[15539] in APO-L
Re: all-male chapters
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Grossi)
Wed Nov 13 12:29:38 1996
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 08:42:10 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: <Pine.GSO.3.95.961113000309.11819I-100000@tavarua>; from "Lee
Correll" at Nov 13, 96 12:06 (midnight)
> I'd say that was a misinterpretation; it's very clear that the published
> membership policies say that we are open to all students, and those
> chapters are open to all students. The door is open; it's just that
> nobody is walking in.
>
> R-5 through R-8 were all specifically worded to try and address the
> all-male chapters, recognizing exceptions and unusual circumstances. No
> alarm need be raised for the rest of the Fraternity.
My problems with your [vague] resolutions:
R-5
1) As Bill Rugh has told us the Gentleman's Agreement exists (I've checked
Bill's citation) so it's only preceived because you can't check the citation.
(or choose not to)
2) The National Convention is bound by past resolutions until such time
as it passes something contrary.
R-6
1) The rationale attached to the bottom of this ammendment reads like it
should be attached to the previous one.
R-7
1) There are several places in the membership policies that state that a
chapter has the right to choose it's membership (i.e. not admit women if they
choose not to). If you want to enforce the membership policies you have to make
them consistent. So continue reading into the next sentence beyond the one you
want to try to enforce...
and then go back into the bylaws and change those too... as they have similar
lines in them (see Fuzz's post of a few days ago...)
2) You can't prove that a chapter is not in compliance. They can try and
get women and not succeed. You can also use this resolution to hang just about
any chapter for not admitting ANY minority. (whether or not they have an open
door, as that's impossible to prove). From what your saying it's also different
treatment if it's women lacking men than the reverse.
3) Disallowing agreements between the fraternity and any other entity
precludes these chapters working on the issue with staff help. Why do I say
this? Consider this scenario...
Chapter A is all-male. They are forced to go co-ed. They make a plan
to do so with staff help. They then make the neccessary steps to go
co-ed and fail. There staff agrees that they've attempted to go co-ed
in good faith. Then they show up at convention and your resolution
deprives them of voting rights because there AAMD's don't suit your
standards. And all the work they've done with staff is un-admissable
evidence as it's not written down...
call me an alarmist...
R-8
1) The bylaws do not provide the power to recommend revokation of charters
to the National Spirits and Standards Committee. So technically this resolution
is out of order. (but we'll proceed under the assumption that no one will
challenge the fact that the resolution is in disagreement with the bylaws and the
policies it's attempting to enforce)
2) see above my worries about having to have EVERYTHING written down.
3) The mechanisms are already in place to enforce the fraternities
membership policies, the board just has to choose to use them. So if you've
got a problem with a chapter (like your one remaining all-male) submit a
resolution to nuke them at the next board meeting... you've got the power.
-John Grossi
Section 94 Chair
These are only my opinions as a brother not as staff...
