[15357] in APO-L
Re: As an Eagle must fly, so must we.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert L. Dean)
Fri Nov 8 10:38:50 1996
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 08:57:49 -0600
Reply-To: "Robert L. Dean" <rdean@RS6000.CMP.ILSTU.EDU>
From: "Robert L. Dean" <rdean@RS6000.CMP.ILSTU.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
>Many chapters run all male. How would chapters exist if nationals kept
>telling you what you should and couldn't do. Who should be in the
>fraternity and how the chapter should be run and should be included.
>Would APO be the same place if all chapters were the same and needed to
>have the same demograpics?
This brings to light an interesting point in my mind (or at least it
triggered one). While we are a National Fraternity, with National ties,
the operating policies of the National Fraternity have generally given the
Chapters a great deal of platitude in determining their membership
(although it must be open to any undergrad who fulfills the membership
requirements, which *should* be objective), and their service program.
But Alpha Phi Omega is not the sole governing body that controls a
chapter's policies. Alpha Phi Omega, as a National Organization, made an
agreement with the all-male chapters that they would be allowed to remain
all-male in exchange for their support of the resolution making the
Fraternity co-ed, and so should not be the governing body that forces any
chapter to go co-ed. If you want them to go co-ed, talk to either the
federal government, filing a Title IX claim (the text of Title IX is
something I've never seen), or the college's administration. If they're
okay with those chapters remaining all-male, then the Fraternity should be,
too.
On principle, I agree that we shouldn't have all-male chapters, but this
agreement should remain binding to our actions, lest any other agreements
reached by the Fraternity be subject to similar chucking.
LFS,
Robert
