(1 Pet. 3:15, Jude 3), I've made it my passion to take arguments and dismant...er..dissect...er...disembowel..er...a...dismember .... oops!!! I meant CAREFULLY analyze them and see if they are sound arguments or not. On this basis and with this mindset, I now go forth:

Problems with argument #1

Mid-80's? Only a neophyte or someone who hasn't studied greek letter organizations would be stupid enough to believe something like that. Even our immediate past Director of Publicity, Bro. Charles Talbert acknowledges that during the late 70's when he was just entering college (am I giving up too much on your age Charles? ), members of PBS were referring to each other as SIGMA.

Problems with argument#2

Argument #2 was presented in a very respectful fashion by a lady of Sigma Gamma Rho-
"Kerry;

no offense to you, but in defense of my soror, i know a lot of OLE SCHOOL Phi Beta Sigmas who have said that you were not using "Sigma" in 1914. According to them, you were previously using Phi Beta. Now, their information, AS WELL AS YOURS may be incorrect. But I will tell YOU and my soror, there is TRULY no need for the animosity. Once again, my last living founder refers to us as her SIGMA SORORS, and that's all i need to know that I AM A SIGMA!!!!!!!"

To her credit, I wish that all members of both sides could approach this issue in such an intelligent fashion.

Okay, the problems with this argument are simple (as I replied back to her on the subject)-I've learned that people tend to mangle history as they get more removed from the time period. Certain people's quotations in the organization carry more historical reliability than others: e.g.- a Founder, Charter Line member or member who existed during the early 30's, late 20's or had opportunity to meet with the one of the Founders or a reliable written tradition (e.g.- old magazines and publications of the organization) take precedence over an 'old school' brother as a reliable source of evidence. Old School, like many younger members who don't continuously refresh on the history of the organization, get things twisted after a while-many times by accident.

Problems with argument#3

See quote above. While a good observation and a good point, is it valid? History and tradition show that even older members of the organization will conform to new traditions established by younger members of the organization. A prime example is that pre-1980, almost NO organization had hand signs or calls, but if they did, the old ones have been replaced with new, more popular ones created by the younger generations of members. In cases such as these, older members conform themselves in an effort to create a common ground and identify with younger members. Times change, steps change, calls change, some traditions change. Unless it's reliably written down, don't trust it. And even it's written down, make sure it's a primary source document and not a secondary source document. An example of the two is as follows: Summarizations of early issues of the National Magazine of your organization by someone who read all of them is a secondary source document. Direct quotations and reprints of full articles from those same magazines is aprimary source document. Even better is if you can get the originals in your hand.

Similarly, a quote from a Founder about the early history of the organization can be considered a primary source of information while someone else chronicling the history of the organization can be considered a secondary source , since they would be recieving their information from (you guessed it) primary sources.

Problems with argument#4

Argument #4 was presented in this fashion on the NPHC list:
--> > I AM SORRY THAT YOU TAKE OFFENSE THAT MY SOROR CALLED THE MEN OF PHI
--> > BETA SIGMA: "PHI BETA" BUT THINK ABOUT IT, IF THEY REALIZED THAT SIGMA
--> > WAS SO INPORTANT AND PREDOMINENT WHY MAKE IT THE LAST PART OF YOUR
--> > ORGANIZATION. BACK IN 1914 THE MEN OF PHI BETA SIGMA SHOULD HAVE
--> > REALIZED WHAT WE KNEW SINCE OUR ORGANIZATION WAS FOUNDED THAT A TWO
--> > SYLLABLE WORD HAS MORE INPACT. SO HOW CAN YOU DECIDE DOWN THE ROAD
--> > THAT
--> > YOU WANT TO BE NAMED SIGMA. SO WITH THAT MUCH LOVE TO NPHC

(all the typos in here are from the actual e-mail of the individual ).

This is fun-E. Here's my reply.

We were referring to ourselves as Sigma long before your organization was
founded in 1922. Using your fractured logic, I could see where you'd come to
that conclusion about the names. Who the hell are you to determine what MY
organization deems important as far as the symbolism of our letters go?? We
have them the way we have them for a reason-and that reason is none of your
business. We've been Sigma since 1914 and will continue to be Sigma-PERIOD.
You want us to not refer to you as RHOS, then do not be just as ignorant and
refer to us as PHI BETAS. You want respect, give it equally. Frankly, I have
no problem calling women of Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority 'Sigma Women' to
differentiate between my brothers and your sorors. However it's people like
you who come up on the list spouting off nonsensical GIBBERISH BOVINE
SCATULATION that continue to cause drama on here.

You would be wise to follow the advice of some of your other sorors on here
who've already squashed the issue and grow up.

One of my frat brothers on the list had an EXCELLENT reply which I wish I'd have saved, but alas, I'll have to reconstruct one based on what he said: When our beloved Founders picked out the letters to represent our organization, they were picked out for meaning and the order they were placed in was done so for a particular meaning. This information, however, is esoteric and is not to be discussed in public, but only amongst members of Sigma. Why we place emphasis on a particular letter or letters is our business. Why we refer to ourselves as members of Sigma is personal.

After I sent this message, a member of another NPHC Fraternity e-mailed me privately afterward:

What's up Brother Sigma, I am Alpha and I agree with you all
the way. Hey I don't know what goes through peoples' minds when they say
certain things, but I hate the fact that people don't have enough respect
for others to give as they want. Meaning if you want respect in a certain
matter you need to do the same. A lot of people do the talk and never walk
the walk.

You know Brother, I wonder the same thing sometimes.

All four of the arguments presented seem to be quite flawed. I submit, in response (counter-argument), historical documentation of the use of the name SIGMA in reference to the MEN OF PHI BETA SIGMA prior to the 1980's and retroactive to the year 1914.

According to the argument above, members of Phi Beta Sigma did not refer to themselves as SIGMAS until the mid-1980's. To this, we have two solid pieces of evidence to refute this claim.

First among them are historical references. Simply digging into previous editions of the Crescent and the Archon , I managed to find several references which referred to members of Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity as SIGMAS. These documents serve as primary source information- they were in print and accepted as authentic at the time of their publication and are valid as a means for assessing what Sigmas and those outside of Sigma referred to members of my organization as during various time periods throughout history.I submit for your review:

• Most Honorable Deceased Founder Soror Arizona Stemons is quoted from the 35th Anniversary Edition of the Archon (October-December 1955 ) while giving a historical account of Zeta's beginning as saying the following -"Permission was secured from the authorities of the University to have another sorority on the campus, and a Zeta Constitution was formulated, based upon Sigma's Constitution." Whoa!! she called us Sigmas!! :) that's 1955.
  
  
• Same issue, same Soror, same article, different page: " Our first joint Sigma Conclave-Zeta Boulé was held in Washington, D.C. in December 1920. "
  
  
• For those of you ever blessed enough to attend an Orchid Ball held by the men of Phi Beta Sigma, you've seen one of our traditions (namely when we march in). The Men Of Sigma, March On, the song we sing during this time, was copyrighted in 1950. Historical reference- Men of SIGMA. Year, 1950.
  
  
• The Crescent, Spring 1949 (35th Anniversary Edition), Most Honorable and Noble Deceased Founder Rev. Dr. Leonard F. Morse, in an article on the early years of our beloved Fraternity, says "During the scholastic year that Sigma was born, Brother Taylor was my roommate, affording me an opportunity to learn intimately his every mood." Okay, that's a FOUNDER calling us Sigma. ---Year- 1949. He also continuously refers to us as SIGMA no less than FOURTEEN times throughout the remainder of the article.
  
  
• Need another Founder? Same issue (SP49) of the Crescent, Most Honorable and Noble Deceased Founder A. Langston Taylor in his account of the earlier days of the Organization, states at the start of one paragraph: "Sigma moved rapidly to the front in student activities and in the life of the city . " Another 1949 quote.
  
  
• Twin themes of the March 1935 issue of the Crescent-"Twenty years of Sigma" and "Toward Social Action". 1935 reference.
  
  
• In the same article (SP49 35th Anniversary Edition of the Crescent), Founder Taylor recalls the year of 1917 and the closing words of Bro. W. F. Vincent before his death in 1917 as the two parted ways: "Taylor, carry on for Sigma until we meet again." That's a 1917 quote from a member initiated by a Founder.

Secondly, the most compelling of these is found in our beloved Fraternity Hymn. While I am not at liberty to post our entire hymn on the web (and would not anyways, because everyone doesn't need to know it), I will post the portion of the verse which is quite significant to our argument here:

"And When we hear from time to time, 'Oh SIGMA, what of the day?"

Our hymn was written in the year 1915.
Last time I did the math, 1915 did come before 1922.

A third and less popular argument is simply that members of Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority do not UNIVERSALLY refer to themselves as 'Sigmas' everywhere. I give as a prime example, the stepteam that performed on STOMP 95 - the name of the team? the WEST COAST RHOS . The tape is available if you need it.

While there exists many flaws with this last argument, it does go a long way in proving my point.

Evidence examined, we've been calling ourselves Sigmas since at LEAST 1915 (according to the documents listed above). And even if we were calling ourselves PHI BETAS back in 1914 (which I'm not denying, since even one of latest issues of the Crescent refers to one Bro. from one chapter as 'A Phenomenal Phi Beta') and NOT Sigmas, 1915 still comes before 1915 and 1917 show that members primarily involved in the earliest history of our organization made claim to the name prior to 1922.

So what does this prove? That we're capable of causing drama over the use of a name? GROW UP!!!!! It's a damn shame that I had to almost CUSS one person out over the list who took time to present the fourth argument on the list just to try to make herself feel good about her silly little point.

Per my understanding and at the request of many of it's members on the NPHC list, members of Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority do not mind being referred to as SGRhos, Sigma Women and ladies of Sigma Gamma Rho. Bruhs, even though it's funny, don't call them Rhos unless that's what they refer to themselves as (e.g. the stepteam mentioned earlier for example). And don't call them GAMMA RHOS, since their organization is a three letter organization, not two, and you'd like them to refer to all three letters of our organization, not just two. But by the same token, for all you ladies of SGRho reading this, stop disrespecting my brothers . You want respect, give it equally .

As one person on the NPHC list took the time to explain (since her husband is frat), Phi Beta is an internal designation used by members of PBS to refer to each other - INTERNALLY. It's akin to walking up to a Kappa and calling him a NUPE- that's something personal and for members of the organization only and not designed for general public use. It's disrespectful.

Phi Beta is also the designation of the family of BLUE AND WHITE---- whether it's Sigma or Zeta it's all PHI BETA. Last time I checked, your colors were Blue and Gold. Again, Phi Beta is a designation (in this case) for members of the Blue and White family to be used internally and in reference to each other. Respect.

Do not take this article as an attempt to stir up controversy. Take it as a final word on the subject from one who has taken time to research the truth instead of going on hearsay and also as one who has had it up to his NECK with the stupid things we cause drama over. There are more important things to be discussing than the use of one letter to refer to yourselves.

I suggest one of your existing members consult your early written and printed historical documents and see if you've always called yourselves 'Sigmas' - as stated earlier, your claim may be a new trend within your organization which your beloved founder only decided to follow along with because of its popularity among the majority membership. It may have been a regional tradition which developed into a national tradition due to its popularity. By the same token, and by coincidence, you may just have been calling yourselves SIGMAs since 1922. No problem with me in either direction. I've proved my point. But do your research properly before speaking on things which you know nothing of.

Like I've told many in various greek letter organizations including my own Phi Beta family- if you'd invest half the time and energy you use to argue over something stupid into some community service projects, Black Greekdom would be in a helluvalotta betta state than it is today.