[17644] in APO-L
Re: APO Rights and Rumination
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Grossi)
Wed Nov 19 14:53:17 1997
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 14:50:09 -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>
> > 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 figure they'll last until about 3:30pm when Ellen looks at her mail
and yells
at us...
> 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.
If you assume that it's before the same body. Due to location and
weather
conditions you can end up with marked difference between Phoenix and
Minneapolis. ( a well timed blizzard as an example, or just regionalised
opinions)
>
> > 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.
and Noted? For what revenege later?
>
> > 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.
Not what Tom said. Actually not even relevant to Tom's question.
You said: "We should re-consider the decision made 20 years ago."
Tom pointed out what your saying is that we should essentially
re-consider the
decsion to admit women. That's why we have the gentleman's agreement.
-John
