[15443] in APO-L
Re: all-male chapters
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Grossi)
Mon Nov 11 08:43:49 1996
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 08:41:18 EST
Reply-To: John Grossi <jgrossi@MU.BBN.COM>
From: John Grossi <jgrossi@MU.BBN.COM>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
In-Reply-To: from "Randy Finder" at Nov 8, 96 1:28 pm
>
> On Fri, 8 Nov 1996, Michele Costabile Doney wrote:
>
> > Having said that, I'd like to request clarification on something. For a
> > chapter to be all male, would this status HAVE to have been in place BEFORE the
> > 1976 national convention? Are there any chapters which went all-male AFTER
> > this convention? If so, would the same right be afforded a group of women who
> > wanted to form a single-sex chapter? Are there any all-female chapters of APO?
> For a chapter to be all-male it has to have been continuously active and
> all-male since 1976. This has in fact changed since the original
> agreement, originially new chapters or reactivations of all-male
> chapters could be all-male. I don't believe there are any intentionally
> all-female chapters of APO, there are probably a few that currently don't
> have any males even though they have tried to recruit them.
There are chapters that are all-female through no fault of there own. (fact)
They want men, they just can't recruit them. (through no lack of trying on
there part) Now let's assume R-8 passes at this convention. It's targetted at
the all-male chapters. The thing is that these, all-female chapters will also
get caught in it. So R-7 and R-8 have a broader reach than there original
intention (of forcing the co-ed issue). Possibly I'm mis-interpreting something
but... I would say that possibly as much as 20% of our chapters could be nuked
under a broad interpretation of R-8.
-John
