[15543] in APO-L
Written resolution from 1976
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Leahy)
Wed Nov 13 12:36:19 1996
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 03:31:49 -0500
Reply-To: Michael Leahy <Michael.Leahy@VT.EDU>
From: Michael Leahy <Michael.Leahy@VT.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <199611130340.WAA13240@ipe.cc.vt.edu>
>> Lee Correll wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> #2. The "Gentlemen's Agreement" in 1976 was not written down to the best
>> of my knowledge; there seems to be no written record of the agreement. I
>> have heard individuals say that it passed in the form of a resolution; the
>> T&T record of the convention actions does not sustain that statement. As
>> the National Office no longer has offical minutes of that Convention, any
>> documentation which could be produced would be subject to scrutiny as it
>> would serve as a precedent which could then be addressed.
>
>If you read my post of Monday, I quoted T&T:
>
>"Nothing in the National By-Laws or Articles of Incorporation shall be
>construed to require any chapter to accept any student as a pledge or
>active member of its chapter." (T&T, Vol 52, No 3, pg 8)
>
>Please note that this page was a list of RESOLUTIONS PASSED at the
>Convention. Note that there was no time limit set at that time - nor
>was one discussed on the floor (individuals may have talked about a time
>limit privately however). Certainly the all-male chapters were given to
>understand there was no time limit (all part of the quid pro ...).
>
>Just trying to keep to keep the facts straight.
>
>Bill Rugh
Bill,
Thank you for researching the documentation and finding a resolution
pertaining to this issue.
I have several comments to make on this resolution; I will argue that
either this resolution nullifies any and all policies APO has concerning
open membership, or that the resolution, when modified or superseded by
later convention actions, no longer supports the ability of any chapter to
discriminate.
1) In my opinion, this T&T resolution isn't the Gentlemen's Agreement that
everyone has been looking for. On the one hand, it's not hard to infer the
ability to "discriminate against women" / "accept only males" from it.
On the other hand, however, I've always understood that there was a
limiting clause on the Agreement. I understood that it pertained to the
all male chapters at coed campuses as of the 1976 Convention, and that it
did not apply to chapters chartered after the convention, nor to chapters
once they had admitted females. I cannot infer that limiting phrasing from
this resolution.
2) I may be making a simplistic reading of this resolution, but it seems to
negate the entire concept of the "Open Membership Policy". It basically
says "even though Alpha Phi Omega National Service Fraternity has taken a
stand not to discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, course of
study or other fraternal affiliation, individual chapters are not bound by
these policies."
3) Hmmm... maybe this resolution explains the relationship between the
"Open Membership Policy" and the "Right of Chapter Selection". The Open
Membership Policy says "chapters can admit whomever they want" and this
resolution implies the Right of Chapter Selection says "chapters can
exclude whomever they want."
4) If this resolution in T&T is the enabling resolution that put the
Gentlemen's Agreement into affect, then it, like any resolution of the
National Convention, would be superseded or modified by later resolutions
which addressed the same topics.
Are there any readily available documents which apply? There are numerous
bylaws and policies which mention Open Membership and the phraseology
"chapters can choose their own membership" together, but only one policy
which does not. The National Membership Policy III(C) explains what
membership requirements chapters can adopt. The policy states:
"Chapter membership requirements may be adopted that are not in conflict
with state and local law, the National Bylaws and Standard Chapter
Articles
of Association of Alpha Phi Omega, or the rules and regulations of the
school which the chapter is located; and that conform with the philosophy
and policy of Alpha Phi Omega as outlined in the National Pledging
Standards."
Logically, there are three ways that these two policies can interact:
a) the T&T resolution negates NMP III(C). If so, NMP III(C) would have
been deleted as a Membership Policy. Since it hasn't been deleted, the
resolution didn't negate this policy.
b) NMP III(C) negated the T&T resolution. It's possible... one of them
still exists as an policy actively distributed to chapters, the other one
has been all but forgotten as a written policy.
c) NMP III(C) and the T&T resolution complement each other and work
together. Let's examine this possibility.
Together, the two policies (both adopted by conventions) state that
although chapters are not required to accept any particular student as a
pledge or brother, chapter membership requirements cannot "conflict with
state and local law, the National Bylaws and Standard Chapter Articles of
Association of Alpha Phi Omega, or the rules and regulations of the school
which the chapter is located."
In addition, this policy states that all chapter membership requirements
must "conform with the philosophy and policy of Alpha Phi Omega as outlined
in the National Pledging Standards." NPS #1 states:
"The general objectives of pledging. An appropriate period of pledging
consists of a well-rounded program of opportunities in leadership,
friendship and service. The program is in conformity with the National
Bylaws, Standard Chapters Articles of Association, State and Federal Laws
and campus regulations. The purpose of the program is to identify
students
who will embrace and make a lifetime commitment to the principles of
Alpha Phi Omega and to prepare those students for active membership.
Rationale: This is the overall purpose of pledging and reflects the legal
obligation of all members of Alpha Phi Omega."
In my opinion, this Pledging Standard states that as "members of Alpha Phi
Omega," we have a "legal obligation" "to identify students who will embrace
and make a lifetime commitment to the principles of Alpha Phi Omega and to
prepare those students for active membership."
Are we fulfilling our "legal obligation" if we divide the campus into large
groups and say to some groups "Sorry, since you're in this group, we know
beforehand that you're unable to embrace and make a lifetime commitment to
the principles of APO. Therefore, we don't have to consider you for
membership"?
In this message, I have tried to show two mutually exclusive outcomes:
1) The T&T resolution mentioned above makes a mockery of the concept of
Open Membership. This resolution removes any ability of the National
Fraternity to prohibit discrimination of any kind by chapters.
2) The T&T resolution has either been superseded by other resolutions so
that it is no longer in force, or it works in conjunction with other
resolutions such that chapters cannot adopt membership requirements which
conflict with existing national bylaws and policies. In either of these
two cases, legislation already exists which prohibits discrimination by
chapters and renders the Gentlemen's Agreement null and void.
Which outcome do you think the Fraternity should choose?
If you want to look up these policies yourself, but don't have a copy of
the National Bylaws or the National Membership Policies, Fuzz keeps a set
on his web pages:
National Documents (master URL):
http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~hochstrd/aphio/about/documents.html
National Bylaws:
http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~hochstrd/aphio/about/bylaws/bylaws.html
Membership Policies:
http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~hochstrd/aphio/about/pledge/membership.policies.html
National Pledging Standards:
http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~hochstrd/aphio/about/pledge/pledging.standards.html
Thank you for your time and attention,
--Michael
Michael Leahy michael.leahy@vt.edu
Zeta Beta Advisor
Former Chair of Former Section 82 home 540-951-4945
P. O. Box 11765 office 540-231-3272
Blacksburg, Virginia 24062-1765 fax 540-231-5922
The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in
moments of comfort and convenience but where he stands at
times of challenge and controversy. --Martin Luther King Jr.
