[15476] in APO-L
Promises and other things...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Elliot Echlov)
Mon Nov 11 22:10:18 1996
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 1996 22:07:24 -0500
Reply-To: Elliot Echlov <cfknights@INFOAVE.NET>
From: Elliot Echlov <cfknights@INFOAVE.NET>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
> If allmale chapters go coed, they will inevitably change. If they change,
that will
> make several brothers quit. If several brothers quit, it will harm the
brotherhood
Rebuttal:
1. Such a change opens up Alpha Phi Omega to a segment of the student
population that did not have the opportunity before.
2. Some of these students may bring new ideas/energy to the chapter that
will be beneficial.
3. Some of them may turn out to be better leaders than the ones that
preceded them.
4. It would be likely that a percentage of those brothers that do quit will
later return. One chapter that went from all-male to co-ed lost half the
chapter due to hard feelings and "politics". Within two semesters nearly
all had returned to active status, and most of the ones that didn't had
graduated in the interim. The ones who returned did so "to a man" for the
same reason: They missed the brotherhood, camraderie, and opportunities to
do service. They all found these still existed just as strongly in their
"changed" chapter.
Support:
1. If you believe, as I do, that our word is our bond, then let the
all-male chapters determine for themselves what status they wish to be.
2. The age of the agreement does not matter. Whether or not the agreement
still has validity is the issue. Since the all-male chapters that exist
today do so under the same university regulations and state/federal laws
that governed this particular status in 1976, the agreement is valid.
3. Within the framework of state/federal law, university regulations, and
National By-Laws and the Standard Chapter Articles of Association, each
chapter has the right to determine its own membership. If the fraternity in
1976 gave its blessing to those chapters (active at that time) that wished
to remain all-male, then a better argument must be made than what has been
seen here thus far. Frankly, the points raised on both sides are likely the
same as those raised in 1976....
4. The nature of the decision to change from all-male to co-ed is often
traumatic to the chapter, regardless of how that decision turns out. While
I have no knowledge of this occurring, I would be willing to bet there was
at least one chapter that made this decision only to end up folding shortly
thereafter.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
>As a non-profit organization, why isn't the disclaimer that says something
to the >effect of "We do not discriminate based upon gender, creed, race,
physical >abilities..."
While I don't know the exact reason, I would venture to guess it is because
different states and universities have varying requirements of what must be
"listed". I had proposed an amendment to my chapter's Articles of
Association a few years ago that would have said membership "...is open to
all students", but withdrew it after finding out there was a
non-discrimination statement required of all student organizations on
campus, no exceptions.
2
E
