participation during “Meet the
Greeks” and cultural center support are two advantages provided to culturally-affiliated
fraternities and sororities.
Summary
Student participants label and group fraternities and sororities according to the
dominant race of the organization, thereby acknowledging race is interwoven into
fraternity/sorority culture. Typically for culturally-affiliated fraternities and sororities,
their traditions and events relate to the dominant race of the organization. Some
advantages are given to IFC and NPC organizations, whereas different advantages are
provided to culturally-affiliated fraternities and sororities. Together, this is the role of
race in fraternities and sororities. As noted in the previous section, some students believe
that race has no impact or no role in fraternity/sorority life. The following section will
connect how students perceive the effects of the role of race, if any.
How Do Students Perceive the Role of Race?
The role of race is three parts. The first part occurs when students label and group
fraternities, sororities, and councils according to the dominant race. Student participants
describe this role negatively (segregation) and positively (diversity). The second part of
the role of race in fraternities and sororities concerns the traditions and events of the
organization. The dominant race is reflected in the traditions and events of the fraternity
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 77
or sorority. The third part involves the institution and the university community.
Fraternities and sororities are provided advantages according to the dominant race of the
organization. For example, IFC and NPC organizations receive institutional help for
recruitment. Culturally-affiliated fraternities and sororities receive support from
university cultural centers. This section will review how student participants perceive this
role of race in their fraternity/sorority experience.
IFC, NPC, and White Privilege
A few participants perceive that IFC fraternities and NPC sororities have more
privileges and advantages compared to culturally-affiliated fraternities and sororities.
Generally, the student participants who perceive privileges and advantages for White
organizations are not community leaders, such as chapter presidents or council executive
board members. A NPHC sorority member named Jess believes that because society is a
White-over-color system, then fraternity and sorority life must also be a White-over-color
system. She believed that councils could be ranked according to societal ranking of race,
so White would be at the top. African American fraternities and sororities were second
because they were founded after IFC and NPC. Asian Americans were third because they
have more privileges than Latinos, who would be ranked last, according to Jess. Critical
race theory argues that White-over-color refers to the dominant group (White) power,
advantages, and privileges over people of color (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). Jess, a
NPHC chapter vice president, believes,
…White people usually have the most money, so that money usually
trickles down so they can have better events…I do believe a lot of the
reasons why minorities are more at the bottom is because it’s not that all
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 78
White people are born into money. They just have this privilege when
they’re born. They get more opportunities than others.

Without knowing a lot about other councils, including their names and their activities,
Jess assumed that White organizations had more advantageous and privileges because she
believed that White people had more money. She believed that Asian/Asian Americans
were more privileged than Latinos and African Americans (societally not in
fraternity/sorority life) without naming specifics as to how this group is privileged. She
may have felt uncomfortable speaking about Asian Americans as the researcher is Asian
American. When asked how she felt, she accepted the rankings because of their normalcy
in daily life.
Another NPHC member believes that one racial group dominates leadership
decisions although she is unsure which group. Norma, who is an AGC member, believes
that Asian-interest organizations are the least valued on campus. She explains,
I don’t know if other, if other orgs get more support, but I feel like we get
less. It might not be more than us. Maybe they’re getting the normal
amount you’re supposed to…It doesn’t feel like we have much support on
campus.

Another AGC member believes that the university does not fully enforce rules
and standards for IFC organizations and members. Together, these four students believe
that culturally-affiliated organizations are the least valued and that dominantly White
organizations are the most valued.
The IFC and NPC students have a dissenting opinion about the presence of a
White-over-color system in fraternities and sororities. To an IFC member, the White label
does not apply because IFC and NPC organizations are too diverse. Due to the
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 79
community’s misconception of IFC and NPC organizations, he perceives the White label
as negative. Beth believes that the White label has a negative connotation when applied
specifically to her NPC sorority, as it has more Latino members than White members.
Because her organization is racially and ethnically diverse, she does not want others to
perceive that her organization self-segregates into a “Whites only” organization simply
because it is part of the Panhellenic Council. Beth explains
[The White label is] offensive in that way because [other students are] just
saying it cause we’re from [Panhellenic Council], but they don’t see us as
diverse because we’re from that council and that’s why I take offense to it
because we are diverse. We don’t just say only Whites allowed.

As noted in the previous section, IFC and NPC council presidents believe that
culturally-affiliated organizations have advantages not given to IFC and NPC
organizations, such as participation in “Meet the Greeks” and support from cultural
centers. The IFC and NPC student participants do not believe that “White” is an
appropriate term for their organizations and that their councils dominate over culturally-
affiliated groups. The perception of a White-over-color system depends on the student
and his/her perspective.
Lack of Community
Student participants discussed how the different racial/ethnic fraternities and
sororities connect to a lack of community. Traditions and practices reflect the dominant
race/ethnicity of the fraternity or sorority, and they can pose barriers to developing
similarities and community. Steve, who is an IFC chapter president, explains
We need to come together more as a community, but, again, that’s the
cultural thing playing into it. We [IFC and NPC] don’t do some of the
stuff that they [culturally-affiliated organizations] do, so it’s kind of hard
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 80
to find similarities especially when you’re talking about a majority of a
fraternity being White, like me, and maybe a female Latina sorority. It’s
kind of different. They have a lot of different traditions and stuff that we
never associate [with] or think about.

He acknowledges that race and ethnicity relate to the traditions and practices of a
fraternity or sorority. These differences can pose a significant barrier to creating a sense
of community even though he desires more community. Lucy, who is LGC council
president, explains
The only thing, I feel, that will definitely divides us overall is maybe our
Greek traditions. For example, a lot of members in my, not all, but
majority of them, either they stroll or they salute…And then, [NPC], they
have their Greek traditions where they lipsync, but they don’t have hand
signs for example…So, I feel like when they see my organization salute,
they’re like, ‘What is that?’ I feel like it definitely divides us. ‘Well, that’s
weird.’ ‘Well, that’s weird that you lipsync.’ ‘Well, that’s weird that you
step.’ I’m very diverse in the sense that it’s all great.

Traditions and practices reflect the dominant race/ethnicity of the fraternity and
sorority. Student participants perceive that the different traditions are significant enough
to create barriers to a larger sense of community. The student participants have a desire to
understand and respect the different traditions, as well as a desire to create a larger sense
of community.
Not a Barrier to Membership
Student participants do not perceive that race is a barrier to joining a fraternity or
sorority. Many participants discuss how their fraternity or sorority is not discriminatory
or exclusionary. Rather, they publicize that they are not exclusionary and that they
initiate members of different racial and ethnic backgrounds. They believe that because
anyone can join their fraternity/sorority, then any student can join any fraternity or
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 81
sorority. Some participants reveal that they and their organization values racial/ethnic
diversity in its membership.
What Actions Do Community Members Make that Reinforce the Role of Race?
Several student participants have personal experiences or can foresee experiences
when community members make comments about race. The most common experience is
a conversation about why a student would join a fraternity or sorority if he or she is not a
member of the dominant race of that organization. A few students interviewed share that
they have either given or received racist comments or jokes. Concerning racist jokes
specifically, the students explain that they do not interpret the joke in a negative way.
Racist jokes occur when members are very comfortable among one another, so this can
be within a fraternity/sorority, between close friends of different organizations, or
between two friendly organizations. These jokes can occur in public and private settings,
as long as students are friendly with one another. Student participants discussed how the
institution and other fraternity/sorority students, either separately or together, do not work
to build a sense of community. They believe that this lack of action maintains the status
quo of a divided community. This next section will discuss these three themes:
conversations about joining a fraternity or sorority, racist jokes and comments, and a lack
of action.
Conversations about Joining
Although fraternities, sororities, and councils are divided into racial/ethnic
categories and organizations do not discriminate against races/ethnicities, students will
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 82
discuss why a member, who does not reflect the dominant race, joins a fraternity or
sorority. Christine, who has been a LGC member for two years, explains
I guess the only time race has really been brought up is when certain
organizations, I guess, question why members chose certain organizations.
Like why an African American girl would choose to join a Latina sorority
or why a Latina would choose to join a predominantly White sorority. I
think that’s the only time I’ve really experienced a conversation about
race, ethnicity…

Christine further explains that one of her sorority sisters is Pakistani and is often
questioned why she joined a Latina sorority. Rachel is a Latina in a dominantly White
sorority and has been a member for three and a half years. She has personal experience of
being questioned.
Sometimes I get asked why I joined [my sorority] and not a Hispanic/
Latina based sorority. I get those questions a lot… I just didn’t think
[joining a Latina sorority] was for me, and it wasn’t something that I
wanted to join…I don’t know if condescending is the best word…Just
because I am Hispanic, why do I have to join a Hispanic sorority? Can I
not join the sorority I’m in? Do I not belong…? […The question] makes
me feel like, did I do something wrong?

In the MU fraternity/sorority community, many student participants discuss why
members, who do not reflect the dominant race of the organization, join their fraternity or
sorority. Often times, the member will be questioned why he or she joined his/her
fraternal organization. Two council presidents acknowledge that potential members may
be attracted to an organization for racial/ethnic reasons. For example, a Latino man may
join a Latino fraternity because of their mutual Latino commonality. Possibly because
community members expect this kind of behavior, students who do not follow the norm
are often questioned why they joined their fraternity or sorority.
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 83
Racist Jokes and Comments
Racist jokes. Asian/Asian Americans are the only group to speak about the
acceptability of jokes and racial humor. They have received several jokes about the
model minority myth and perceive the experience as neutral. Norma’s AGC sorority had
a joint recruitment event with a Latino fraternity. The two organizations joked that they
would bring stereotypical ethnic food respective to their organizations. The Asian-interest
sorority would cook eggrolls and rice and the Latino fraternity would bring tacos. At the
event, someone joked that the Asian sorority would easily be able to split the costs
because the Asian women are good at math. Norma believes that the organizations are
friendly with one another, and thus making the jokes acceptable. Tommy, who is an AGC
co-president and a member of his fraternity for a year and a half, has similar experiences
within his fraternity that they are also good at math and receive good grades because of
their Asian heritage. Tommy explains that fraternity brotherhood should supersede any
potential offense that may occur when a racist joke is stated. Even though the jokes are
stereotypes of Asians/Asian Americans and targeted toward these participants, the
students do not perceive the experiences as positive or negative. Members within AGC
and outside the council say model minority jokes.
Racist comments. David from LGC was the only student interviewed who has
received racist comments from community members. David is a chapter leader and a
member for a year. His experiences are significant to him and negative in context. When
discussing why African Americans do not want to work with his organization, his
brothers have used derogatory words (which will be discussed in the next section).
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 84
Another impactful event occurred when he attended a step workshop organized by an
African American fraternity. David and a fraternity brother attended the event to support
the organization and to have fun. As they entered the room, they were met with resistance
from the African Americans. David explains,
When we walked in the room, they were snickering. ‘What are they
doing? Why are they here? Don’t they know this is a Black thing? This is
for us and not you guys.’ …They were really aggressive. They weren’t
really that friendly…They were saying racist slurs. You know, ‘These
beaners. These taco-eating mother fuckers.’

Because David had several similar experiences in his past, he does not take much offense
to the racist slurs.
David recalls another experience at the cross-council promotional event called
“Meet the Greeks,” which occurs at the beginning of every school year, when his
fraternity received disrespectful comments. David’s fraternity was saluting, which is a
significant tradition to the members, and he felt targeted by other students’ comments.
David elaborates,
My brothers are saluting. And I can hear, as soon as they were marching
in, I can hear those snickers already. … I can already see the mainstream
and White organizations and African Americans. ‘What the hell are they
doing? It looks like they’re butt-fucking each other.’…You don’t have to
be disrespectful like that.

For David, these experiences with African Americans and White members are offensive,
impacting how he views the overall community. David genuinely believes that
fraternities and sororities were created to overcome barriers and to build a better
community, but he struggles with how he views other fraternities, sororities, and
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 85
members because their actions do not coincide with his belief of the purpose of a
fraternity or sorority.
Lack of Action
From the institution. Several students discussed a lack of institutional and
student action to build a sense of fraternity/sorority community. The lack of action
perpetuates division among the community. The institution does not coordinate programs
or events, such as leadership, educational, or cultural, to bring together all fraternities and
sororities according to the IFC president. The students are hopeful that the changing
Greek Week will create a larger sense of community. Unfortunately, due to the timing of
data collection, the effects, if any, of the Greek Week programming could not be studied.
Student participants look to the institution to push a greater sense of community, and they
are hopeful for the future because the university is starting to make such efforts.
From fraternity and sorority members. Not only have student participants
identified MU’s lack of action as a barrier, but they also named the general
fraternity/sorority student population as a challenge. Fraternity and sorority students do
not want to collaborate with one another. Beth’s NPC sorority wanted to learn how to
step from a Latino fraternity who the sorority considers a close, friendly fraternity to
them. A member of her sorority asked the fraternity president, but he said that they are
unwilling to teach because the sorority is dominantly White. According to Beth, the
Latino fraternity believes that the NPC sorority would not respect the stepping tradition
or understand its historical and cultural significance.
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 86
David, who is a LGC chapter leader, has previously attempted to collaborate with
an African American fraternity but was met with challenges. He wants to organize an
event with the African American fraternities to inform the community about similar
issues between African Americans and Latinos. He receives little help from the African
American members, feeling frustrated and disappointed. David explains,
That’s something too that bothers me, especially the African American
organizations here at [MU]. My organization, I can speak on our behalf, I
have reached out to them constantly… it’s like they don’t want anything to
do with us. And that is super, super sad. Us, being minorities, we should
be working together, and I’ve tried, and tried.

Race and ethnicity can be a barrier to collaborating and developing a sense of
community. The LGC council president believes that members need to educate
themselves and others on these differences to overcome potential barriers.
Conclusion
Overall, student participants are inconclusive about whether or not race is part of
the fraternity and sorority community culture. Some participants acknowledge how the
racial divisions among fraternities, sororities, and councils pose challenges for the
community while other student participants believe that race is not significant in
fraternities and sororities because the institution treats all organizations equitably. The
participants who believe that race impacts the fraternity/sorority community speak about
how some organizations receive more advantages than others. Race and ethnicity may
cause a barrier to a general sense of over-arching community because similarities across
race/ethnic lines are not emphasized and members may make racist jokes or comments.
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 87
Students look toward the institution to bring them together and blame the student
membership for a lack of greater fraternity/sorority community.
Some student participants believe that race has no impact on the
fraternity/sorority experience for two dominant reasons: the institution treats
organizations equally and any student can join any organization. According to the
participants, the institution and the fraternity/sorority advisor are willing to help any
fraternity or sorority succeed as long as the organization works toward success.
University resources are available to organizations if they follow the proper protocol.
University policies are equally enforced for all organizations. In addition to equitable
treatment from the university, student participants believe that race does not impact the
experience because any student can join any organization, no matter the race/ethnicity of
the student or organization. Students describe how their organization does not
discriminate and how they welcome people of other ethnicities or races into their
fraternity or sorority. Participants stated that they encourage diversity in their fraternal
organization. Student participants shared that they believe their overall community is
very diverse in membership. Student interviewed presented two conflicting viewpoints
regarding the impact of race on the fraternity/sorority community culture. The next
chapter analyzes the findings using critical race theory as well as presents the
implications of this research.

RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 88
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION
Students perceive and experience race on a continuum. At one end, race is a part
of their everyday experience. For example, some students often plan events and have
discussions regarding race and ethnicity. They believe race separates and divides the
fraternity/sorority community. At the other end of the continuum, race is not part of the
fraternity/sorority community. These other students believe that because race does not
influence membership recruitment and selection nor does it affect treatment from the
university, therefore race is not a part of the community culture. Many students fall
between these two perspectives and believe that race is part of some fraternity/sorority
experiences, such as events, and not part of other experiences, such as membership. A
student’s place on the continuum impacts how they perceive and experience four salient
themes that emerged from in this study: race and membership, manifestations of race,
race as not part of the culture, and reinforcing the status quo.
Race and Membership
Student participants did not experience or perceive membership discrimination
within Metropolitan University’s [MU] fraternity/sorority community. Only one student
identified “historical context” as a reason why discrimination may no longer exist in
fraternities and sororities. Historically, minority races formed their own fraternities and
sororities when White organizations did not allow minority races to join (Binder, 2003;
Chen, 2009; Kimbrough, 2003; Muñoz & Guardia, 2009; Torbenson, 2009). Membership
discrimination was made illegal after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and thus many
organizations removed discrimination clauses in their governing documents (Binder,
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 89
2003). The MU opened its doors in February 1965, making this a university that was
founded after the Civil Rights Act. Approximately five years after the university opened,
fraternities and sororities were established in the 1970s. Membership discrimination may
have never or almost never occurred within this university environment simply because
the act would have always been illegal at the university. This historical context may have
affected how students construct their perception and experience of race in fraternities and
sororities.
In a post Civil Rights Era, colorblindness has been emphasized as a means to
tolerate and accept community members of different backgrounds. Student participants
thus emphasized how their organizations do not discriminate and that they welcome
racial diversity. They spoke about how their organizations have members who do not
reflect the dominant race. Rachel, a Latina woman in a dominantly White sorority,
discussed how she has often talked about why she joined her sorority even though she is
not White. She had these conversations with other students who are and are not
fraternity/sorority members. She felt that the conversations were patronizing. Christine, a
LGC member for two years, provided the example of her Pakistani sister who is often
questioned about why she joined a Latina sorority. These women explained that they
were attracted to their respective organization’s culture, mission, and purpose. In these
conversations, the underlying message is that fraternity/sorority membership should be
homogeneous in terms of race. At the community level, members expect an organization
to be dominated by the race of the umbrella organization. For example, a Panhellenic
sorority should be White because the national umbrella organization is dominantly White.
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 90
This may not be the norm at Metropolitan University, but it is the expectation. In
interviews, the students expressed an underlying belief that potential members are
attracted to organizations that reflect their race or vice-a-versa. When a student joins a
fraternity/sorority not reflective of his/her race, community members express a level of
discomfort. Community members express the discomfort more likely with another
fraternity or sorority rather than their own. However, some students genuinely welcome
racial diversity in their organization and overall community, and therefore find no issue
of students of different races in their or another’s fraternity/sorority.
Race as an Issue
Overall, students did not have a fraternity/sorority experience encompassed with
negative racist comments or racist experiences. Many students believed race/ethnicity
was positively portrayed through events that empowered racial/ethnic minorities or as a
non-issue as it relates to treatment from the institution and consideration for membership.
Rather, race as an issue was perceived and experienced in subtle manners, such as jokes
and discussions about members’ race/ethnicity. Students were more likely to initiate
racist jokes and discussions about race/ethnicity more than the university. Racist jokes
were a common theme among students who identified as Asian American. Four out of
five students who identified as Asian/Asian American stated they either stated or received
racist jokes. Although these students did not believe that the comments were overtly
negative, Asian American students may have been willing to release this information
because the researcher is Asian American and a member of an Asian/Asian American
sorority. Racist jokes were perceived to be acceptable among friends and in comfortable
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 91
environments, such as socials between fraternities and sororities and
brotherhood/sisterhood events. Racist jokes were typically connected to racial/ethnic
stereotypes, and, in the case for Asian/Asian Americans, jokes were related to the model
minority myth. Jokes might be unconsciously used to perpetuate racial/ethnic stereotypes.
Considering the acceptable social norm of racist jokes and stereotypes, race as a social
construction was reinforced, albeit unconsciously (Bell, Castañeda, and Zuñigaa, 2012).
David, who is a member of LGC, had experiences when race overtly manifested
itself. Fraternity/sorority members, primarily African American students, targeted him for
his Latino ethnicity. He and a fraternity brother attended a NPHC event where NPHC
members taught guests how to stroll. When these two Latino men entered the event, they
heard racist comments and sniggering. He stated he felt unwelcome and confused as to
why this organization would organize an open event but target guests based on race. At
an event where organizations could showcase themselves, David’s fraternity performed a
salute. He heard made racist comments toward him and his Latino brothers and suspected
that White and African American students said them. David attempted to build cross-
council communication with NPHC fraternities. He initiated communication with NPHC
fraternities to host an event about African Americans and Latinos in the prison system.
He believed that a significant reason why the fraternity has not collaborated with him and
his fraternity was because of race. David believed that other reasons included the NPHC
fraternity’s laziness and lack of community involvement. Of the 16 participants, David
was the only student who shared such overt racist experiences.
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 92
Although not as explicit, Beth from NPC experienced resistance due to her race.
Her sorority wanted to partner with a Latino fraternity to learn how to stroll. She believed
that the two organizations were close and friendly with one another. The sorority asked
the fraternity president if his fraternity would be willing to teach her sorority how to
stroll. According to Beth, the president denied the request because her sorority is White.
She elaborated that the Latino fraternity president believed her sorority would not respect
the tradition and its historical and cultural significance Beth found this as offensive
because her sorority has majority non-White members. Beth also expressed confusion
because she recognized strolling is unique to culturally-affiliated fraternities but she
wanted to genuinely learn more about strolling. For Beth, race and ethnicity were used as
excuses to not teach others about culture.
Out of the 16 participants, only David and Beth experienced explicitly negative
exchanges about race and ethnicity. Although the number of students who had negative
race-related experiences is low, their experiences warrant discussion. Beth and David
were the only two participants who spoke about cross-council collaboration for events
that were race/ethnic-related. Most participants were aware of other councils and their
events, and some attended such events, such as a pageant show or a performance (lipsync
or stroll, step, and salute show). However, only Beth and David attempted to build some
form of dialogue concerning race and ethnicity. David attempted to organize an event,
and Beth wanted to learn how to stroll. They might be examples of students who tried
more than other students to build cross-council community and educate students about
race/ethnic issues. They were met with peer-to-peer resistance in their attempts.
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 93
Student participants might have reacted to interview questions (see Appendix D)
by narrowly thinking of what constitutes a race-driven action or comment and subsequent
questions. Different forms of race-driven action and comments exist. Delgado and
Stefancic (2012) describe, “biological racism, intentional racism, unconscious racism,
microaggressions, nativism, institutional racism, racism tinged with homophobia [and/or]
sexism, racism that takes the form of indifference or coldness, and white privilege…” (p.
30). Students may not have had the knowledge level to discuss the different forms of
race-driven actions and comments. Students’ knowledge level, time, rapport, and trust
may have affected data collection.
Race is not part of the Culture
Twenty-five percent of student participants expressed that race had no significant
influence or impact on the community culture. The two primary reasons presented were
that race does not correspond to better or worse treatment from the university and that
race does or should not influence membership. The majority of students believed that MU
treated all fraternities and sororities equitably and fairly. The students saw the institution
as synonymous with the fraternity/sorority advisor. They stated that the university
employed equal standards for GPA, community service hours, and other related policy
requirements and enforcements. Community service hours and GPA requirements were
determined by and incorporated into council governing documents such as the
constitution and bylaws. Other university requirements were the same for all
organizations, such as a three-member minimum per student organization and funding
requests. Other fraternity/sorority specific standards and rewards were determined by an
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 94
average per member standard. For example, a significant amount of money would be
awarded to the council that had the most votes per member at a basketball game. The
approaches used by the institution and advisor were equitable and colorblind.
Colorblindness does not take into account the different history, voices, and experiences of
each racial group (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). Most students remarked that they
preferred this form of policy enforcement because the approach took into account size
differentials rather than racial differences.
Many of the culturally-affiliated fraternity/sorority members interviewed stated
that the advisor is a NPHC member, and therefore understood their experiences as
culturally-affiliated fraternities and sororities. While not specifically addressed,
membership in a culturally-affiliated organization may be important to build a
relationship between culturally-affiliated fraternities/sororities and the institution/advisor.
Members of IFC and NPC did not speak of the advisor’s affiliation but shared that they
respect him. The NPHC, LGC, and AGC might have believed that the advisor, as a
NPHC member, has the ability to understand them because of the shared experiences,
making communication, understanding, and trust easier to achieve between culturally-
affiliated fraternity/sorority member and advisor. Students may appreciate or desire an
advisor who can employ multiple consciousness. Multiple consciousness is the ability to
perceive something in two or more ways such as a member of his/her own group and as a
White would (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). An advisor who employs multiple
consciousness could understand the history and voices of the minority racial groups and
the majority group.
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 95
Two AGC students disagreed and believed that the AGC council receives worse
treatment from the university as compared to the other councils. These two members
were chapter leaders, who held positions akin to philanthropy chair and
academic/scholarship chair, and rarely had contact with the fraternity/sorority advisor.
Their experiences with the advisor might be similar to that of a general fraternity/sorority
member in any council. As these students have little contact with the university,
fraternity/sorority advisors and student affairs practitioners should be cognizant and
careful in how they interact with general fraternity/sorority. The interaction between a
general member and the university may be more impactful to the general member
because he or she has less contact with the advisor/university compared to a council
leader or chapter president. General members may require additional explanation and
context in regards to policy and action. Interactions can be face-to-face communication,
written correspondence, events and programs, and other actions made on behalf of the
university as related to fraternities and sororities. Because general members may have
few but impactful interactions with the advisor and university, fraternity/sorority advisors
and student affairs practitioners should be cognizant and careful in the communication
they send to general members.
As twenty-five percent of students believed race had no significant impact or
influence on their fraternity/sorority experience, the question should be asked: is this the
goal? Should race have no significant impact or influence on fraternity/sorority
community culture? While an immediate reaction may be that no, race should have no
impact or influence, practitioners should question what would be lost if it was to have no
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 96
impact or influence. Culturally-affiliated fraternities and sororities were founded because
of racial discrimination on college campuses (Chen, 2009; Muñoz and Guardia, 2009;
Kimbrough, 2003; Torbenson, 2009). They continue to be communities where students
are comfortable and safe to explore their racial and ethnic identities. If race were not
taken into account for membership, at some level, would this be lost? Would the history,
traditions, and practices connected to culturally-affiliated fraternities and sororities be
lost? Twenty-five percent of students believed that race had no impact or influence on
their experience because race does or should not impact treatment from the institution
and membership decisions. Is this what a post-racial fraternity/sorority community should
be?
Reinforcing the Status Quo
The student participants adopted the dominant ideology of colorblindness toward
membership and institutional treatment. The interviewees stated that race and ethnicity
should not be considered in membership decisions and institutional treatment.
Colorblindness adopts Whiteness as the norm and color as the deviation (Dixson &
Rousseau, 2005). Dixson and Rousseau (2005) argue, “…if we accept the notion of
whiteness as normal, then any person who is not white [sic], is abnormal…It is better to
ignore or become colour-blind, than to notice that people of color have the physical
malady of skin color, or not whiteness” (p. 16). When the participants discussed that their
community is diverse and race is not considered in membership decisions, they adopted
colorblindness in their perspective. For example, the LGC president stated that the NPC
sororities, who are typically dominantly White organizations, are diverse because they
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 97
have several members who are not White (she stated Latinas and Asian Americans). An
IFC chapter president stated he has many fraternity brothers who are African American.
A LGC member shared that one of her sisters is Pakistani. These were their examples of
diversity in their community. None of the students spoke about culturally-affiliated
organizations that had White members. Using CRT, non-Whiteness was the abnormality
yet it was better to say that race/color/ethnicity was not considered in membership
decisions. The students’ approach to membership reinforces colorblindness as the status
quo to membership decisions.
Racist jokes and statements were used to reinforce racial stereotypes and replicate
the status quo or normalcy of such stereotypes. The AGC students shared their
experiences about model minority myth stereotypes. . Often, these stereotyped statements
were in joking formats. Humor was used as a legitimate way to talk about race (Barnes,
Palmary, & Durrheim, 2001). None of the students expressed negative feelings towards
either saying or receiving such statements. They more so shared a neutral emotion and
reaction to the stereotypes. Their reaction or lack of emotional response may be attributed
to the joke context of the verbal exchanges.
Humor allowed “the speaker to utter potentially racist comments about racial
differences without attributions of racism being made against [him or her] without an
angry response because both of these would be an inappropriate response to humor”
(Barnes, Palmary, & Durheim, 2001, p. 327). Because the situations were in a humor-
related context, the students might have felt that confronting the statement would be an
inappropriate response. The students did not interpret the speakers to be racist even
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 98
though the comments were racist. Again, their perception of the speaker was most likely
attributed to the joking context of the verbal exchange.
Considering that Asian American stereotypes were spoken in humor-related
situations and that the receivers perceived the situation as a joke, both actors (the speaker
and receiver) reinforced that Asian American stereotypes and racist jokes were
acceptable. The nature of the joke itself, which were model minority myth statements,
reinforced the Asian American stereotype. Although AGC students spoke of race-related
jokes, race-related humor is most likely common between all race and ethnic populations.
These comments reinforce race and stereotyping in the community. They maintain the
status quo or normalcy of race in fraternities and sororities.
Direction for Future Research
This study could be replicated and altered for different purposes. For example, the
study could be replicated to determine if results were specific to the site studied or if
results differ depending on the institution. Race might have a different influence and
impact on fraternity/sorority communities depending on the fraternity/sorority history at
the institution, size of community, student population diversity, institution location, and
institution type. A study could be altered to address the limitations in this research study.
Results may be impacted by the researcher’s visible identities, and additional researchers
may aid in strengthening the study. The Asian/Asian American students might have been
more open about racist jokes because the researcher is Asian American. Adding
researchers of different identities and interviewing students of the same identities could
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 99
yield different results. Observations and focus groups could yield another layer to the
study.
Future research questions arose from this study. The current generation of
students’ ideas of race and ethnicity may differ from previous student populations
studied. Race/ethnic identity development and race-consciousness may need to be studied
for this current population. Another research area could be effectiveness of
fraternity/sorority advisors in addressing race and ethnicity. On campuses and in
fraternity/sorority communities where race is an issue, future research could determine
what environmental factors create a chilly racial community climate for specifically
fraternities and sororities. Future research could discuss how racial/ethnic minorities
affect White dominated organizations and vice-a-versa and how racial/ethnic identity
development is impacted as a result of such membership.
Implications and Recommendations for Practitioners
Most colleges and universities have diversity as part of their mission statements.
Student affairs practitioners should consider what the role of diversity is in fraternities
and sororities. The university community researched in this study has a diverse
racial/ethnic population. The community has a large fraternity/sorority membership that
sustains five different councils. Even though the fraternity/sorority community is diverse,
none of the participants shared a fraternity/sorority related event or experience where
they can discuss the role and meaning of race in their fraternity/sorority community.
If student affairs practitioners want diversity to mean more than a diverse
population, they may need to incorporate educational opportunities throughout the year
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 100
and with varying student communities. For council and chapter leaders, educational
opportunities can include short readings and discussions during council or cross-council
meetings and setting aside time during trainings for discussions about race/ethnicity. For
the general member, educational opportunities can include a workshop about history,
traditions, and practices of each council and guest speakers about race/ethnicity. Topics
can include US history of pluralism, cultural competencies, and power and privilege of
different groups. Advisors could pair two or more organizations from cross-councils to
organize events throughout the year rather than only during fraternity/sorority weeks.
If fraternity/sorority advisors and student affairs practitioners want to lead
race/ethnic discussions, they will need to provide safe and comfortable environments. A
safe and comfortable environment may mean a small number of student participants
and/or small groups so that students can build respect and trust with one another.
Race/ethnic discussions are difficult to lead, so practitioners should be cautious in how
they lead and frame discussions. For example, practitioners should consider how the
discussion environment is impacted if all discussion participants are of the same or
different council, leadership type (chapter presidents versus council executive board),
race/ethnicity, school year, etc. To guide race/ethnic discussions, practitioners should
consider grounding the discussion in readings so that conversations do not rely solely on
experiential knowledge, which may quickly become attacking and blaming. Students may
perceive and experience race to have no impact to a significant influence on their
fraternity/sorority experience. Practitioners should be aware and sensitive as to how
students fall on this continuum.
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 101
Student affairs practitioners should consider how the findings from this research
impact student leaders’ preparedness for diversity. All students in this research study
identified as a student leader, even if their leadership experience was not specific to
fraternities and sororities, but their actions reaffirmed racial stereotypes and cultural
divisions. Their perspective on privilege and race was narrow. For example, the NPHC
woman believed that privilege meant having more financial wealth than others.
Conclusion
Race continues to be a sensitive and complex topic for college students today.
Some fraternity/sorority students will perceive and experience race to be almost a non-
issue in their community. Other students will understand race as significant to the
fraternity/sorority experience because it influences traditions, practices, membership,
events, and conversations. Other students will believe race is part of some experiences
such as membership and not part of others such as treatment from the institution.
Race and fraternity/sorority membership has changed over time. Historically,
organizations denied membership to racial/ethnic minorities. Today, students shared that
they believe any student can join any organization no matter the race of the student or the
dominant race of the organization. The caveat is that students who are racial/ethnic
minorities in their organization (depending on the dominant race of the organization) may
need to explain why they joined their fraternity or sorority. Some students want to build a
united fraternity/sorority community and are willing to try and work hard to cross council
and racial lines, but they may be met with peer-to-peer resistance. For these students,
they recognize that race impacts the overall community in such a way that race becomes
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 102
a barrier to community. Finally, students may not believe race does and should not
influence their fraternity/sorority experience. If this were to be the new direction for
fraternities and sororities, then what would be lost given the historical context of
fraternities and sororities? Researchers and practitioners should learn and understand how
race impacts different types of university communities. Student affairs practitioners may
need to consider how to make race a meaningful conversation within their communities
so that diversity has more significance than racial/ethnic population numbers.

RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 103
References

Adams, T. C. & Keim, M. C. (2000). Leadership practices and effectiveness among
Greek student leaders. College Student Journal, 34(2), 259–270.
Alpha Chi Rho (1917). Constitution of the fraternity of alpha chi rho. Retrieved from:
http://archive.org/details/constitutionoffr00alph
Ancis, J. R., Sedlacek, W. E., & Mohr, J. J. (2000). Student perceptions of campus
cultural climate by race. Journal of Counseling and Development, 78(2), 180-185.
doi: 10.1002/j.1556-6676.2000.tb02576.x
Armstrong, E. A., Hamilton, L., & Sweeney, B. (2005). Sexual assault on campus: A
multilevel, integrative approach to party rape. Social Problems, 53(4), 483-499.
doi: 10.1525/sp.2006.53.4.483
Asel, A. M., Seifert, T. A., & Pascarella, E. T. (2009). The effects of fraternity/sorority
membership on college experiences and outcomes: A portrait of complexity.
Oracle: The Research Journal of Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors,
4(2), 1-15. Retrieved from:
http://member.afa1976.org/resources/PublicDocuments/Oracle_Vol4_Iss2_Asel.p
df
Baker, C. N. (2008). Under-represented college students and extracurricular involvement:
the effects of various student organizations on academic performance. Soc
Psychol Educ, 11, 273-298. doi: 10.1007/s11218-007-9050-y
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 104
Barnes, B., Palmary, I. & Durrheim, K. (2001). The denial of racism: The role of humor,
personal experience, and self-censorship. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 20(3), 321-338. doi: 10.1177/0261927X01020003003
Bell, L. A., Castañeda, C. R., & Zúñiga, X. (2010). Racism: Introduction. In Adams, M.,
Blumenfeld, W. J. Castañeda, C. R., Hackman, H. W., Peters, M. L., & Zúñiga,
X. (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social justice (2
nd
ed.) (59-66). New York,
NY: Routledge.
Binder, R. (2003). Historically White men’s fraternal organizations. In D. E. Gregory and
associates (Eds.), The administration of fraternal organizations on North
American campuses: A pattern for the new millennium (pp. 29-53). Ashville, NC:
College Administration Publications, Inc.
Campo, S. Poulos, G., & Sipples, J. W. (2005). Prevalence and profiling: Hazing among
college students and points of intervention. American Journal of Health Behavior,
29(2), 137-149. Retrieved from:
http://docserver.ingentaconnect.com.libproxy.usc.edu
Chang, M. J. (1996, November). Race identity and race relations in higher education:
Fraternity and sorority membership among students of color. Paper presented at
the meeting of Association for the study of Higher Education, Memphis, TN.
Chang, M. J. & DeAngelo, L. (2002). Going Greek: The effects of racial composition on
White students’ participation patterns. Journal of College Student Development,
43(6), 809-823
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 105
Chen, E. W. (2009). Asian Americans in sororities and fraternities: In search of a home
and place. In C. L. Torbenson & G. S. Parks (Eds.), Brothers and sisters:
Diversity in college fraternities and sororities (pp. 83-103). Cranbury, NJ:
Associated University Presses.
Chen, E. W. (2011). Transforming racism: Asian Pacific American women in African
American sororities. In M. W. Hughey & G. S. Parks (Eds.), Black Greek-letter
organizations: New directions in the study of African American fraternities and
sororities (pp. 139-159). Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi.
Copenhaver, S. & Grauerholz, E. (1991). Sexual victimization among sorority women:
Exploring the link between sexual violence and institutional practices. Sex Roles,
24(1-2), 31-41. doi: 10.1007/BF00288701
Cress, C. M. & Ikeda, E. K. (2003). Distress under duress: The relationship between
campus climate and depression in Asian American college students. NASPA
Journal, 40(2), 74-97. doi: 10.2202/1949-6605.1224
Delgado, R. & Stefancic, J. (2012). Critical race theory: An introduction (2
nd
ed.). New
York, NY: New York University Press.
Dixson, A. D. & Rousseau, C. K. (2005). And we are still not saved: Critical race theory
in education ten years later. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 7-27. doi:
10.1080/1361332052000340971

RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 106
Dugan, J. P. (2008). Exploring relationships between fraternity and sorority membership
and socially responsible leadership. Oracle: The Research Journal of the
Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 3(2), 16-25. Retrieved from:
http://member.afa1976.org/resources/PublicDocuments/Oracle_vol3_iss2_Dugan.
pdf
Feagin, J. R. & Sikes, M. P. (1995). How Black students cope with racism on White
campuses. The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education, 8, 91-97. Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.usc.edu/stable/2963064
Gibbs, G. R. (2009). Analyzing qualitative data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Guardia, J. R. & Evans, N. J. (2008). Factors influencing the ethnic identity development
of Latino fraternity members at a Hispanic serving institution. Journal of College
Student Development, 49(3), 163-181. doi: 10.1353/csd.0.0011
Hatton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3
rd
ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.
Hayek, J. C., Carini, R. M., O’Day, P. T., & Kuh, G. D. (2002). Triumph or tragedy:
Comparing student engagement levels of Greek-lettered organizations and other
students. Journal of College Student Development, 43(5), 643-663.
Hesse-Biber, S. N. & Leavey, P. (2011). The practices of qualitative research. Los
Angeles, CA: Sage.
Hughey, M. W. & Hernandez, M. (2012). Black, Greek, and read all over: Newspaper
coverage of African-American fraternities and sororities, 1980-2009. Ethnic and
racial studies, 1-22. doi: 10.1080/01419870.2012.676195
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 107
Hurtado, S. & Carter, D. F. (1997). Effects of college transition and perceptions of the
campus racial climate on Latino college students’ sense of belonging. Sociology
of Education, 70(4), 324-345. doi: 10.2307/2673270
Hurtado, S., Dey, E. L., Gurin, P. Y, & Gurin, G. (2003). College environments,
diversity, and student learning. In Smart, J. C. (Eds.), Higher education: handbook
of theory and research (145-189). doi: 10.1007/978-94-010-0137-3_3
Hutching, K., Lac, A., & LaBrie, J. (2007). An application of the theory of planned
behavior to sorority alcohol consumption. Addict Behav., 33(4), 538-551. doi:
10.1016/j.addbeh.2007.11.002
Kimbrough, W. M. (1997). The membership intake movement of historically Black
Greek-letter organizations. NASPA Journal, 46(4), 603-613. Retrieved from:
http://journals.naspa.org.libproxy.usc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5034&cont
ext=jsarp
Kimbrough, W. M. (2003). Black Greek 101: The culture, customs, and challenges of
Black fraternities and sororities. Cranberry, NJ: Associated University Presses.
Kvale, S. (2007). Doing interviews. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1998). Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice
field like education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education,
11(1), 7-24. doi: 10.1080/095183998236863
Ladson-Billings, G. & Tate, W. F. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education.
Teachers College Record 97(1), 47-68.
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 108
Lee, R. M. (1993). Doing Research on Sensitive Topics. Newberry Park, CA: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Lo, C. C. & Globetti, G. (1995). The facilitating and enhancing roles Greek associations
play in college drinking. The International Journal of the Addictions, 30(10),
1311-1322. doi: 0.3109/10826089509105136
Mathison, S. (1998). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17(2), 13–17.
Maxwell, J. A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2
nd
ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Ltd.
McCabe, D. L. & Bowers, W. J. (2009). The relationship between student cheating and
college fraternity or sorority membership. NASPA Journal, 46(4), 573-586.
Retrieved from:
http://journals.naspa.org.libproxy.usc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5032&cont
ext=jsarp
McCabe, S. E., Schulenberg, J. E., Johnston, L. D. O’Malley, P. M. Bachman, J. G. &
Kloska, D. D. (2005). Selection and socialization effects of fraternities and
sororities on US college student substance use: A multi-cohort national
longitudinal study. Addiction, 100(4), 412-524. doi: 10.1111/j.1360-
0443.2005.01038.x
McClure, S. M. (2006). Voluntary association membership: Black Greek men on a
predominantly White campus. The Journal of Higher Education 77(6), 1036-1057.
doi: 10.1353/jhe.2006.0053
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 109
Mohler-Kuo, M. Dowdall, G. W., Koss, M.P. and Wechsler, H. (2004). Correlates of rape
while intoxicated in a a national sample of college women. Journal of Studies on
Alcohol, 65(1), 37-45. Retrieved from:
http://www.jsad.com.libproxy.usc.edu/jsad/article/Correlates_of_Rape_while_Int
oxicated_in_a_National_Sample_of_College_Women/1107.html
Muñoz, S. M. & Guardia, J. R. (2009). Nuestra historia y future (our history and future):
Latino/a fraternities and sororities. In C. L. Torbenson & G. S. Parks (Eds.),
Brothers and sisters: Diversity in college fraternities and sororities (pp. 104-132).
Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses.
National Asian Pacific Islander American Panhellenic Association (2012). NAPA
History. Retrieved from http://www.napa-
online.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=49&Itemid=56
North-American Interfraternity Conference (2012). About NIC: About the north-
American interfraternity conference. Retrieved from:
http://www.nicindy.org/about/
National Pan-Hellenic Council (2010). National pan-hellenic council, Inc.: Mission.
Retrieved from: http://www.nphchq.org/mission.htm
National Panhellenic Conference (2009). Adventure in friendship: A history of the
National Panhellenic Conference. Retrieved from:
https://www.npcwomen.org/resources/pdf/NPC%20History.pdf
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 110
Nurius, P. S., Norris, J. Dimeff, L. A., & Graham, T. L. (1996). Expectations regarding
acquaintance sexual aggression among sorority and fraternity members. Sex
Roles, 35(7-8), 427-444. doi: 0.1007/BF01544130
Onwuegbuzie, A. J. & Leech, N. L. (2007). Validity and qualitative research: An
oxymoron? Quality & Quantity, 41, pp.233-349
Owen, S. S., Burke, T. W., & Vichesky, D. (2008). Hazing in student organizations:
Prevalence, attitudes, and solutions. Oracle: The Journal of the Association of
Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 3(1), 40-58. Retrieved from:
http://www.radford.edu/~tburke/Burke/Hazing_in_Student_Organizations.pdf
Park, A., Sher, K. J., Wood, P. K., Krull, J. L. (2009). Dual mechanisms underlying
accentuation of risky drinking via fraternity/sorority affiliation: The role of
personality, peer norms, and alcohol availability. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 118(2), 241-255. doi: 10.1037/a0015126
Park, J. (2008). Race and the Greek system in the 21
st
century: Centering the voices of
Asian American women. NASPA Journal, 45(1), 103-132. doi: 10.2202/1949-
6605.1909
Pascarella, E. T., Edison, M., Nora, A., Hagedorn, L. S., & Terenzini, P. T. (1996).
Influences on students' openness to diversity and challenge in the first year of
college. The Journal of Higher Education, 67(2), 174-195.Retrieved from:
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.usc.edu/stable/2943979

RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 111
Perkins, A. B., Zimmerman, D. & Janosik, S. M. (2011). Changing trends in the
undergraduate fraternity/sorority experience: An evaluative and analytical
literature review. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of
Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 6(1), 57-73. Retrieved from:
http://member.afa1976.org/resources/PublicDocuments/Oracle_Vol6_Issue1_Perk
ins.pdf
Pike, G. R. (2000). The influence of fraternity and sorority membership on students'
college experiences and cognitive development. Research in Higher Education,
41(1), 117-139. doi: 10.1023/A:1007046513949
Pike, G. R. (2003). Membership in a fraternity or sorority, student engagement, and
educational outcomes at AAU public research universities. Journal of college
student development, 44(3), 369-382. doi: 10.1353/csd.2003.0031
Porter, H. D. (2012). Interactional diversity opportunities through involvement: Fraternity
and sorority leaders' experiences. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association
of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors 7(1), 54-70. Retrieved from:
http://www.afa1976.org/Portals/0/Publications/Spring12Oracle%20-
%20Interactional%20Diversity.pdf
Ray, R. & Rosow, J. A. (2012). The two different worlds of Black and White fraternity
men: Visibility and accountability as mechanisms of privilege. Journal of
Contemporary Ethnography, 41(1), 66-94. doi: 10.1177/0891241611431700
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 112
Rodriguez, A. L., Guido-Dibrito, F., Torres, V., & Talbot, D. (2000). Latina college
students: issues and challenges for the 21
st
century. Journal of Student Affairs
Research and Practices, 37(3), 167-183. doi: 10.2202/1949-6605.1111
Rogers, S. Rogers, C. & Anderson, T. (2012). Examining the link between pledging,
hazing, and organizational commitment among members of a Black Greek
fraternity. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority
Advisors, 7(1), 43-53. Retrieved from:
http://www.afa1976.org/Portals/0/Publications/Spring12Oracle%20-
%20Examining%20the%20Link.pdf
Rudolph, F. (1990). The American college and university: A history. Athens, GA: The
University of Georgia Press.
Scott, D. & Morrison, M. (2006). Key ideas in educational research. New York, NY:
Continuum International Publishing Group.
Sher, K. J., Bartholow, B. D., & Nanda, S. (2001). Short- and long-term effects of
fraternity and sorority membership on heavy drinking: A social norms
perspective. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 15(1), 42-51. doi:
10.1037//0893-164x.15.1.42
Solorzano, D., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. (2000). Critical race theory, racial
microaggressions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African
American college students. The Journal of Negro Education, 69(1-2), 60-73.
Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.usc.edu/stable/2696265
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 113
Stearns, E., Buchmann, C., & Bonneau, K. (2009). Interracial friendships in the transition
to college: Do birds of a feather flock together once they leave the nest?
Sociology of Education 82, 173-195. doi: 10.1177/003804070908200204
Sue, D. W., Bucceri, J., Lin, A. I., Nadal, K. L., & Torino, G. C. (2009). Racial
microaggressions and the Asian American experience. Asian American Journal of
Psycholog, S(1), 88-101. doi: 10.1037/1948-1985.S.1.88
Swim, J. K., Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L. L., Fitgerald, D. C., & Bysma, W. H. (2003).
African American college students’ experiences with everyday racism:
Characteristics of and responses to these incidents. Journal of Black Psychology,
29(38), 38-67. doi: 10.1177/0095798402239228
Torbenson, C. L. (2009). From the beginning: A history of college fraternities and
sororities. In C. L. Torbenson & G. S. Parks (Eds.), Brothers and sisters: Diversity
in college fraternities and sororities (pp. 15-45). Cranbury, NJ: Associated
University Presses.
Villalpando, O. (2003). Self-segregation or self-preservation? A critical race theory and
Latino/a critical theory analysis of a study of Chicanao college students.
International Journal of Studies in Education 16(5), pp. 619-646. doi:
10.1080/0951839032000142922
Whaley, D. E. (2009). Links, legacies, and letters: A cultural history of Black Greek-
letter organizations. In C. L. Torbenson & G. S. Parks (Eds.), Brothers and sisters:
Diversity in college fraternities and sororities (pp. 46-82). Cranbury, NJ:
Associated University Presses.
RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 114
Yoo, H. C. & Lee, R. M. (2005). Ethnic identity and approach-type coping as moderators
of the racial discrimination/well-being relation in Asian Americans. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 52(4), 497-506. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.52.4.497

RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 115
APPENDIX A: Sample Recruitment Email
Hello,

I am a current graduate student at the University of Southern California and will be
conducting research on the role of race in fraternities and sororities. The purpose of this
research is to understand if and how fraternity/sorority students perceive and experience
the role of race in their fraternal community. Hopefully, the data from this research will
help fraternity/sorority advisors in their practice.

I am asking if you are interested in participating in a maximum hour-long interview. If
so, please read the information sheet (attached), fill out and email the informational
questionnaire (attached) as well as several potential times for the interview. All of your
information and the interview will be confidential if you choose to participate in the
study. Information will be stored on a password-protected laptop. Participation in this
study is voluntary, and participants have the ability to stop the interview at any time
without recompense.

Thank you in advance for your consideration in this project. Should you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to email me at enanoza@usc.edu. Questionnaires and
interview times can be emailed to enanoza@usc.edu.

Sincerely,
Missy Enanoza

RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 116
APPENDIX B: Information Sheet

The Role of Race in Fraternities and Sororities: A Qualitative Study

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study is to understand if and how fraternity/sorority students perceive
and experience the role of race in their fraternal community. The study is designed to
capture the perceptions and experiences of a racially/ethnically diverse fraternity/sorority
community. Participation in the study will benefit fraternity/sorority advisors and student
affairs professionals so that they can understand more about the racial dynamics of the
fraternal community.

Participant Involvement

Participants are able to volunteer in the study. Participants will be interviewed in-person
for approximately sixty minutes in a private, enclosed location on the site’s campus.
Participants will be asked questions regarding their experiences and perceptions of race in
the fraternity/sorority community. With each participant’s approval, the interview will be
recorded. Participants are able to stop the interview at any time and for any reason
without recompense.

After the data is collected and analyzed, participants will be asked to review the
researcher’s findings, interpretations, and conclusions. Participants will only have access
to data connected to his/her research involvement and no other participant. Participants
will have one week to review the findings, interpretations, and conclusions after the
researcher emails the participants. If participants choose not to reply to the researcher,
then the researcher will conclude that the data, interpretations, and conclusions are
correct.

Payment/Compensation for Participation

Participants will not receive compensation for involvement in the study.

RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 117
Confidentiality

All information and data (including recordings, transcriptions, and notes) collected in this
study will be stored on a password-protected laptop. Participants will be assigned a
pseudonym. Pseudonyms will be used throughout the data collection and analysis
process. Only one key of the participant’s first name and the pseudonym will be kept on
the password-protected laptop. The final presentation, as well as any conference
presentations, journal articles, or poster sessions, will not reveal participants’ identities or
identifiers.

Investigator Contact Information

Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Missy Enanoza, University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education,
Postsecondary Administration and Student Affairs, enanoza@usc.edu

IRB Contact Information

University Park IRB, Office of the Vice Provost for Research Advancement, Credit
Union Building, 3720 South Flower Street, CUB # 301 Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702,
(213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

RACE IN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 118
APPENDIX C: Informational Questionnaire

First Name
__________________________________________________________________
Email
____________________________________________________________________
Gender (Please select)
£ Male
£ Female
£ Prefer not to identify
Race/Ethnicity (Please select all that apply)
£ Caucasian/White
£ African American
£ Asian/Asian American
£ Latino/a or Latino/a American
£ Other:________________
Year in School (Please select)
£ Freshmen
£ Sophomore
£ Junior
£ Senior
RACE IN FRATERNITIES & SORORITIES 119
Council Affiliation (Please select)
£ IFC
£ NPC
£ NPHC
£ NALFO
£ GPAAC

Number of Years since Initiated: _____________________________

Have you held any leadership positions in your organization or in the
fraternity/sorority community? If so, please list both current and post leadership
positions.
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________

RACE IN FRATERNITIES & SORORITIES 120
APPENDIX D: Interview Protocol
1. Please describe your fraternity and sorority community.
a. Who are the councils?
b. What are the significant fraternity/sorority cross-council events, if any?
2. What is a past event, if any, that brought councils together?
a. Why did it bring councils together?
3. Is there a past event that divided councils? If so, what?
a. Why did it divide councils?
4. Please describe a time when you talked about race with anyone in the
fraternity/sorority community?
a. In what context?
b. What did you think about the conversation afterwards?
5. Who are the leaders of the fraternity/sorority community?
a. Are there racial differences among the leaders?
b. If so, what are the racial differences?
c. Why do you believe there are racial differences?
d. How do the racial differences impact leadership or leadership decisions?
6. Have you witnessed a fraternity/sorority related experience that made you think
about race? If so, please tell me about it.
a. Why did it make you think about race?
b. What were your thoughts after the experience?
7. Have you been the witness of a person-to-person interaction between
fraternity/sorority members that was race-related? Please explain.
a. Who was it? What were their affiliations?
b. How did it happen?
c. What did you do during the interaction?
d. Why did it make you think of race?
8. Have you been the receiver of a race-driven action or comment (related to or
motivated by race) as a fraternity/sorority member? Please explain.
RACE IN FRATERNITIES & SORORITIES 121
a. What was the context? How did it happen?
b. Who was involved? What were their affiliations?
c. What do you think about the experience?
9. Have you been the giver of a race-driven action or comment as a
fraternity/sorority member? Please explain.
a. What was the context? How did it happen?
b. Who was involved?
c. What do you think about the experience?
10. Do you believe there are any institutional practices that give an advantage to some
organizations and not others?
a. Why is it an advantage?
b. What is your opinion about that?
11. Do you believe there are councils that receive more institutional support than
others?
a. What are some examples?
b. Why do you think they receive more?
12. Do you believe there are any institutional practices that support all fraternities and
sororities equally?
a. What are some examples?
b. How does it support all organizations equally?
c. What is your opinion?
13. Do you believe there are any institutional practices beliefs that divide councils?
a. What are some examples?
b. How does it divide?
c. Why do you think it happens?
14. Do you believe it is possible to rank the councils based on social hierarchy? If so,
could you and please explain why you listed them as you did.
a. How do you feel ranking them?
15. Do you believe race matters in the fraternity/sorority community?
RACE IN FRATERNITIES & SORORITIES 122
a. Why or why not?
16. Anything else you want me to know?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract According to critical race theory, race is an everyday and ordinary experience (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). While critical race theory assumes that race matters, fraternities and sororities may or may not be a community where students believe the role of race to be present and to be relevant to the community culture and norms. This thesis will use critical race theory and qualitative research methods to explore the perceptions and experiences of sixteen current fraternity/sorority students from the Interfraternity Council, National Panhellenic Council, National Pan-Hellenic Council, Asian American fraternal organizations, and Latino/a fraternal organizations. Even though students acknowledge race is in the community, they do not believe their community is discriminatory because any student can join any organization and the institution treats all organizations in an equitable manner.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Historically Latino/a-based fraternities/sororities: understanding Latino/a student experiences in a historically White-dominated system

PDF

Chinese students’ college choice: targeting the U.S as the top study destination

PDF

Cultural centers and students: are the diversity needs of students being met?

PDF

The gamification of judicial affairs: addressing learning for 'digital students'

PDF

Organizational structures of religious life offices at private secular universities: a qualitative study

PDF

How college students use online social networks to gather information

PDF

Creating a community of practice: serving student veterans in higher education

PDF

Perceptions of inequality: racism, ethnic identity and student development for a master of education degree

PDF

The influence of a Latina-based sorority on the academic experiences of Latina college students

PDF

The effectiveness of a peer mentorship program: a mixed methods study

PDF

The development and implementation of global partnerships in student affairs

PDF

Experiences of Latina student-mothers in community college: a study based in community cultural wealth

PDF

A phenomenological study of Black student leaders in a predominantly White institution

PDF

Latino and Latina faculty members’ funds of knowledge: a qualitative study of empowerment agents’ experiences and practices

PDF

Assessing LGBT student experiences and perceptions: a campus climate case study

PDF

Departure from the student affairs profession: a study of professionals who left the field

PDF

Families first: supporting first-generation college students’ families

PDF

How can I help you? college students' perceptions of financial aid advisors

PDF

Factors influencing the academic persistence of college students with ADHD

PDF

In pursuit of higher education: external and internal factors influencing the decision to attend college among Cambodian-American students

Asset Metadata

Creator Enanoza Benavides, Melissa (author)

Core Title Student perceptions and experiences: deconstructing race in fraternity/sorority life

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Master of Education

Degree Program Postsecondary Administration and Student Affairs

Publication Date 12/12/2013

Defense Date 12/12/2013

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag fraternities,Higher education,OAI-PMH Harvest,Race,sororities,student affairs

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Merriman, Lynette (committee chair), Larabee, Heather (committee member), Venegas, Kristan M. (committee member)

Creator Email enanoza@usc.edu,menanoza@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-359029

Unique identifier UC11297471

Identifier etd-EnanozaBen-2223.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-359029 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-EnanozaBen-2223.pdf

Dmrecord 359029

Document Type Thesis

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Enanoza Benavides, Melissa

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA