[15645] in APO-L
Gender Integration
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert Dean)
Sat Nov 16 17:16:47 1996
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 1996 16:00:18 -0600
Reply-To: Robert Dean <rdean@RS6000.CMP.ILSTU.EDU>
From: Robert Dean <rdean@RS6000.CMP.ILSTU.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.95.961116134801.6193A-100000@comp> from "Roger Lee
Stearns Jr." at Nov 16, 96 01:53:14 pm
> regarding the potential members we are losing by having all male
> chapters.....I don't understand why any chapter would want to deprive
> anyone the opportunity to pledge APO.
That's not the main issue at work here. The question of whether it is
acceptable for chapters to exclude women has less to do with gender
discrimination and more to do with:
a) Do the chapters have the right to determine their own membership?
b) The chapters that wanted to remain all-male voted for the changes
allowing chapters to determine their own membership. If we now force the
chapter into a change they don't want, not only are we violating the trust
those chapters put in the National Fraternity: we are also violating the
spirit under which that change passed.
----------------
On a technical note, I do not believe the resolutions on the table are
sufficient to force the chapters to go co-ed. There was a 3/4 vote to allow
women in through a change to the National Bylaws, so there should be a 3/4
vote to force them in.
> I don't understand why anyone
> would want them to goto another organization instead. If someone truly
> wants what is best for Alpha Phi Omega they would try to give as many
> students that opportunity.
Are we that egotistical to think that we're the one supreme source of
Leadership, Friendship, and Service? If a person can get those principles
in another place, then that is great.
>I think an injustice is being done to the
> potential brothers we are losing, and an injustice to the fraternity as a
> whole, for these potential members can help enrich our brotherhood in the
> whole fraternity as well as in the local chapter.
>
> For example, what if mrn's chapter hadn't allowed women. She is one of
> many examples of how the fraternity has benefited by a chapter going
> co-ed. Yet, we still have chapters that are keeping potential mrns from
> being of service to the Fraternity and joining our brotherhood.
That's a moot point. We can play what if all day. Perhaps the inclusion of
women has made some collegiate men shy away from the organization in hopes
of finding not only Leadership, Friendship, and Service, but some quality
male bonding as well. Clearly a co-ed organization does not fit their
needs. But we could play what if all day.
(This also brings to light the acceptability of having single-sex
organizations, as they more often than not promote tighter bonding among the
members -- sexual tension and gender conflict often inhibit close
bonding...but that's a philosophical question).
In LFS,
Robert Dean
p.s.--This is my last message on this subject. My feelings on this matter,
as well as my reasons for being so, are most succinctly put herein.
