says (in his now-deleted first writeup about the origin of an organization called "Direct Action against Homophobia"): "Hence, the queers decided to split their organization into mouthpiece and action arm, as to divert the press pressure. This new organization would obviously disavow any association with the LGBTQ, even though it was their mother organization."
Did it ever occur to you that these organizations might have split off because they actually disagree? I know that in my reading on radical groups, I've seen many examples of splintering because of different views on tactics, or even what their major aim is. (As far back as the American Woman Suffrage Association and the competing National Woman Suffrage Association in the early 1900s.) I admit I have no idea what campus politics are like at your school, but it is quite possible that one group is more relatively mainstream and one is the "By any means necessary" viewpoint. Wait and see if the new group has siphoned off the agressive people from the older organization -- I think that's more likely than that they chose on purpose to divide their strength, or make people have more than one set of meetings to attend.
(Not that I agree with Dman that the existence of either of these groups is automatically a bad thing; merely that I think he is attributing this split to evil plotting, where the much simpler human tendency to disagree would suffice.)
Response to DMan's response: Take your word for it? Even if I were at Cornell I'd want more proof
than the unsupported say-so of someone who is blatantly against the existence of either group. I don't hold any belief on the pure words of a single person.