[15525] in APO-L
I know you're tired of the all-male thing; this has some other
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lee Correll)
Tue Nov 12 22:28:57 1996
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 22:29:51 -0500
Reply-To: Lee Correll <rec700z@MAIL.ODU.EDU>
From: Lee Correll <rec700z@MAIL.ODU.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <199611130302.WAA16312@tahiti.cc.odu.edu>
On Tue, 12 Nov 1996, Gerald A. Schroeder wrote:
> 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).
I'd like to note that during my discussions with another former National
President (who is email-impaired) that this was reiterated; however, a
point that was raised that I was unaware of was that this was not intended
as a long-term solution. The "Gentlemen's Agreement" was expected to
solve the problem in the short term and that all chapters would be
coeducational in a short period of time. Indeed, there was a committee
established several years after the 1976 Convention whose function it was
to discuss and plan complete female integration (several current Board
members were on that committee) because that was the original intent. I
have requested a copy of that committee report, but the National Office no
longer has a copy of the document. I would invite those members on the
Board to comment on that report - but I will not name them, they can
identify themselves if they so wish.
Is twenty years a compelling reason to change? By itself, probably not.
In conjunction with the variety of other reasons? I believe so. But if
not, we absolutely should discuss the issue itself at the Convention -
this was part of the reason that conflicting motions were presented, so
that hopefully one of them would make it to the floor. After 20 years, we
should at least make a statement supporting or denying the action.
I suspect that the lawyers will have problems with the wording - motions
supporting an unwritten agreement which is not universally interpreted
consistently are unwise. That's fine - resolutions, such as those
presented are completely modifiable on the convention floor. Let the
lawyers go at it - BUT DON'T LET THEM MAKE THE DECISION FOR YOU OR YOUR
CHAPTER.
Lee Correll *
* Sorry, no .sig file yet...
Region III Director *
lcorrell@capaccess.org *
