Musing on the MiAKA Men myth: Was the MiAKA lawsuit against AKA just an urban legend?

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share via Email
• Copy Link

  Link Copied

Any real evidence of MiAKA’s existence or the gender discrimination suit is scant. Speaking to radio personality Jacque Reid on the Tom Joyner Morning Show, alleged former MiAKA member Lewis White is the only person who has publicly commented about being in the group on the record. In his disjointed radio interview with Reid, White claims that the organization was not conceptualized to mimic AKA, and that it began with the purest intentions. His interview did little to illuminate what was real about the lawsuit and what was fabrication.

Sounding unsure of his words, White claimed on the air that MiAKA originated as the “Academia Society,” an organization committed to “community service.” He left the group when its priorities shifted, although what composed that shift was not made clear. White also claimed that he personally never consented to participate in a lawsuit; nor has he personally ever imitated the attire and symbolism of Alpha Kappa Alpha.

Then what made him a man interested in AKA? Even his open explanations confounded the search for truth.

RELATED: I’m black and gay and I’ll still eat at Chick-fil-A

TheGrio followed what additional clues were available in this puzzling scenario.We reached out to an alleged MiAKA member on Twitter named @I_Sustain_Klass, who did not respond to our interview request. He had come to our attention through his Twitter debate about the controversy, but — perhaps in response to too much outreach — he has since changed his Twitter handle from the aforementioned name to I_Sustain_Fame.

Certainly, if MiAKA men exist, they don’t want notoriety. They don’t want to pull back the veil of their organization. Then why stage a high-profile lawsuit?

Did MiAKA have a valid legal claim?

According to a statement posted by the North American Interfraternity Conference, single-sex fraternities and sororities not only develop the character of an individual, their existence is also protected under the law:

Fraternities and sororities have the right under the United States Constitution and civil rights laws to exist as single-gender organizations and to maintain that status, especially under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.  Further, Title IX of the Educational Amendment of 1972 provides that sexual discrimination shall not apply to membership practices of a social fraternity or social sorority that is exempt from taxation under section 501 of the IRS Code of 1954, the active membership of which consists primarily of students in attendance at an institution of higher education.

To protect the single-sex status of fraternities and sororities, at the annual National Panhellinic Conference in 2010, they prohibited sororities from participating in fraternity recruitment:

The NPC resolution states that one of the reasons sororities must refrain from supporting fraternity recruitment is so that sororities and fraternities can maintain their status as single-sex organizations. A 1972 amendment to the Civil Rights Act banned sexual discrimination in educational institutions, and sororities were only able to remain a single-sex organization by demonstrating that they do not rely on the presence of men, and vice versa.

“The presence, involvement and activity of sorority members at fraternity recruitment events greatly weakens our position and gives support to the argument that fraternal organizations do not need to remain single-sex groups,” the resolution details.

Yet, in an exclusive interview with theGrio.com, attorney Kia Baldwin Richardson, who practices criminal law in Louisiana, states that it may not be so clear-cut as that in terms of any claim by MiAKA men.

“Even though Alpha Kappa Alpha is a private organization that is probably not subject to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, the organization would be subject to the Interstate Commerce Clause of Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution,” Richardson told theGrio. “The Interstate Commerce Clause grants Congress the authority to regulate commerce among the several states. This clause was used repeatedly during the Civil Rights era to prohibit privately owned businesses and organizations from admitting and servicing African Americans. The rationale of the Supreme Court rulings during the time were that since these privately owned businesses relied on interstate commerce to survive (i.e. located on or near intertstates or received their goods from out of state, etc.) then their discriminatory practices could in fact be regulated.