[15557] in APO-L
Male-only Chapters debate
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeremy Gagliardi)
Wed Nov 13 14:03:00 1996
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 13:44:35 EST
Reply-To: Jeremy Gagliardi <gagliarj@NCR.DISA.MIL>
From: Jeremy Gagliardi <gagliarj@NCR.DISA.MIL>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
Dear Brothers,
I do not participate in e-mail discussions as persistently as I used to
(remember 1994), so I've summed up all of my thoughts about the Male-only
Chapters debate into this _one_ e-mail message, a message that I have
written and edited for days now (It is long). So, read it now or forget
about it now, and you'll never hear from me again on this issue (until
maybe the next convention)...
We all know that in order to admit females into the brotherhood, in 1976
there was both a promise and a resolution to allow every chapter to choose
whether or not to remain male-only or to be coed. That promise/resolution
stands to this day. It is both an agreement of honor and national
fraternity (unwritten) law (which _can_ be changed, but whether or not it
should is the real debate).
It is also true that those chapters that remain male-only (at coed
schools, of course) are discriminating against women. Women who would
want to join that chapter would be forbidden; Even though the national
fraternity would allow them, the chapter would not. At this point I'm not
saying that is a good or a bad thing; I'm just saying that it is a form of
discrimination.
Personally, I believe any form of discrimination (except for character and
brotherhood, of course) is wrong. But that is _my_ belief. The male-only
chapters were given the right to choose for _themselves_ what they
believe, and they have constantly and regularly told everyone else that
they believe in remaining male-only. A lot of male-only chapters have
gone coed in the past, and most likely more will, a trend that some have
observed over time. If I were to gamble whether or not all of the
male-only chapters would go coed by choice, I would say that they would
over many decades, if given the right to choose for themselves (but only
time will tell on that one, and it would be a gradual process).
Should they be forced to go coed by the National Convention? My
answer is no; They have the right to choose just like the rest of us.
Everyone else's answer on this issue has been roughly 50/50. It was
back in 1994 that I know of, and it's shaping up to be that way this
year as well. I doubt that this issue will be over at this coming
convention either.
Even though my answer is no to forcing male-only chapters to go coed,
I still think we should pursue other alternatives for persuading them.
It is a just and honorable cause to pursue anti-discriminatory
practices. I just think that recent proposals are not the answer.
Which brings me to my suggestions (and they are _only_
suggestions; I also realize that they are not in time for
this National Convention, but perhaps they will influence
into the next Convention):
Amend the National Bylaws or pass a resolution that reads as follows (or
something similar; Use your imagination; These are just suggestions):
NOTE: Anything in parenthesis inside the quoted material are alternatives,
not actual wording of the amendment.
(1) "If a group of women, eligible to join Alpha Phi Omega by
National policies, desires to join one of our male-only chapters on
their campus and is more than 50% (or whatever % you like) in number
to the existing brotherhood, then the chapter must admit them as full
Pledges (according to their Pledge criteria, if you wish) with all
the rights and privileges as the male pledges. The chapter still
retains the right to be male-only in the future."
(2) "If a woman, eligible to join Alpha Phi Omega by National policies,
desires to join one of our male-only chapters on her campus, the chapter
must admit her as a full Pledge (according to their Pledge criteria, if you
wish) with all the rights and privileges as the male pledges. However, the
chapter must decide on what rights and privileges she will have if and when
she becomes a brother of that chapter. The chapter still retains the right
to be male-only in the future. (and, if you wish) The criteria set upon
one woman member must be true for any others that may join."
(3) "If a male-only chapter exists on a coed campus, that chapter must
create and enforce (and if you wish, ...and be enforced by the Sectional
Chairman) an extension effort on the same campus, if allowed by the campus,
to create a female-only chapter or at least create an extension of the
existing chapter that would allow women to become Brothers of Alpha Phi
Omega." This one would allow male-only traditions and practices to remain
in place and still allow them to admit women to the fraternity (not to the
chapter itself), most likely in a separate program and perhaps governed by
the women themselves. In other words, they could have a male program and a
female program either in the same chapter or in two separate chapters on
the same campus.
(4) "Male-only chapters may (or must) extend to potential female members
on their campus Pledge Membership, either in the same program or a
separate program from the male Pledges, to become Brothers of Alpha Phi
Omega. Chapter involvement upon attaining Brotherhood is to be decided by
the chapter." Perhaps what would happen with this one is disallowing
females from becoming Active Brothers in the chapter and thus preserving
the male-only tradition.
The first one goes against the promise and puts the power into the hands
of a majority, but at least it allows for a more democratic decision to
be made, rather than from a grandfather clause. The other three preserve
a male-only tradition, but allows women to participate and become
Brothers of the fraternity (not necessarily the chapter).
Perhaps a challenge would be for representatives of the male-only
chapters to come up with amendments such as these. Rather than remain
protected behind a grandfather clause for the rest of your existence,
let's see if you can come with your own alternative(s).
What do you all think? Please post to me in private at the address below.
I don't want replies to this bogging up the listserver.
NOTE: I do not pretend to have all of the answers or any of the
answers. All I'm pretending to have is a viewpoint (and it happens to
be a conflicting viewpoint to many of those participating in this
discussion). So go easy on me. Okay?
BIO: I come from a coed chapter on a coed campus, Alpha Gamma Chi at
Frostburg State University, MD. My wife (who was my girlfriend at the
time) is the main founder of our chapter and I am a co-founder. We
both served as President of our chapter among other offices. We both
currently work on Section 84 staff, and we both work in the DC Area
Alumni Organization. Needless to say, we're involved in this
fraternity. (Even though I mentioned my wife, she is not even aware
that I wrote this message; It came from my head, and my head only).
Do I get the prize for longest message on the subject? ;-)
Sincerely,
Jeremy Gagliardi
General Signature Note:
Whatever my E-mail address may appear to be,
please only use Jeremy.Gagliardi@cpmx.saic.com
