[17639] in APO-L
Re: Just some ruminations from an old lister...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Grossi)
Wed Nov 19 13:54:10 1997
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 13:50:12 -0500
Reply-To: John Grossi <jgrossi@BBNPLANET.COM>
From: John Grossi <jgrossi@BBNPLANET.COM>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
William J. Turner wrote:
>
> > The record of such is old, and I have no idea where it might be. This does
> not mean
> > itdoes not exist. It does. Every brother present at the debates in recent
> nationals
> > has been made aware of it. There is no question that it exists. Finding the
> actual
> > documentation
> > may be difficult, however.
>
> There is a question of what exactly exists. We have all heard of a
> "gentleman's agreement" but what exactly was it? There is no documentation
> left except what people think they remember, and those are often contradictory.
>
I'll post the answer to Will's question and then Lee and Fuzz can jump
on it with
the next piece of information for people to make there own decision:
----(file://penobscot.bbnplanet.com/C|/Program_Files/Netscape/Navigator/program2/program/program/mail/saved/apo/national-stuff/wbrugh)----
>Sender: Alpha Phi Omega Discussion List <APO-L@vm.cc.purdue.edu>
>From: "William B. Rugh" <wbrugh@BRIGHT.NET>
>Subject: The 1976 Agreement
>
>
>As there has been a lot of talk about the "1976 Gentlemen's Agreement" I
>have been digging in my files to find a copy. I have a copy of the
>proposed doscument (but not all the changes made to it on the floor) and
>I have what was printed in T&T.
>
>The so-called gentlemen's agreement was actually a resolution (or series
>of resolutions) voted on accepted by the chapters in attendance. As
>such it is !not! a gentlemen's agreement; it has the full force and
>power of any Convention Resolution.
>
>Much of it is not germane to the discussion as it concerns continuing
>efforts to secure Exemption from Title IX, funding of that effort, etc.
>The pertinent part is:
>
>"Nothing in the National By-Laws or Articles of Incorporation shall be
>construed to require any chapter to accept any student as a pledge or
>active member of its chapter." (T&T, Vol 52, No 3, pg 8)
>
>The intent of this statement was to protect the right of all-male
>chapters to so remain. After all 3/4 of the then all-male chapters had
>to vote in favor of allowing chapters to determine their own mebership
>as freqards women. Had this not been passed, many of our chapters were
>prepared to leave us and form a new fraternity. There are good resons
>not to put such a statement in the By-Laws and theose resons were
>recognized at the time, even though a resolution only needs a majority
>vote to be overturned. The all-male chapters concerned WERE given an
>open-ended promise by the fraternity.
>
>Does this agreement bind us forever? No, obviously, it can be changed.
>However, we should have a COMPELLING reason to go back on our word. Is
>there such a compelling reason?
>
>Bill Rugh
>Former Member of the National Board
----(end file include)----
> > Change is not a problem. However, when you promise something, you have to
> stick by
> > it, period. If you don't like your promises, don't make them. We made that
> promise
> > 21 years ago, and just because somebody doesn't like it now doesn't mean we
> have
> > the right to go back on it. We decide the policy, and if we decided 21 years
> ago
> > that this would be the promise into perpetuity, then that is the promise we
> made.
> > And the current brothers of ALpha Phi Omega have a solemn duty to keep it.
>
> *We* did not make it. The voting delegates then did. The voting delegates
> today can decide it was wrong to make that promise. As Lee pointed out in a
> recent post. They have that right, and *we* should not try to take it away
> from them.
Factually even if a resolution passes in 1998 affirming the Gentleman's
Agreement, it solves nothing because the 2000 convention can turn it
back. All
a resolution in 98 will do is affirm what 21 years of drift have done to
the
Gentleman's Agreement. (If you think this fight is going to end in '98
because a decision is made either way, I think your dreaming)
Remember two things...
1) This is a brotherhood. Brothers don't require written contracts,
there
word is there bond. If APO sinks to the level of needing contracts for
everything
are we truely any better than any other collegiate based service
corporation?
2) This is a fraternity of the undergraduates. You had your years (I had
mine). Ultimately the decision is with today's undergraduates. (there
are 18 elected board members, 10 alumni delegates, and 16 life-members
who can also vote but...)
-John Grossi
