[15654] in APO-L
Re: Gender Integration
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joseph M. Fisher)
Sun Nov 17 13:33:35 1996
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 13:33:10 -0800
Reply-To: "Joseph M. Fisher" <jfisher@RacerX.mse.jhu.edu>
From: "Joseph M. Fisher" <jfisher@RacerX.mse.jhu.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <9611162216.AA06955@RacerX.mse.jhu.edu>
On Sat, 16 Nov 1996, Robert Dean wrote:
> 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
This is a fuzzy area. Procedure would very likely be satisfied by a
majority, as the "Gentleman's Agreement" - whether it is the
resolution posted by Bill Rugh or something lost in the 1976 minutes - is
not a bylaw, nor was it judged to have a substantial effect on the
execution of the bylaws (else it would have required a 3/4 vote in the
first place). But I think we SHOULD demand a 3/4 vote. We need a clear
stand on this.
What the Rules Committee may do is to declare that the various proposals
amount to changes in the meaning of the bylaws - something that is within
their authority, as Reuben discussed earlier - and fashion from one of the
resolutions a proposal explicitly putting coeducation in the bylaws. I
do think that the resolutions will get rewritten at any rate, as their
impact is not terribly clear. I won't suggest anything because it would
just be speculation right now... I don't know what the committee procedure
is for such a situation. Perhaps one of our convention veterans can
enlighten us? Are there any recent examples of this happening to a
resolution?
Whatever we do, I think we should respect the fact that all active
brothers at all-male chapters pledged APO knowing (and presumably
accepting) that the chapter was all-male. We should take reasonable steps
to allow that while they remain actives their chapter is under no
obligation to go coed. A five-year time delay, for instance. However I
really do need to rebut the "bonding" argument:
> 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
<stuff deleted>
> (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).
Okay - maybe I'm making an unjustified assumption here - but aren't we all
mature, adult-type people? Aren't we supposed to have gotten the "sexual
tension" and "gender conflict" problems over with already? Wasn't that
what adolescence was for?
-- Cyrano
