| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 10:37:13 -0800 Reply-To: Yvonne-Marie Dutreaux <dutreaux@NTTAM.COM> From: Yvonne-Marie Dutreaux <dutreaux@NTTAM.COM> To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L%PURCCVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu> Brother Hillis I would like to put in my 2=A2. I am a brother who has never had a problem with "men of" and who will not have a problem if a vote at a National Convention decides that it should be "true to". I have looked at both sides and see the merit in both arguments. What I do have a problem with is this statement used to support your argumen= t: "And I think that some statute of limitation has past on a promise made almost 20 years ago." No I do not think there is a stute of limitations on a promise we as a fraternity made to our members. I find it difficult to understand how some(not all, and certainly not the majority) of those who promote the "true to" ammendment on the grounds that it would promote unity, can in almost the same breath use such devisive arguments. The issue of the wording of the toast song is wholly and completely seperate from the promise made in 1976 to those chapters which wished to maintain an all-male tradition. If we must begin a new round of discussions on the whole toast song issue, lets at least keep the arguments relevant. Yvonne-Marie Dutreaux Alumna at Large Ren=E9 Garcia Pledge Class Alpha Alpha Xi University of the Pacific Theta Chi George Washington University Memeber of the Alphalpha patch dutreaux@nttam.com
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |