[15523] in APO-L
No subject found in mail header
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Gerald A. Schroeder)
Tue Nov 12 21:59:35 1996
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 21:45:00 -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 really don't want to get into the middle, one side or the other, of the
debate about all-male chapters. That is a question for the voting
delegates in Phoenix to decide however they want.
Let me also say that I think, and hope, that my record on open membership
policies and diverse membership is well known and well documented. It
was a priority of my presidency.
That being said, I have always been troubled by the resolutions adopted
in 1976 and the thought that they could now be abrogated. Yes, I agree
with Bill Rugh that the Convention has the authority and right to do so,
but the question still remains whether that is the right thing to do.
Brothers can obviously legitimately and sincerely come down on either
side of that question. But, as Bill said, I think the reason for change
must be compelling (however you define that is up to you as an
individual).
But being a person troubled, but not driven, by the 1976 resolutions, my
concerns were heightened tonight by a post from a Brother who raised a
good and well intentioned point. That was that the "grandfather clause"
may have been necessary in 1976 but now is the time to change it.
I know it wasn't intended, but one reading of this point was that the
"clause" was necessary in 1976 to achieve passage of the proposal to
admit women as full, equal actives and that now it can be changed. My
questions are: (1) *if* that is true (and I suspect it was at the time)
is it fair, the objective now being achieved, that the "quid" for the
"pro" be rescinded from the "quid pro quo"?; (2) *if* the "quid pro quo"
had not been reached in 1976 would the convention, then all-male, have
voted the way it did?; (3) *if* not, would any convention since then,
without a similar understanding, have voted to admit women?; and *if* all
of these things are true, should Alpha Phi Omega now repudiate the very
compromise that allowed women to be admited in the first place?
Please understand that I mean these questions sincerely as one who
genuinely abhors discrimination on any basis but who is torn over a prior
promise/understanding/resolution -- whatever anyone wants to call it --
that allowed us to get "here" in the first place. I guess my "fairness"
issue just won't go away.
Bill's view that the reason for overturning such the 1976 resolution must
be compelling must be viewed, I think, in terms of the post I refer to.
Once again, I express no views on the answer to that question, but it's
one that I think we all must consider seriously. We may have ultimately
ended up at some future date exactly where we are now without any
"understanding" but history can't be rewritten -- we were able to get
there in 1976, and not some later, more uncertain date, because of the
"understanding." Does that, should that, be factored into the decision
that the voting delegates must make? I'm sure many of you will have
opinions and, as one person with the concern, I await your thoughts.
Jerry Schroeder
Immediate Past National President
Alpha Phi Omega
