[15551] in APO-L
Re: Promises and other things...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Elliot Echlov)
Wed Nov 13 12:52:36 1996
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 23:49:22 -0500
Reply-To: Elliot Echlov <cfknights@INFOAVE.NET>
From: Elliot Echlov <cfknights@INFOAVE.NET>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
Ahh...don't you love a pleasant discourse?
> How so? The service sorority provides them with this opportunity.
I know one exists on your campus, but do ALL campuses will all-male chapters
have a sorority counterpart? I don't know the answer to this question.
Randy? Care to add to your research project?
> So can little sisters.
I'm certain of this, but I am also certain that there are many that would
never join a "little sister" program because of the (generally) negative
connotations that go along with it. I think your rebuttal to this was
already done in your "Re: 'Italian Stallion'" post.
> Some of them may turn out to be worse.
True, but it cuts both ways for both sexes.
> Why risk it though?
It depends on the circumstances. In the case of the chapter I mentioned, it
was go co-ed or disappear within a year. There are no guarantees of a
better chapter by going co-ed, nor is there a guarantee of failure by
remaining single-sex. In this area, I know there are numerous brothers at
all-male chapters that would rather let it die than go co-ed. Where is the
risk? If they don't go co-ed and the chapter dies, part of the bond is
lost. If they do go co-ed and the chapter dies, the same thing happens.
But if the chapter lives on, the bond continues. Perhaps weaker in the eyes
of those who are opposed to such a move, but it still exists.
> Thank you.
You're welcome.
2
E
