[17641] in APO-L
Re: APO Rights and Rumination
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (StPierre, Eileen (GEAE))
Wed Nov 19 14:11:58 1997
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:09:34 -0500
Reply-To: "StPierre, Eileen (GEAE)" <Eileen.StPierre@AE.GE.COM>
From: "StPierre, Eileen (GEAE)" <Eileen.StPierre@AE.GE.COM>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
On a lighter note:
Maybe the all-male fraternities are just scared that the women
will take over and do a better job?????
Smile!
> ----------
> From: Lee Correll[SMTP:lcorrell@capaccess.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 1997 2:09 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L
> Subject: Re: APO Rights and Rumination
>
> 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
>
