Welcome to The EDU Ledger.com! We’ve moved from Diverse.
Welcome to The EDU Ledger! We’ve moved from Diverse: Issues In Higher Education.

Create a free The EDU Ledger account to continue reading. Already have an account? Enter your email to access the article.

AKA Lawsuit Reveals Longtime Internal Conflicts

For an organization with a code of silence rivaled only by police departments, a 38-page lawsuit filed by eight members of Alpha Kappa Alpha sorority against its president and board of directors is unusual enough.

But add public allegations of misuse of funds for lingerie and jewelry and top it off with the creation of a wax sculpture in the president’s likeness paid for by sorority members – during a recession – and you have the makings of an international news story and fodder for gossip blogs.

From the U.S. to Great Britain and India, media outlets and blogs have reported the conflict, mainly about the statue that is on display in the National Great Blacks in Wax Museum in Baltimore. The lawsuit claims, among other things, the wax replica of AKA president Barbara McKinzie cost $900,000, a much-disputed figure.

As plaintiffs and their attorneys prepare to hold a meeting in Philadelphia next week to give members an update on the case, an examination of the various letters and court documents reveal a conflict between McKinzie and other members over finances and rules going back years before her election as president. The lawsuit filed in June is just the latest in a series of legal clashes between McKinzie and some of the members.

The dispute is chronicled in court papers and on the Friends of the Weeping Ivy Web site, which has become a vehicle for interested members to discuss and provide financial support to the lawsuit. There, plaintiffs have announced an August 22 meeting, not sanctioned by the sorority, in Philadelphia where attorneys and plaintiffs in the lawsuit plan to answer questions about the case.

Plaintiffs contend that McKinzie has run up nearly $400,000 in personal expenses since her induction in 2006 —  in addition to her $250,000 salary — and that she is slated to receive a $192,000 pension over four years after her term ends in 2010. All of these expenditures, according to the lawsuit, had the board’s approval but were not brought before the membership. And that’s just the tip of this messy iceberg.

McKinzie shot off a response to the media saying she was being targeted because she has attempted to “professionalize” the organization.