[17640] in APO-L
Re: APO Rights and Rumination
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lee Correll)
Wed Nov 19 14:05:53 1997
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:09:52 -0500
Reply-To: Lee Correll <lcorrell@CAPACCESS.ORG>
From: Lee Correll <lcorrell@CAPACCESS.ORG>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <199711191857.NAA04958@cap1.CapAccess.org>
On Wed, 19 Nov 1997, Thomas W. Strong Jr. wrote:
> 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.
I disagree - as has been seen with several recent proposals, once a
motion fails, the chance of it passing later is significantly reduced -
see the "Toast Song" issue, which is completely unrelated to this as an
example.
> That's not a fair comparison. (however, it is a nice underhanded attack
> on the opposing side, comparing them to racists that way)
I made no comparisons and the comparison is indeed valid as race, gender
and religious beliefs are all rationales for exclusion from groups in the
past - and your comment about underhandedness is unBrotherly and noted.
> 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?
I'm saying the same thing I said originally - that a decision should be
made based on the students of today, whatever agreement was made in the
past, what's legal and what's "right" by the Fraternity's definition but
more importantly - by the *student's* definition, not those of the staff
members or alums regardless of title, recognizing that I have one of my
own - but that the argument that the decision has already been made isn't
valid by itself.
Lee
