[15293] in APO-L
Re: As an Eagle must fly, so must we. (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gerald A. Schroeder)
Wed Nov 6 19:47:33 1996
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 19:48:36 -0500
Reply-To: "Gerald A. Schroeder" <gschroed@CAPACCESS.ORG>
From: "Gerald A. Schroeder" <gschroed@CAPACCESS.ORG>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
I responded privately to an earlier post regarding whether our all-male
chapters were currently in violation of APO's open membership policies.
Wtih apologies to the private recipient, I have decided to share my post
with the entire list given the many other responses I have now seen.
I want to be very clear that, however one feels about this issue, it is
absolutely incorrect to conclude that our all-male chapters are in
violation of the bylaws or that the Fraternity is somehow condoning
actions that are in violation of our bylaws. Everyone at the time
understood exactly what was being done and what was not. Legislative
history is extremely important at times, and this is a case in point.
Even if what I said in Boston was wrong (and I don't believe that to be
the case because I understood the intent of the amendment), our all-male
chapters were not wrong to rely upon my word and that of others.
So, discuss the issue if you wish but let's end any accusations of
violating national bylaws. Many thanks.
Jerry Schroeder
Immediate Past National President
Alpha Phi Omega
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 19:30:50 -0500 (EST)
From: Gerald A. Schroeder <gschroed@CapAccess.org>
To: High Lord of Chaos <hawkeye@ECST.CSUCHICO.EDU>
Subject: Re: As an Eagle must fly, so must we.
I have no problem with your post and really don't want to become involved
in the discussion, pro or con. I'll let the actives do that.
But, you were wrong on one point. You said that the all-male chapters
were in violation of the open membership provision of our bylaws. I
don't believe that to be true. When that provision was under
consideration by the Convention in Boston (1992), the all-male chapters
asked about the effect adoption would have on their status. As the
Convention Chair and National President, I answered that there would be
no effect given the 1976 understanding and because the purpose of the
amendment was to address, in a low key way, other membership issues, such
as sexual orientation. The all-male chapters relied upon that
representation, and some even voted for the change.
So, the Convention can do what is wants on this question. But it should
not be said that the all-male chapters are *presently* in violation of
our bylaws. If they are, I and many others lied to them in 1992 and,
while I will plead guilty to many things, lying is not one of them!
Thanks for listening.
Jerry Schroeder
Immediate Past National President
Alpha Phi Omega
