[17638] in APO-L
Re: APO Rights and Rumination
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Thomas W. Strong Jr.)
Wed Nov 19 13:51:37 1997
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 13:50:45 -0500
Reply-To: "Thomas W. Strong Jr." <strong@DEMENTIA.ORG>
From: "Thomas W. Strong Jr." <strong@DEMENTIA.ORG>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <199711191808.NAA24348@alycia.dementia.org>
On Wed, 19 Nov 1997, Lee Correll wrote:
> > But I am of the same opinion as our Immediate Past National President:
> > "I defend the right (not necessarily the righteousness) of private,
> > voluntary organizations to determine their own membership."
>
> Fine, I'll even agree...but why, then, are only *some* chapters allowed
> this privilege? "Grandfather clauses?" Come on, 20+ years under such a
> clause is inappropriate - which is the real reason both motions were
> proposed at the convention - to get a decision and make it stick.
Why is 20+ years under a grandfather clause inappropriate? In the "real
world", I can think of numerous examples of grandfather clauses that have
existed much longer than that.
As the proposals were presented to the convention, if the motion to void
the gentleman's agreement passed, then the issue is settled, and the
all-male chapters are gone.. If it fails, then everything starts over the
next convention (once we see what the committe had to say, but that wasn't
in the original proposal) with another round of motions. If the motion to
reaffirm the gentleman's agreement passes, then the question can still be
brought up at the next convention, but if it fails, politicaly it's the
same as if the other motion had passed - while nothing further is likely
to happen that convention, in 1998 we would likely have seen proposals
based upon the 1996 convention's refusal to reaffirm the gentleman's
agreement. Since the best that the all-male chapters can hope for is a
2-year repreive, and since not passing one motion or the other has
considerably different effects, it wasn't a very balanced way of deciding
the issue. In this case I think htat the committee made a very wise
decision in asking for further study, and I await their recommendations.
Until then, why are we arguing the same points repeatedly? It's about 12
months until any proposals are due, and I truly hope that the argujents
won't last until then.
> Jeremy's point, though, is valid: where does the "organization" end and
> the "chapter" begin? It isn't the same place as it used to be, and while
> I'll grant that the decision may well be made to maintain all-male
> chapters - at least let the decision be made. Those of you who feel as
> if it shouldn't even be discussed need to recognize that the issue does
> indeed exist, and that the issue is at least somewhat divisive - and a
> decision should be made. To say that the decision was made 20 years ago
> evades the issue; what if the decision 20 years ago was to allow chapters
> to exclude blacks, or Jews, or any other definable group - would we
> maintain it, as well?
That's not a fair comparison. (however, it is a nice underhanded attack
on the opposing side, comparing them to racists that way)
30 years ago the fraternity did not permit female members, but they did
permit persons of all races and religions. Before Title IX this was
apparently normal behavior fro fraternities in general.
20 years ago a decision was made to permit female members to join certain
chapters of our fraternity, not to prohibit them from joining. Other
fraternities (specifically social organizations exempted from Title IX)
did not change, and in general, have not changed to this day. Today over
90% of the chapterspermit female members, with the remainder falling
under the grandfather clause you mention above. The decision was made to
_permit_ female brothers to join that large percentage of chapters - by
your logic, it seems that you are arguing that since the decision was
made 20 years ago, it should still be reexamined - are you really
proposing that we reconsider allowing female members?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas W. Strong Jr. strong@dementia.org
----------------- http://www.dementia.org/~strong -----------------
