[15209] in APO-L
Re: Schroeder's Post
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karmic Debris)
Sun Nov 3 06:20:31 1996
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 05:18:52 -0500
Reply-To: Karmic Debris <mmccaffrey@DELTA.IS.TCU.EDU>
From: Karmic Debris <mmccaffrey@DELTA.IS.TCU.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <01IBAYDDZ6RM00DRLP@DELTA.IS.TCU.EDU>
As a current active and former Boy Scout, Order of the Arrow
-type person, I have a few comments in response to Mr. Schroeder's
posting regarding explanations of the 1994 Convention decisions about the
Boy Scouts (See, Gerry, lawyers don't have a lock on wordiness --
economics / recovering philosophers can do that quite well, too! :) )
In a nutshell, I did not like the changes to the Purpose of our
fraternity. Put bluntly, I think the new purpose sounds rather silly.
First of all, if BSA wants to keep themselves distant, perhaps they
should look at changing some of their own documents BEFORE asking us to
change ours.
My exposure to APO was in the Boy Scout Handbook. It was in a
section talking about organizations similar to the BSA one could join
after Boy Scouts. It had a paragraph on APO, saying it was a college
fraternity founded on the principles of BSA. I don't know, maybe BSA has
changed that and deleted the paragraph, but clean up your own house
before you clean your neighbor's.
Second, What is BSA worried about? Liability? Yeah, that's
always a worry in today's lawsuit-happy America. But, hey, let's see:
BSA (last I heard) discriminates against gays, atheists, and only in the
last ten years or so allowed women to join the Order of the Arrow (I had
the honor of knowing the the first woman inducted to Colonneh Lodge in
houston). By comparison, we are all-inclusive. Yes, we have some
chapters which are not co-ed, and some chapters which vote on pledges
(two practices with which I strongly disagree), but by comparison, we
make BSA look GOOD.
In addition, last I heard, BSA never actively defended its
liability lawsuits (although it fought for the "right" to push out gays,
women, and atheists). so why do they really care? again, this is just
giong on what old scoutmasters told me 6-7 years ago. If BSA has
dramatically changed, then my apologies, and I am glad to hear it.
Third, Why, SPECIFICALLY, does BSA object?????????
Ya know, I think that's the big question. If you want to
overturn the status quo, you have the burden of proof. PROVE to me APO
is hurting BSA's image. PROVE to me that the changes made have now,
suddenly "Fixed" all of that. I don't see any reasonable answer to
either question.
I have a very high regard for the PRINCIPLES of Boy Scouting, but
a fairly low one of its administration, again, based on what I hear and
see. The word TROUBLEMAKERS does come to mind.
Fourth, why should we apologize (and changing the purpose implies
it was wrong or imperfect before, and thus, an apology) for founding and
maintaining an organization separate from the Boy Scouts, yet based on
the same principles?? we shouldn't.
So, what did you change in 1994? I'm sitting here looking at my
old pledge manual and the new purpose. The only SUBSTANTIAL change
(ignoring things merely re-ordered) is the addition of the word "derived".
Now, instead of "assembl[ing] college students . . . IN THE
fellowship of the [B.S.A] as embodied in its Scout Oath and Law..." we
now have a heritage "DERIVED from the fellowship of the [B.S.A.] as
embodied in its Scout Oath and Law."
How is this really different??? Why would BSA insistent on such
a change? Is it not enough to have legal documents saying we are
separate from BSA???
You know, so long as we're going to placate BSA at the expense of
APO's integrity, let's do this: According to our national by-laws (as
amended 1994) a representative of the National council of the BSA sits on
APO National Board of Directors as a ex-officio member. Nix that seat.
Yes, eliminate that seat. They want to be separate, well, then
they have to give that up, too. Besides, in any real court case that
could conceivably come up implicating BSA as a result of possible APO
actions, the fact that a BSA representative sits on the governing board
will carry more weight than what the purpose says.
You want separate? Fine, Adios.
Sixth, so long as we've established that the change in the
purpose really didn't do anything substantial, we can change it back
because it sounded much better and made much more sense the way it was.
Currently, it reads that our purpose is to assemble students in the
fellowship of the principles of ourself. That is a circular definition.
Also, the purpose should be ONE sentence, so that it flows together. BUT
MORE IMPORTANTLY, it presents a UNIFIED statement of purpose, not: 'we
wanna do this.... and oh, yeah, this, ... and yeah, this too."
Here is my constructive suggestion: Make this the purpose:
"The purpose of this Fraternity shall be to assemble college
students in a National Service Fraternity in the fellowship of *
principles DERIVED FROM ** the Boy Scouts of America, as embodied in the
Scout Oath and Law; to develop Leadership, to promote Friendship, and
provide Service to humanity; and to further the freedom that is our
national, educational and intellectual heritage."
HERE'S WHAT I DID: I took the old (pre-1994 convention) Purpose
and inserted the words "DERIVED FROM," and omited the word "THE" in the
place of *, and the word "OF" in the place of **.
This is better than what we have now. It uses the word "derived"
which apparently made Gerry and BSA happy, and yet it is faithful to the
previous purpose.
HOWEVER, I wish to repeat: If BSA wants to be separate from us,
I want them of our Board of Directors.
SECOND, I think we deserve to hear WHY, SPECIFICALLY, BSA is so
unhappy. I'll keep my mind open, but right now, I cannot help but see
them as anything but just stirring up trouble.
Anyway, my apologies to Mr. Schroeder, for I fear I may have
offended him and others with my bluntness and harsh opinions. I know
that being National President cannot be an easy job and then even
afterwards, you have jerks like me ranting and raving. I meant none of
this personally, I just feel very strongly about this.
In Leadership, Friendship, and Service,
Mike McCaffrey,
GK-'93, Gamma Kappa President, Fall '96.
** My opinions are my own. Please do not assume that ANYONE else (in hte
known universe), including my chapter, advisors, RD, or my Cat, share my
views in any way. If you want to flog someone, flog me. **
