[15548] in APO-L
Re: State Government vs. Federal Government
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Leahy)
Wed Nov 13 12:47:16 1996
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 00:44:19 -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>
Brothers,
I meant to send this out a few days ago, but it got misplaced for a while...
At 1:57 AM -0500 11/8/96, Reuben ``Fuzz'' Hochstedler wrote:
>Allow me to abstract a bit. Emotionally what happened at the 1976
>National Convention was that women were allowed as full members of the
>National Fraternity. Technically what happened is that individual
>chapters were given the right to determine their own membership. The
>National Fraternity was no longer telling chapters that they were not
>allowed to admit someone because of their gender.
I think this argument is a bit too expansive. I think chapters have
*always* had the ability to determine their own membership, within the
guidelines set by National Conventions, as articulated in the bylaws and
the membership policies in force at the time.
1976 was *not* the first time the Fraternity changed it's membership
policies to enlarge the population of potential Brothers. Before the 1967
Convention, prior affiliation with the Boy Scouts of America was required.
At the 1967 Convention, language was changed to merely encourage
affiliation with BSA.
Before the 1976 Convention, active membership in Alpha Phi Omega was open
to "male students". The 1976 Convention dropped the word "male" (as well
as dropping the affiliate membership status created in 1974).
Oh, as we've discussed earlier on APO-L, "rights" are guaranteed concepts
which apply equally to everyone and cannot be questioned. The "right to
determine membership based on gender" is not extended to all chapters, and
therefore is not a right. It is more properly called a "privilege".
>This is an example of the subject. In this case, power was
>transferred from the National Fraternity (Federal Government) to the
>chapters (State Governments).
>
>What is now being discussed is a resolution that will revoke that 1976
>CHAPTER EMPOWERING decision and bring its emotional effect a full
>180. This resolution if passed, would return that power back to the
>National Fraternity, a CHAPTER DISEMPOWERING action.
It's interesting to call this a "CHAPTER DISEMPOWERING" action. Using this
logic, some chapters in 1976 were "EMPOWERED" when they were given the
privilege to continue discriminating based on gender. The majority of
chapters were "DISEMPOWERED" when they chose to admit females (newly
chartered or rechartered chapters were "DISEMPOWERED" from their start).
This "CHAPTER DISEMPOWERING resolution" would only affect the 10% of the
chapters which retain the privilege to gender discriminate, and would bring
them back to equality with the other chapters.
For the record, I and several other brothers proposed two resolutions which
directly address the issue at hand. One resolution, R-6, reaffirms "The
Gentlemen's Agreement of 1976", giving official sanction to the practice of
all male chapters chartered at coed schools before 1976 to discriminate
against women. The agreement would no longer be unwritten (or at least
very inaccessible) but would be incorporated into the official Convention
proceedings and the Membership Policies of Alpha Phi Omega.
The resolution engendering the most discussion, R-5, declares null and void
"The Gentlemen's Agreement of 1976". Ratification of this resolution would
have the effect of changing the interpretation of the Open Membership
Policy so that no chapter could discriminate based on gender.
>Is this what the CHAPTERS (those with the supreme power in the
>fraternity via the National Convention) want? Power stripped from
>them at the most basic of levels? Only chapters can grant membership
>(except for national honorary membership), but what does that matter
>if "nationals" tells them whom they must and mustn't grant that
>membership to?
Technically speaking, chapters via the convention don't have the supreme
power in APO.
Bylaws, Article IV (National Conventions), Section 1 (Membership):
The supreme authority of the Fraternity consistent with the provisions
of the Bylaws, shall be vested in the National Convention composed of
the members of the National Board of Directors, the Sectional Chairmen,
two delegates from each chapter who shall be active members or chapter
advisors, and one Alumni Voting Delegate from each region, and two
delegates from each Petitioning Group who shall be petitioning members
or Petitioning Group advisors. Other members of the Fraternity may
observe but may not participate in floor debate. Members who have not
been initiated shall not be allowed to observe debate over rituals.
The power that would be stripped is the ability to discriminate based on
gender. Only 10% of the chapters would be affected by this; 90% of the
chapters would not be affected by this proposal.
>All-male, Co-Educational, all-female, it shouldn't matter who you are,
>being forced to do something you don't want to do by some faceless,
>distant, entity that doesn't know what it's like for you on your
>campus... well you'd probably feel oppressed in the least.
That "faceless, distant, entity" is, of course, the National Convention and
all it's voting delegates.
>However, having said all of that, even if the resolution passes, it
>won't make any difference, IMHO. And I don't mean in the way that
>"renegade" chapters initiated women as brothers before 1976 by only
>using their first initials on the forms instead of their first names.
>What I mean are the following quotes:
>
> "...open to all students, upon the approval of the respective
>collegiate chapter..." (Bylaws Article III, Section 1.)
>
> "...who are selected by that chapter to participate..."
>(Bylaws Article III, Section 2 (1))
>
> "...to the satisfaction of their chapter..."
>(Bylaws Article III, Section 2 (2))
>
> "Chapters have the right to determine their own membership."
>(Membership Policies III. B)
>
> "Membership in this chapter shall be granted only upon the
>approval of the applicant by this chapter..." (SCAA Section 1)
Yes, these examples support a concept called the "Right of Chapter
Selection". However, there is another concept called the "Open Membership
Policy".
"Membership in Alpha Phi Omega shall be open to all students..."
(Bylaws Article III, Section 1)
"Membership in this chapter of Alpha Phi Omega shall be open to all
students."
(SCAA Article III, Section 1)
"Because all people have the potential to be of service and to be
leaders and friends, active membership is open to all students and should
represent a cross section of the student body."
(Membership Policies III. B)
"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."
(Membership Policies III. C)
"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."
(National Pleding Standards, #1)
"Chapter includes individuals from social fraternities and sororities
as well as independents."
(Pledge Manual, Characteristics of Good Chapters, IIa)
>It's not just some "mythical" promise that was made 20 years ago, in
>at least my interpretation of it, it's been written in to our national
>documentation. And a mere resolution isn't enough to change our
>bylaws or our standard chapter articles of association, I know that
>for a fact. Bylaw changes need a higher percentage affirmative vote
>than a mere resolution.
Actually, the "Right of Chapter Selection" is not a fundamental right.
There are numerous constraints on it already:
"Membership in Alpha Phi Omega shall be open to students of all races.
colors, creeds, irrespective of their course of study or fraternity
affiliation..."
(The old "open membership laundry list", Bylaws 1991-92, Article III,
Section 1, reworded at '92 Convention into the current Open Membership
Policy, Bylaws Art. III, Sec. 1)
"Those preparing for active membership are representatives of Alpha Phi
Omega. As such, they shall be treated with the same degree of respect as
active members and shall participate in, or be asked to participate in,
only those activities that are consistent with the membership policies of
Alpha Phi Omega.
...
Examples of Practices that do not meet this standard include:
1. subjection to physical mistreatment such as road trips, kidnapping,
paddling, branding, beating, forced activity, and confinement of any kind;
6. subjection to informal ceremonies, traditions, rituals, or
initiations that are contrary to the policies or Bylaws of Alpha Phi Omega."
(Excerpts from Membership Policies, F)
"Chapters ... shall not use or condone the use of alcoholic beverages
as part of their membership recruitment 'rush' or pledge education
programs."
(Membership Policies, I)
Each of these policies (adopted by past conventions) limits the tests
chapters can use to determine their membership.
In fact, discrimination by gender is a violation of the National Membership
Policies for every chapter EXCEPT those covered by 1976 Gentlemen's
Agreement.
If these resolutions come to a vote on the floor, they might be interpreted
as a change in an existing membership policy and require a majority vote to
pass, or they might be interpreted as making a fundamental reinterpretation
of a bylaw and thus require a 75% vote to pass. We'll find out in
Phoenix...
>Just a look from the "technical" side...
>
>In Leadership, Friendship and Service,
>Reuben "Fuzz" Hochstedler
>
>+-- Current ---------------------------------------------------------------+
>| mailto:hochstrd@eecs.umich.edu http://www.cs.rose-hulman.edu/~hochstrd/ |
>| http://www.eecs.umich.edu/~hochstrd/ mailto:hochstrd@cs.rose-hulman.edu |
>+------------------------------------------------------------- Permanent --+
Another onlooker of the "technical side,"
eagerly waiting to see everyone in Phoenix!!!
--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.
