As noted at the outset of this book, a confluence of factors gave rise to Alpha Phi Alpha and shaped its identity. From its inception, the Fraternity was fashioned as an organization through which college‐ educated, African American men could work to address the needs of African Americans. Time would clarify exactly the nature of that work as well as how broad and deep it would be. It spanned social action, public policy, litigation, community service, and philanthropy. In fact, the chapters in this book bear witness to that, but they also bear witness to something else. After the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Fair Housing Act of 1968, Alpha Phi Alpha—like many other African American organizations concerned with racial uplift—shifted its work to community service and philanthropy. Litigation gave way to mentoring; public policy work gave way to scholarship balls.

This shift should be no surprise. In fact, it seems to be quite consistent with how organizations and movements evolve. For example, Herbert Blumer, one of the earliest scholars to study group action—i.e., social movement processes—identified four stages of social movements’ lifecycles: (1) social ferment, (2) popular excitement, (3) formalization, and (4) institutionalization.1 Today, scholars recast those stages as: (1) emergence, (2) coalescence, (3) bureaucratization, and (4) decline.2 With regard to the last component, “decline,” such may take place because the movement succeeded in what it set out to accomplish.3 As such, in the context of Alpha Phi Alpha, assuming that its membership and leadership believed that the goals of the civil rights movement were achieved in the 1960s, organizational success was largely achieved.

Even still, many important questions remain: Did Alpha Phi Alpha ever truly test its limits? Did it do all it could to uplift the race? Did it draw exhaustively on its human and intellectual capital to help bring about social change for African Americans, or did it simply do what it could? The same questions can or should linger today? Unlike in generations past, we now live in an age in which information abounds—information that could aid the Fraternity in discerning whether it is simply doing a few good things to address African Americans’ needs or whether it was testing its every capacity as an organization. If I might, I would suggest that Alpha Phi Alpha does some good work but that work is far from what it could do. In fact, this work is hampered by a number of challenges that the Fraternity faces. Academic Achievement: Though African American  fraternities, and sororities, including Alpha Phi Alpha, have worked to inculcate their members with the importance of scholastic achievement, evidence does not support the notion that members gain any advantage over their non‐affiliated counterparts in the classroom. In a review of university grade reports, Shaun Harper and colleagues found that a large percentage of GPAs of African American fraternities are well‐ below the overall average GPAs of other college fraternities.4 In their study, Chambers and colleagues found that the mean GPAs of black Greek‐letter organization (“BGLOs”) members were between 2.59 and 2.97.5 With the exception of Alpha Phi Alpha, sororities statistically outperformed every other fraternity observed in the study.6 These achievement gaps were not indicative of students’ propensity to perform, as they were enrolled in flagship, research‐intensive institutions and their GPAs were relatively strong prior to college enrollment.7

Harper and colleagues provide a cautionary, though not alarmist, perspective.8 For example, research illustrates a link between BGLO membership and positive gains in the ability to acquire and apply knowledge in complex ways.9 In a more obvious and direct way, poor academic achievement, along with poor critical thinking and weak problem‐solving capabilities, may negatively affect BGLOs’ ability to positively influence the social and cultural capital— network, access to resources, and ability to acquire knowledge—of their members.10 Poor academic performance can lessen a person’s opportunity to expand his social and cultural capital.11 In turn, when African American students’ social and cultural capital is limited there is a decrease in their ability to secure top internships, admission to graduate and professional school, and employment opportunities.12 In this way, poor academic performance can negatively impact Alpha Phi Alpha’s ability to advocate for African Americans from a position of power and influence, where a portion of its membership may be professionally and financially constrained. This constraint may limit the amount of time and financial resources brothers can allocate to the Fraternity in the service of the greater community good.

Even more, contemporary racial uplift activism may require creative and nontraditional solutions to recurring problems. Thus, Alpha Phi Alpha brothers should, but may not, possess the requisite level of critical‐thinking and innovative skills needed to be effective community problem‐solvers. Without a motivated force of critical and innovative thinkers, Alpha Phi Alpha may lack the ability to effectively design and develop socially‐based projects that successfully address the diverse set of needs that are prevalent in the African American community.

Brotherhood: “A house divided against itself cannot stand,”13 and a fraternity with deep fissures amongst its brotherhood is likely to be ineffective in its work. In their research, Michael Stern and Andrew Fullerton indicate that social networking and civic activity are interconnected.14 Social networks are formed when individuals feel a sense of belonging within a group. Social identity—the process people use to classify themselves and others in the social world—helps to shape these networks.15 The “oneness” felt within the social network creates a sense of belonging for the members of the group and creates an exclusive environment.16

Fissures may arise within social networks based upon individual characteristics, including age, race, religion, and sexual orientation. For example, within Alpha Phi Alpha, age and generational differences may play a role in undermining the Fraternity’s racial uplift work.17 Age gaps have been particularly relevant for younger brothers identifying with hip‐hop culture and for older brothers with more “traditional and mainstream views” on how the Fraternity should promote itself.18 Diverging expectations on issues such as fraternal reputation, the representation of fraternal symbols, presentation of self, and academic attainment can augment and undermine interactions between younger and older brothers.

While interracial pledge classes have existed within Alpha Phi Alpha since the 1950s, some Alphas still debate the propriety of admitting non‐Black brothers.19 The potential fissures created by racial issues within the Fraternity are quite varied. Some fear the loss of tradition with the initiation of non‐Blacks, while others are concerned about the commitment to civic engagement with non‐Blacks as brothers.20

Religious affiliation also may create fissures in civic  involvement within the Fraternity. The vast majority of Alphas are Christians, of various denominations.21 However, there is a small subset of brothers who believe that there is a tension between their BGLO affiliation and Christian identity.22 Frequently, these individuals renounce their membership.23 In their exploration of the experiences of non‐Christian, non‐heterosexual, and non‐Black members of Alpha Phi Alpha, Rashawn Ray and Kevin Spragling found that religion is an important dimension that influences brothers’ social interactions with and treatment from other members.24 Ray and Spragling found that over half of non‐Christian brothers report experiencing forms of mistreatment and isolation from Christian members based on their religious beliefs.25

Sexual orientation is the third‐rail issue within the Fraternity.26 While religious interpretations of homosexuality vary, in keeping with traditional Christian beliefs, many Alphas struggle with the notion of homosexuality. Alpha membership carries with it a strong sense of collective and personal masculinity, which many members perceive as contrary to homosexuality.27 One study found that homophobia within black Greek‐letter fraternities (“BGLF”) is not an unexamined  prejudice, but rather an ideology in keeping with a belief system that is “discussed, debated, and refined.”28 While homosexuality may appear contrary to ideals of black masculinity cultivated by BGLFs, homophobia will only exclude potential leaders in the ongoing crusade for social justice and equality.

In a study of social capital formation within a voluntary youth association, researchers found that white participants exhibited a tendency toward racial homophily, while black participants were equally likely to form interracial ties with socially dissimilar peers as with socially similar peers.29 Thus, whites were shown to be less likely to create relationships that transcended race, gender, and educational boundaries, thereby limiting their ability to create network ties and accumulate social capital.30 Alpha Phi Alpha places a similar limitation on its ability to foster network ties across all social boundaries where age, race, and religious chasms exist.31 This may be no more evident than in the context of Alpha Phi Alpha vis‐à‐vis how it reconciles itself with gay brothers.

Activist‐Mindedness: Brian Christens and colleagues research finds that the correlation between individuals’ self‐report of community and organizational participation with their actual participation in community activities, though positive, is not very strong.32 The study of social action is key in that community participation is a requisite for both capital formation and a functioning civil society. However, what has been found is that the measurement of such participation remains underdeveloped.33 Conceptualizations of community and public participation range from narrow definitions of behaviors (i.e. voting) to an “aggregation of related but questionably integral activities such as reading newspapers, informal conversations with neighbors, and memberships in voluntary associations.”34 Point being, participation in social and collective action is measurable and is required in order to determine how organizations, like Alpha Phi Alpha, are making their mark.

Katie Corcoran and colleagues find that the participation in high‐cost collective action is more likely for those who are both efficacious and perceive structural disadvantage as unjust.35 The concern for collective action stems from political participation and recent activism for the longstanding concerns about social inequality and injustice.36 Stemming from the relative deprivation theory, perceptions of structural disadvantage and injustice are predicted to lead to collective action when people view disadvantage as rooted in societal structures that are unjust. Further, the value‐expectancy theory (i.e. an individual’s belief that he can create change and achieve a valued outcome) proposes that one’s motivation to engage in collective action is the product of efficacy and the perceived value of the collective good.37 One possible reason for the mobilization around inequality/injustice in recent years is that there has been a convergence of an ever‐growing perception of injustice with a stronger sense that these injustices can be rectified through the use of high‐cost tactics.38 Within Alpha Phi Alpha, it begs the question: “What percentage of financially, active brothers hold views that make them likely to be engaged in social and collective action?” What may be troubling is that those numbers may be quite small.

In fact, at best what we may see within the Fraternity is a fairly large portion of financially, active brothers—at best—engaged in low‐ grade social activism on social media. For example, Jessica Vitak and colleagues studied the impact of political activities on Facebook on the 2008 U.S. presidential election.39 More specifically, they sought to determine if such social network site (“SNS”) politics had a substantial impact on the political behavior of young people, or if instead it only allowed such activists to feel good about themselves without truly creating a real‐world impact. The researchers identified three determining factors for political participation: psychological engagement, campaign recruitment, and access to resources. For the purposes of this study, they focused primarily on the access to and utilization of resources.40 What they found was that the relationship between young people’s political involvement and their use of social media is complex. The most common form of political participation tended to be informational and low in resource necessity. This finding supports the argument that young voters are becoming “slacktivists,” by participating in ways that allow them to feel good but have little or no substantial impact. However, an alternative explanation views SNS politics as form of “practice” for developing civic skills with minimal time and effort commitment. In this way, SNS politics increases political participation, rather than diminishes it, by providing young people with a highly accessible outlet for activism. Moreover, views of appropriate activity on Facebook are nuanced; participants tended to view self‐expression as appropriate but persuasion as inappropriate. This further supports the idea that Facebook provides an appropriate context for developing civic skills.41 The proverbial jury is still out on what such findings mean for the Fraternity.

Race Consciousness: For decades, psychologists and political scientists have researched the extent to which individuals identify with their own racial group and the influence that such identity has on political engagement. Donald Matthews and James Prothro examined the attitudes and behaviors of African Americans, as well as the reactions and attitudes of whites, in the Southern United States. In their assessment of the prerequisites of African American leadership, they identified “an interest in and identification with other members of the race.”42 Such racial “interest and identification” can more broadly be conceptualized in the context of group identity, racial identity, and race consciousness.43

Group identification is “an individual’s awareness of belonging to a certain group and having a psychological attachment to that group based on a perception of shared beliefs, feelings, interests, and ideas with other group members.”44 Group identity has further been framed within the context of social identity theory such that an individual’s identity is largely defined by group membership.45 In turn, racial identity is the “awareness of and identification with a racial group based on feelings of in‐group closeness.”46 Black racial identity is the extent to which blacks identify with blacks. Psychologist William Cross articulated a five‐stage theory of Black racial identification, called Nigrescence, which translates as: “the process of becoming Black.”47

The model progresses through the Pre‐encounter, Encounter, Immersion, Emersion, and Internalization stages.48 In the pre‐ encounter stage, the individual is unaware of his or her race and the social implications that come with racial categorization.49 In the encounter stage, the individual experiences a situation that suddenly and sharply raises race as an issue; it is generally an awakening to race consciousness. This encounter makes the individual open to a new, racialized worldview.50 In the immersion stage, the individual becomes consciously black, though this consciousness is often provincial where Blackness is oversimplified.51 The emersion stage is characterized by a growth from the oversimplified ideologies.52 During the internalization stage, an individual has internalized their blackness and no longer feels the need to “wear it on their sleeve.”53 In turn, they are comfortable rejoining society with a strong sense of their racial self to be able to forge relationships with members from other racial/ethnic groups.54 Not surprisingly, researchers have found that black racial identity predicts community outreach such that the pre‐encounter stage negatively (i.e., weaker racial identity), and the immersion‐emersion and internalization stages positively (i.e., stronger racial identity), predict community outreach among black college students.55

Moving beyond simply group and racial identity, race consciousness is the “willingness of an individual not only to identify with her racial group but also to work with the collective group.”56 Other scholars have defined it as “in‐group identification politicized by a set of ideological beliefs about one’s group’s social standing, as well as a view that collective action is the best means by which the group can improve in status and realize its interests.”57 Internal and external influences shape the ways in which an individual develops his or her racial identity, including social norms and social institutions. Group consciousness plays a pivotal role in racial uplift activism, as it is utilized to mobilize Blacks to confront racism and protect the interests of the community.58 Research has demonstrated that blacks’ race consciousness explains black political involvement in the 1960s and 1970s.59

The question for Alpha Phi Alpha is the extent to which its members’ racial identity and race consciousness advances the Fraternity’s racial uplift agenda. For example, participation in BGLOs has shaped the ways in which members progress through the racial identity development process. Shaun Harper and colleagues explored how Cross’ Nigrescence theory, and Parham and Helm’s theory of Blacks’ self‐actualization, highlight the importance of providing Black students with the space to conceptualize and experience blackness.60 Those who viewed their racial identity in favorable terms developed higher levels of self‐esteem and effectively achieved their academic goals.61 According to Harper and colleagues, BGLOs serve as an important vehicle for the exploration of racial identity, and they provide African American students with the opportunity to negotiate their understandings of race within a safe environment.62

Implicit, subconscious racial bias offers a counter‐narrative to research that suggests that BGLO members have stronger racial identities than African Americans who are non‐members. Expressions of implicit racial bias among BGLO members may go unrecognized by those possessing bias.63 According to measures like the Implicit Association Test (IAT), approximately seventy percent of whites in the United States maintain automatic, implicit anti‐black/pro‐white biases.64 Similar studies have established that fifty to sixty percent of blacks harbor similar biases, though less consistently than Whites.65 When BGLO members took the race IAT during one study, nearly twenty‐three percent reported implicit racial bias for Whites.66 When college‐age members were more closely scrutinized, forty percent demonstrated an implicit anti‐black/pro‐white bias.67 In contrast, no participant expressed an explicit preference for whites over blacks.68 This research suggests that implicit racial biases may undermine a significant portion of BGLO members’ race consciousness and, in turn, commitment to racial uplift activism. Clearly, this has implications for Alpha Phi Alpha.

Organizational Commitment: There is no guarantee that Alpha Phi Alpha brothers will remain financially and physically engaged in the Fraternity for life. For example, we know that the Fraternity hemorrhages almost 80% of financially active brothers within four years of initiation, 90% within ten years. Accordingly, at best—if every financially active brother was engaged in community uplift activity, that would be a paltry number. In fact, as organizational theorists suggest, “organizational effectiveness is multidimensional.”69 Although a solid infrastructure contributes to an organization’s success, effectiveness is not ensured by “organizational design alone… [M]embers of the organization [must] behave in a manner supportive of organizational goals.”70 Organizational effectiveness depends upon the willingness of its members to remain active and display “dependable role behavior, as prescribed by the organization, and spontaneous and innovative behavior which go beyond explicit behavioral prescriptions.”71 In sum, a committed member’s participation and production promote organizational effectiveness.

Within Alpha Phi Alpha, three problems seem to undermine the Fraternity’s racial uplift work. First, many, if not most, financially active brothers are disengaged from the external work of the Fraternity. Second, the masses of duly initiated brothers are not even active with the Fraternity such that Alpha Phi Alpha could nudge them toward this kind of work and community engagement. The Fraternity’s membership retention rates are abysmal, and there has not been a meaning, data‐driven approach to reclamation in years, if ever.

Ultimately, soaring rhetoric and even formalized mentoring, philanthropy, social action, and civic engagement activities likely will do little to allow the Fraternity to make the kind of community impact that it could make. Indeed, fundamental changes within the Fraternity likely need to be made for Alpha Phi Alpha to be what it once was if not better and more effective. As noted above, there are a range of significant issues that Alpha Phi Alpha needs to address in order to be the social change powerhouse it presents itself to the world as. These issues are not only multiple but likely interacting and complex. While not noted previously, take for example hazing. It is a problem that bogs‐down Board of Directors’ meetings, undermining more strategic thinking. It saps the Fraternity of financial resources. It imperils the Fraternity long‐term, fiscally. It likely drives some duly initiated brothers away from the Fraternity. As such, it also seems to be part of the reason why the Fraternity has a drain on its human, intellectual, and social capital needed to advance the Fraternity’s racial uplift mission.

Turning the corner on these issues is not easy. It would require Alpha Phi Alpha taking a drastically different approach to how it does almost everything it does. Members, in large numbers, could fight to bring about that change. However, they may not have an incentive or broader resources to bring about such a massive overhaul of Alpha Phi Alpha. What seem s to be true is that the elected leaders—the Board of Directors, especially the General President—would have to decide to bring about such a revolution. However, they may neither have the will or skill to do so.

Ultimately, the linchpin issue revolves around how the Fraternity and its members conceptualize leadership, particularly the General Presidency. In many respects, the Fraternity operates like a benevolent dictatorship—a theoretical form of government in which an authoritarian leader exercises absolute political power over the state but does so for the benefit of the population as a whole. Within a benevolent dictatorship, the benevolent dictator may allow for some democratic decision‐making, such as through elected representatives with limited power, and often makes preparations for a transition to genuine democracy during or after their term. Within such a regime, it might be seen as a republican form of enlightened despotism.

Within Alpha Phi Alpha, the General President holds a significant amount of quasi‐power. For example, the power is not enough to effectuate real change within the Fraternity around critical issues or to mobilize brothers. Rather, there is: (1) the power to preside—e.g., brothers standing when he walks in the room, the ability to silence brothers during business sessions when merely tired of hearing what brothers are saying; (2) the power to exercise control over Fraternity resources—e.g., dictate to some extent how money will be spent; and (3) the power to not be questioned by most brothers. Undoubtedly, the General President and his surrogates see this power as being for the greater good of the Fraternity and brotherhood. While there are other members of the Board of Directors, and the brothers can exercise authority through their delegates at the General Convention, to a large extent, both seem to acquiesce to the office of the General President. The former may do so in order to preserve that office’s power for the day when they run for and obtain that seat. The latter may acquiesce simply out of habit; they do not want to shift substantially from the status quo.

The point is not whether or not it is good or bad for the office of General President to have such tremendous authority. Rather, the point is that given that it is imbued with such, the realities of a bottom‐up change within the Fraternity are unlikely. Instead, if Alpha Phi Alpha is to move beyond rhetoric and fairly hollow initiatives and partnerships, it will need to elect transformational leaders—particularly General Presidents. Within the context of campaigns for Alpha Phi Alpha Board of Directors positions, the term “transformational leader” is thrown about without much thought as to what the term truly means. In the context of what the Fraternity needs with respect to fundamentally changing its course and trajectory with regard to racial uplift, for example, what seems to be required is something quite specific.

A transformational leader is one who projects idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration.72 Even more, such a leader must understand and capitalize on the randomness and seeming unpredictability of interactions within the system to create positive change.73 They must see the relationships between individual, interpersonal, and organizational dynamics within the Fraternity and how they impact Alpha Phi Alpha’s racial uplift work. Moreover, they must possess the ability to substantively address those multi‐leveled and often complex dynamics. For example, a General President who lacks a vision and strategy for addressing reclamation and retention will not be able to draw upon a large enough body of brothers to do the intellectual and physical work of racial uplift. In addition, a transformational leader would be able to innovate—to identify, recruit, and unleash the potential of highly innovative Fraternity brothers.74

The risk in a General President’s failure to be and do these things is that they may lose the credibility needed within the Fraternity to make their vision reality.75 In fact, a General President who is billed as transformational but who lacks the ability to augment the broader internal dynamics within the Fraternity that undermine its racial uplift work may get the applause when he enters a room. However, he may find that he cannot command the proverbial troops to bring about the types of societal changes he desires. Additionally, brothers may come  to see their ability to do effective racial uplift work through the Fraternity as limited not because the work is not valuable. Rather, they may not perceive the broader dynamics that impact Alpha Phi Alpha’s racial uplift work. Accordingly, such repeated failures may leave many brothers experiencing a sense of organizational learned helplessness.76 This in turn may lead to increased disengagement from racial uplift work on the part of an increasing number of brothers.

Ultimately, and in closing, two concepts may animate why Alpha Phi Alpha finds itself in a bind with regards to elevating truly transformational leaders who can help the Fraternity realize the vision of the Jewels in this day and in this age. The first is that within the Fraternity, leaders tend to be promoted to positions based on performance in their current role, rather than on abilities relevant to the intended role.77 For example, the Fraternity does not ask what a General President should be or offer to dramatically and positively shift the trajectory of Alpha Phi Alpha. Rather, it simply asks—at best— whether the candidates did a “good” job in their prior leadership posts. Even there, accomplishment is vague and measured at a low threshold—e.g., chapters in compliance, revenue raised from convention/conference, money given to March of Dimes. Ultimately, many General Presidents likely maintain the status quo simply because they do not know how to bring about change, and this impacts the Fraternity’s ability to do its racial uplift work.

Second, Board of Directors members—especially the General President—are individuals who rise through the ranks of leadership within Alpha Phi Alpha. In his research, Gautam Mukunda studied the extent to which leaders are and are not indispensable—to what extent they are one of a kind and ultimately transformational. What he found was that across a host of institutions, organizations, and countries, there are essentially two types of leaders. One type, he calls highly‐ filtered, rise through the ranks, holding numerous offices and titles. Some subset of these leaders, then compete for the top position. According to Mukunda, members of that institution or organization could almost select from this group of competitors randomly, because the competitors likely have the same vision and outlook for the institution. After all, they emerged from the same pool.78 Within Alpha Phi Alpha, for example, it should be no surprise that candidates for General President largely have the same platform—if they present one—and talking‐points. They emerge from the ranks of Chapter Presidents, Area Directors, District Directors, and Regional Vice Presidents. According to Mukunda, the second thing that is observed with such leaders is that they are adept at maintaining the status quo. This is because they have spent many years operating within the system and have thought little about or developed the skills needed to bring about dramatic and fundamental change within the institution.79

The other type of leader Mukunda identified in his research was the one who emerges from nowhere—the leader who did not rise through the ranks. He called this leader the unfiltered leader. If the filtered leader was in the middle of the leadership bell curve, the unfiltered leader was two standard deviations away. The unfiltered leader had not adopted the traditional ways of the institution. They could more easily innovate and think outside the proverbial  “box.” They were more risky leaders and not bound by orthodoxy. Two examples would likely be Barack Obama and Donald Trump. According to Makunda, there is no such thing as a perfect leader. Rather, an organization must ask itself what its needs are—status quo or change. Depending on its needs, a certain type of leader is best.80 However, within the Fraternity, we seem deeply committed to the same models of leadership that we have used for decades, if not generations.

Within Alpha Phi Alpha, the ways in which we must commit to and execute on community service, philanthropy, social action, shaping public policy, and even community organizing and mobilization turn on our ability to fundamentally address a broad set of complex dynamics within the Fraternity. “Sound and fury, signifying nothing,”81 will not suffice. Even new initiatives and partnerships will prove themselves to be anemic. Most crucial to our ability to turn a sharp corner on these issues is who we elect to lead us. The choices predict the outcome. Only time will tell if we as a brotherhood are willing to make different choices.

1.  DONATELLA DELLA PORTA & MARIO DIANI, SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: AN INTRODUCTION 150 (2d ed. 2006).

2 See generally, Herbert G. Blumer, Collective Behavior, in PRINCIPLES OF SOCIOLOGY 65‐ 121 (Alfred McClung Lee, ed., 1969).

3. JO FREEMAN & VICTORIA JOHNSON, WAVES OF PROTEST: SOCIAL MOVEMENTS SINCE THE

SIXTIES 302 (Jo Freeman & Victoria Johnson eds., 2d ed. 1999).

4 Id. at 146‐47.

5 Crystal Renee Chambers et al., Academic Achievement of African American Fraternities and Sororities, in AFRICAN AMERICAN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES: THE LEGACY AND THE

VISION 189, 198‐203 (Tamera L. Brown, G.S. Parks, 2d ed. 2012).

6 Id at 242.

7 Id.

8 Id. at 201.

9 Id.

10 PRUDENCE L. CARTER, KEEPIN’ IT REAL 137 (2005).

11 See id. at 50.

12 Id. at 29; Stephen B. Knouse et al., The Relation of College Internships, College Performance, and Subsequent Job Opportunity, 36 J. EMP’T COUNSELING 35 (1999); Cecil Douglas Johnson, In Search of Traditional and Contemporary Career Success: What’s an African American Male to Do? (Mar 26, 2001) (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation University of Georgia) (on file with author).

13 Mark 3: 25, THE BIBLE.

14 Michael J. Stern & Andrew S. Fullerton, The Network Structure of Local and Extra‐ Local Voluntary Participation: The Role of Core Social Networks, 90 SOC. SCI. Q. 553 (2009).

15 Reynaldo Anderson et al., Black Greek‐Letter Fraternities and Masculinities, in BLACK GREEK‐LETTER ORGANIZATIONS 2.0: NEW DIRECTIONS IN THE STUDY OF AFRICAN AMERICAN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 114, 120‐31 (M. W. Hughey & G. S. Parks eds., 2011);

Rashawn Ray et al., “Invictus” and “If—”: Meaning Making and the Shaping of a Collective Black Greek identity, in AFRICAN AMERICAN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES: THE LEGACY AND THE VISION 445, (Tamara L. Brown et al., eds., 2d ed. 2012).

16 Anderson et al., supra note 14, at 130; Lindsay H. Hoffman & Osei Appiah, Assessing Cultural and Contextual Components of Social Capital: Is Civil Engagement in Peril?, 19 HOW. J. COMM. 334, 334 (2008).

17 Anderson et al., supra note 15, at 130.

18 Cf. Matthew W. Hughey, “‘Cuz I’m Black and my Hat’s Real Low?”: A Critique of Black Greeks as “Educated Gangs,” in BLACK GREEK‐LETTER ORGANIZATIONS IN THE TWENTY‐FIRST CENTURY: OUR FIGHT HAS JUST BEGUN 385, 401‐02 (Gregory S. Parks ed., 2008).

19 Matthew W. Hughey, “I Did It for the Brotherhood”: Nonblack Members in Black Greek‐Letter Organizations, in BLACK GREEK‐LETTER ORGANIZATIONS IN THE TWENTY‐FIRST CENTURY: OUR FIGHT HAS JUST BEGUN 313, 318‐20 (Gregory S. Parks ed., 2008).

20 Id.

21 Cf. Kenneth I. Clarke Sr. & Tamara L. Brown, Faith and Fraternalism: A Doctrinal and Empirical Analysis, in BLACK GREEK‐LETTER ORGANIZATIONS 2.0: NEW DIRECTIONS IN THE STUDY OF AFRICAN AMERICAN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 69, 70‐71 (Matthew. W.

Hughey & Gregory. S. Parks eds., 2011).

22 See id.

23            See        Brother       P.,       Ex‐BGLO              Union’s           Weblog,          WORDPRESS.COM, http://exbglounion.wordpress.com/ (last updated Apr. 23, 2010).

24 RASHAWN RAY & KEVIN. W. SPRAGLING, Am I Not a Man and a Brother? Authenticating the Racial, Religious, and Masculine Dimensions of Brotherhood within Alpha, in ALPHA PHI ALPHA AND THE CRISIS OF ORGANIZATIONAL IDENTITY: A CASE STUDY WITHIN BLACK

GREEKDOM 207, 207 (Gregory Parks & Stefan Bradley eds., 2011).

25 Id. at 219.

26 ALAN D. DESANTIS & MARCUS. COLEMAN, Not on My Line: Attitudes about Homosexuality in Black Fraternities, in BLACK GREEK‐LETTER ORGANIZATIONS IN THE TWENTY‐FIRST CENTURY 291, 291 (Gregory S. Parks ed., 2008).

27 RAY & SPRAGLING, supra note 24, at 225.

28 DESANTIS & COLEMAN, supra note 26, at 308.

29 LYNN A. HAMPTON & EBONY M. DUNCAN, Identities and Inequalities: An Examination of the Role of Racial Identity in the Formation of Social Capital Inside a Voluntary Youth Organization, 17 SOC. IDENTITIES 477, 477 (2011).

30 Id. at 487.

31 See generally id.

32 See generally, Brian D. Christens et al., Assessing Community Participation: Comparing Self‐reported Participation Data with Organizational Attendance Records, 57 AM. J. COMMUNITY PSYCHOL. 415‐25 (2016).

33 Id.

34 See Id. at 416.

35 Katie E. Corcoran et al., Perceptions of Structural Injustice and Efficacy: Participation in Low/moderate/high‐cost Forms of Collective Action, 85 SOC. INQUIRY 429‐61 (2015).

36 See Id.

37 See Id.; Jennifer M. Peach et al., Recognizing Discrimination Explicitly while Denying it Implicitly: Implicit Social Identity Protection, 47 J. EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOL. 283‐92 (2011).

38 Id.

39 Jessica M.A. Vitak et al., It’s Complicated: Facebook Users’ Political Participation in  the 2008 Election, 14 CYBERPSYCHOLOGY, BEHAV., & SOCIAL NETWORKING 107‐14 (2011).

40 Id. at 107.

41 Id.

42 DONALD R. MATTHEWS & JAMES WARREN PROTHRO, THE NEGROES AND THE NEW SOUTHERN POLITICS 446 (1966).

43 Id.

44 Paula D. McClain et al., Group Membership, Group Identity, and Group Consciousness: Measures of Racial Identity Politics?, 12 ANNU. REV. POL. SCI. 471, 474 (2009).

45 Id. at 474.

46 Id. at 475.

47 WILLIAM E. CROSS, SHADES OF BLACK: DIVERSITY IN AFRICAN AMERICAN IDENTITY 157 (1991).

48 Id. at 158‐59.

49 Id. at 190‐91.

50 Id. at 159.

51 Id. at 159.

52 Id. at 207.

53 Id. at 210.

54 Id. at 212.

55 See Joe L. Lott, II, Racial Identity and Black Students’ Perceptions of Community Outreach: Implications for Bonding and Social Capital, 77 J. NEGRO EDUC. 3 (2008).

56 Jane Junn & Natalie Masuoka, Identities in Context: Politicized Racial Group Consciousness Among Asian American and Latino Youth, 12 APPLIED DEV. SCI. 93, 95 (2008).

57 McClain et al., supra note 252, at 476.

58 Junn & Masuoka, supra note 264, at 95.

59 McClain et al., supra note 252, at 478 (citing sources); see also Arthur H. Miller et al.,

Group Consciousness and Political Participation, 25 AM. J. POLI. SCI. 494, 503‐04 (1981).

60 Harper et al., supra note 215, at 135.

61 Id. at 136.

62 Id. at 137.

63 Shanette C. Porter & Gregory. S. Parks, The Realities and Consequences of Unconscious Anti‐Black Bias among BGLO Members, in BLACK GREEK‐LETTER ORGANIZATIONS 2.0: NEW DIRECTIONS IN THE STUDY OF AFRICAN 168 AMERICAN FRATERNITIES AND SORORITIES 162, 165 (Matthew W. Hughey & Gregory S. Parks eds., 2011).

64 Id. at 163.

65 Id. at 165.

66 Id. at 168.

67 Id.

68 Id.

69 Harold L. Angle & James L. Perry, An Empirical Assessment of Organizational Commitment and Organizational Effectiveness, 26 ADMIN. SCI. Q. 1, 2 (1981).

70 Id.

71 Id.

72 See generally, Bernard M. Bass, From Transactional to Transformational Leadership: Learning to Share the Vision, 18 ORG. DYNAMICS 19 (1990).

73 See generally, Peter Y.T. Sun & Marc H. Anderson, The Importance of Attributional Complexity for Transformational Leadership Studies, 49 J. MGMT. STUD. 1001 (2012).

74 See generally, Voyce Li et al., The Divergent Effects of Transformational Leadership on Individual and Team Innovation, 41 GROUP & ORG. MGMT. 66 (2916).

75 Philip Davies, The Cassandra Complex: How to Avoid Generating a Corporate Vision that No One Buys Into, in SUCCESS IN SIGHT: VISIONING 103‐23 (Andrew Kakabadse et al., 1998).