In this chapter, I present the participants in my study and their life experiences around sex; gender; gender performativity; family, friendship, and intimate relationships; school; and organizations. These organizations and experiences include their consideration and participation in their respective sororities as well as relationships with sorority members. In this chapter, for each participant, I describe their characteristics, their reasons for becoming sorority members, their organizations, and their perceptions of themselves as members. Pseudonyms are given to family members, friends, and places, in an effort to protect the identities of those involved. Through interviews, I gained a sense of the members' a priori experiences, that is, their past experiences both educationally and socially, and how those experiences influenced their concepts of self-as-sorority member and self-as-man.
Before discussing participants’ backgrounds, I will review the structure of the umbrella of the Greek letter organizations within the National Pan-Hellenic Council, and policies
regarding sex and gender language within single-sex institutions. This will situate how these terms are used and explore if they are inclusive or exclusive of transgender and nonbinary individuals.
Membership Requirements
The National Pan-Hellenic Council – the umbrella organization of the Divine Nine organizations – oversees the shared interests of these racially-inclusive service groups. In describing the NPHC, Taylor-Johnson (2018) explains its genesis,
Founded as a council [in] 1930, NPHC’s purpose was to create a supportive environment for all of the Black Greek Letter Organizations (BGLOS) to assist each organization in fulfilling their own missions. Although these organizations are traditionally populated by and created for [Melanin-Rich] students, membership was not restricted to [Melanin-Rich] Americans (p. 2).
122
While their collective missions seek to provide to community, leadership development, and networking opportunities for racially underrepresented scholars where Anglo organizations prohibited them, there are still restrictions on membership. Hughey (2007) writes, “When categorical boundaries are strong, as in the case of the raced Greek system in our contemporary moment—boundary transgression is rare” (p. 57). One of these boundaries is gender; much as the racially exclusive fraternities barred non-Anglo membership for men, once women were inserted into the collegiate landscape, they too were steered to develop their own organizations (Giddings, 1988). Smart (2014) affirms the separatism inherent in colleges, presuming this gender boundary would quell romantic exchanges. The assumption that women were solely attracted to men and men were solely attracted to women, and their causal coupling would interrupt their studies, justified such segregation. Their eventual paring in marriage, then, would be bolstered by their separate, guided development outside of the classroom. The groups
espoused a dedication to shared values, which is why most “National Interfraternity Council (NIC) and NPC [PHC, the predominantly Anglo organizations] have or another had clauses within their charters that banned the membership of non-White and non-Christian members” (Wilson, 2002, para. 3).
Class mobility was another intention of fraternities. Fraternities gave students benefiting from generational wealth and ties to the university the opportunity to recreate the experiences of their fathers, and provided universities with a near-guaranteed ties to revenue. Sororities then provided women with opportunities to collect socially outside of the classroom and acquire the essence of marriageability. They also offered them supervised events where eligible men could court them. Fraternities, in turn, allowed for men from working- and middle-class families to
123
develop close ties with elite families through their sons, gaining effective networks for academic guidance, professional development and high-income careers post-graduation.
Later on, the fraternities themselves will help prepare their members intensively for adult social life […] Forty young men in late adolescence living together for four years can greatly influence each other's values and character. College fraternities represent a powerful agency of near-adult socialization […] (p. 399) With these benefits came the conservative ideologies of the elite. Levine and Sussmann write (1960):
In order to be successful in the climb, they have had to unlearn working-class values and to acquire the values of the class they aim at. An unfortunate concomitant of the ascent has often been the rejection of parents and of non- mobile siblings who stand for a way of life that has been abandoned (p. 399)
Creating discriminating guidelines within NPHC, then, are argued to align with the inclusion of cultural elite only, fulfilling a social desire to appear ‘authentic’” to the clubs which excluded them (Hughley, 2007). In addition to values of Anglo manhood, racial and gender separation of social clubs aligned with the housing standards of the first residential campuses. De Los Reyes and Rich (2003) explain,
American higher education expanded more rapidly than did its ability to provide accommodation to increasing number of students, and fraternities were glad to fill the gap. They offered a freedom that college-run dormitories did not have, along with a solidarity enforced by handshakes and passwords (p. 121).
This housing copied the gender-separate housing available to men at PWIs, which progressed to sororities creating sorority houses; early 20th century racial segregation emboldened Anglo sororities to maintain this status quo, excluding non-Anglo women. Many NPHC organizations offered member housing for students at PWISs who were prohibited from campus housing (Giddings, 1988). Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity, Inc. is one of three NPHC organizations founded
124
at PWIs. As the history of Kappa Alpha Psi (n/d) notes, the social and academic opportunities at these campuses were highly restrictive:
The campus of Indiana University at that time did not encourage the assimilation of Blacks. The administration maintained an attitude of indifference, as Blacks slowly matriculated and were likewise swiftly forgotten. The percentage of Blacks on campus was less than 1%. Blacks could go weeks without seeing one another on campus. Blacks were not allowed to reside in on-campus dormitories, were not afforded off-campus accommodations, and they were also denied the use of all other university facilities, and were barred from participating in contact sports (Kappa Alpha Psi, “A Brief History”, para. 2).
This housing was separated by gender as well. Smart (2014) attests that this enforces gender rigidity:
The gender assumption leaves no room for those who do not identify as either male men or female women, marginalizing all who do not fit within that model: individuals who are intersex, transgender, or gender non-conforming. The binary of sexuality excludes those who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, or asexual (p. 9).
As campuses become co-ed, universities pushed for the dismantling of the Greek system. Men’s only housing brought about a culture of violence that was lessened when in closer contact with women. The increasing racial, national, and religious diversity of the campus environment dissuaded students from joining organizations in which were seen as antithetical to their academic and professional development (Conroe, 1999). As universities sought to limit Greek representation, Anglo fraternities fought back against disestablishment in the 1990s, by offering residential comforts less attainable in university-owned residence halls at the time: “To attract students, the Greeks have struck back with high-speed Internet access, gourmet meals cooked by chefs, and beach volleyball” (p. 122).
Histories of exclusions, separation, and selectivity may explain why, short of the dedication to service and initiative focused on racial uplift, NPHC’s values remain bounded by
125
strong categories of gender fit. Federal law allows same-sex organizations to remain as such, which includes but is not limited to fraternities and sororities, and same-sex colleges. As of 2019, National Pan-Hellenic Council organizations have no official policy on transgender membership, which means that those who fill out their membership application form as the normative sex of the most of the organizations – male for fraternities, female for sororities – receive no
questioning from organization’s headquarters when processing applications. This questioning may occur de facto on the campuses in which interested students are enrolled, before they are extended an invitation to interview.
In my examination of all nine membership processes, two organizations had digitized online application portals in which the aspirant had to register in order to complete; I did not complete this process, out of respect to the efforts of maintaining productive labor to those focused on application processing at these organizations. Information on membership inquiry forms is collected in Table 1.
The membership inquiry forms were observed to see if there were any direct restrictions based on sexes and/or genders for the organizations. The forms observed on national websites for several organizations did not ask for sex or gender; those forms asked for the interest’s [NPHC’s term for an applicant or potential member] name, email address, phone number, and many offered a section for open communication via comments.
Sex and Gender on Applications. The researcher searched the organizations national and
international websites under membership, in search for membership inquiry forms and applications for membership. I then searched the keywords “[name of organization] interest form”. The researcher looked for sex and gender terms and the following analysis will include a search for male, man, cisgender, gender, and sex for fraternities, and female, women, girl, ladies,
126
cisgender, gender, and sex for sororities. The order of the search was by researcher’s privilege and is not in order of the founding dates or names of the organizations in alphabetical order.
Epsilon offered a membership inquiry form but only asked for the interest’s name, email address, phone number, and hosted a section for open communication via comments. A Google search resulted in two PDFs: one which read as a sorority FAQ brochure, and an official
membership application. The brochure mentioned that the sorority was for “women”, but the application did not request sex or gender. While there was a contact section under membership requirements, Omicron’s form hosted a section for name, email address, phone number, and a message. All of these sections were required in order to submit the form. Lambda has a contact section which did not offer a section specifically for membership; however, on a Google search for an interest form, a PDF application for membership was found for the organization from less than five years ago, which asked if the applicant identified as either a woman or female.
Pi required an interest to contact a regional recruitment chair for more information regarding membership. Chi has the most extensive online interest form linked from the
international fraternity website; assessable through a Google Form, the interest form asks for the interest’s name, birthdate, address, phone number, email address, as well as educational
institutional information, military service, and two interest questions. Though all questions must be answered in order to submit the form, it does not ask for gender or sex information. Mu has an online application available as a PDF, which does not ask for gender or sex, but does ask about previously held legal names, which could denote an individual’s gender.
Xi has the most extensive online interest information regarding details of membership, but did not offer an interest form. Xi has an online portal to which an interest must create an online profile to fill out the membership form. Upsilon also offers an online form which requires
127
a login; the membership link preceding the online form mentions “men” and “man” several times, but does not state that one must be male. The header of the membership section also referenced a Biblical quote. An online search for an interest form resulted in a Word document from within the past five years, which asked for the most background information of the interest out of all of the organizations. This inquiry included familial makeup (i.e. parents’ educational backgrounds and employment fields, information regarding siblings, family members involved in Greek organizations, etc.), a request of recommenders’ contact information, and several writing prompts related to the fraternity’s history. A medical form requiring a physician’s signature is a part of the packet, as well as a form regarding military service. These may divulge a person’s sex, but neither sex nor gender was denoted as necessary within the packet’s contents.
Sorority Requirements for Membership. Because the focus of the study is the experiences
of transgender men and masculine-identified nonbinary persons who are members of sororities, this section will document the membership requirements of the four NPHC sororities, as denoted on their websites. The information given is from each of the NPHC sororities. However, the true sorority affiliation of the member-participants is not tied to the organization information as listed.
Epsilon Epsilon Epsilon’s (known as Epsilon) membership requirements state that, “any female student currently enrolled at a college or university” or where a city chapter is active may apply for membership. As long as the school is accredited, they are working on a bachelor’s level degree, have a certain amount of hours completed and a certain GPA, and are not a member of any organization within the NPHC or PHC, the interest may apply for consideration.
Lambda Lambda Lambda’s (known as Lambda) membership requirements state that the organization wants, “interested women with a track record of community service and currently
128
pursuing a baccalaureate degree”. Other requirements include that the institution attending is accredited, they have a certain amount of hours completed and a certain GPA.
Mu Mu Mu’s (known as Mu) membership requirements state that, “A woman may be admitted for membership” as an undergraduate at a four-year college, or at a junior or
community college once their intention to enter a four-year college is submitted. Other
requirements include that the institution attending is accredited, they have a certain amount of hours completed and a certain GPA.
Tau Tau Tau’s (known as Tau) are the most direct and restrictive towards gender identities. Tau Tau Tau’s membership requirements state that the organization “does not discriminate in its membership selection practices on the basis of race, color, age, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, creed, marital status or disability”, but “recognizes the right of college social fraternities and sororities to maintain single sex
membership policies.” Henceforth, the sorority notes it, “is a women’s organization and membership is open to women”. The details of the search for this information are below.
Table 1. Online Membership Inquiry and Application Documents Organization Gender/Sex Information
Requested If requested, was it required to submit the application Epsilon Sorority No N/A
Omicron Fraternity No N/A Pi Fraternity N/A N/A Lambda Sorority Yes N/A Chi Fraternity No N/A
Mu Sorority No N/A
Xi Fraternity N/A N/A
Upsilon No N/A
129
Issues concerning identity shifts post-membership. None of the organizations offer any
information on their websites utilizing the terms cisgender or transgender. However, three of the four sororities use the gender marker woman in their literature consistently. This begs the
question as to whether transgender women are invited to apply for membership. According to literature drafted by Washington State University for NPHC organizations (2018):
Organizations with no national policy may accept transgender people as potential new members on a campus-to-campus basis. For example, Kappa Sigma at Oklahoma State University openly accepts transgender members; however, Kappa Sigma has no existing national policy on the subject.
This does not account for sorority status if a member transitions. Epsilon Epsilon Epsilon’s usage of the term female in regards to membership eligibility would align with a support of female- designated persons to continuously participate, as sex does not change with transitioning. However, issues may arise from identification once a member transitions. Levitt and Ippolito (2014) note, “because legal documents are marked with one’s birth sex, transgender people can be unwillingly ‘outed’ and thus are vulnerable to discrimination in situations where they must present identification” (p. 47). Renewal and dues payment does not require identification if the name of the member does not change from what their name was during membership intake; post- sorority transitioned men who still encompass vital records denoting female born sex should have no issues renewing their membership. This may become an issue, however, if they change their identification to the male sex, and change their legal name. In addition, a dearth of sorority- related public profile photos or photos that show a masculine figure will likely draw questioning, as members often gauge member legitimacy through social media. While there are portals for member checking via national websites, the use of aliases on social media make these unreliable for assuring membership; in additions, inactive (non-financial) members may not have access to these portals. They may face questioning at conferences and organizational meeting where the
130
bulk of the members will present as feminine. This inquiry is not necessarily transphobic, but highlights a penchant for gatekeeping and an ignorance of the presence of ambiguous- and masculine-presenting women within sorority membership.
Indirect but leaning towards prohibition of transgender women is the statement by Tau Tau Tau, of which federal law is cited (“Federal law recognizes the right of college social fraternities and sororities to maintain single sex membership policies”; see Washington State University, 2018). While organizations and literature have failed to clarify whether their use of
woman includes both transgender and cisgender women, there is also likely no way to confirm
otherwise.
The organizations’ citation of the privilege to be discriminant regarding membership by way of sex and the inclusion of a background check release on their application alludes to the need to an official sex change on all vital records before permitting such a review. As noted above, only one organization had a statement on any page with their organization name which attended to both the gender and sex designation of individuals. This is an inclusion-focused initiative which has yet to be noted poignantly in any of the research reviewed. This has been overshadowed by the well-noted changes in the policies at same-sex institutions Spelman and Morehouse Colleges.
Same-Sex Colleges and Trans* Students. In April 2019, the men’s institution Morehouse approved a transgender enrollment policy. This addition allows for female-designated men to seek scholarship at one of the few institutions for single-gender education for men in the United States. This policy is relevant to the study because it includes institutions that come from similar foundations as the Divine Nine; HBCUs and BGLOs were both founded to support scholars who were denied admission to Anglo universities due to racial discrimination. These scholars then
131
faced segregation once permitted to attend Anglo schools. Founded with support of religious groups, HBCUs historically espouse contention with ideologies falling outside of the
cisnormative, heteronormative, and patriarchal structure. Standards of respectability, engrained into the strategies of surviving Jim Crow era violence, still permeate these arenas. Therefore, the policies for trans* students are maverick but still fit the binary standards of presentation and etiquette. Transgender men are expected to dress and socialize as cisgender, heterosexual men. Drezner (2006) writes that LGBT students on HBCU campuses face institutional othering when they do not align to cis-het norms; “student survey respondents reported witnessing faculty members treating students differently due to their actual or perceived sexual orientations, specifically discriminating against gay male students” (Harper & Gasman, 2008, p. 338).
Morehouse’s policy is an example of such, as there is a caveat for transitioning male-designated students: “Morehouse’s policy requires all students to self-identify as men. If a student