[17653] in APO-L
Re: APO Rights and Rumination
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stallion)
Wed Nov 19 18:20:13 1997
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 17:19:23 -0600
Reply-To: Stallion <librimd@MAIL.AUBURN.EDU>
From: Stallion <librimd@MAIL.AUBURN.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <199711191809.MAA04329@ducserv3.duc.auburn.edu>
> 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.
Only "some" chapters is because that was part of the agreement. If it
wasn't, Delta would have activated 3 All-Male chapters since 1976. And as
for the clause, why is it inappropriate, Lee? Where is it defined that
such a clause isn't as "real" as something written on paper? Are you
saying that you don't believe in an honest word and a firm handshake? If
not, remind me to have everything you say written down, documented, and
noterized to hold you to it.
> 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,
The organization ends at that point where the chapter's rights are
comprimised. If the National Fraternity defies our chapter's rights, it
will destroy our chapter, whether by irrevocably changing it, or by
causing its immediate and permenant removal from our campus.
> I'll grant that the decision may well be made to maintain all-male
> chapters - at least let the decision be made.
The decision WAS made. You just don't recognize it because it isn't in
the precious fraternity filing cabinet.
> 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
> decision should be made.
The issue WAS resolved. Years before either of us were brothers, Lee. Is
that the real problem here? You feel as if you should have this
information written down, so that the new brothers will have control over
it? Are you so nervous about the All-Male chapters that you require some
kind of legislative leash to tug? Or simply that you don't trust the
brothers who came before you?
> To say that the decision was made 20 years ago
> evades the issue;
The only issue is the one you have created by stating that the original
settlement is invalid, simply because it isn't written. I tell you, it
exists. If the agreement were not real, we would not be here right now!
The existance of All-Male chapters is living proof that the agreement
exists!
> 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?
Now that is just foolish. To bring up an idea like that is simply a
device to persuade people towards your way of thinking. Any educated
person can see that your connections are vauge and unreasonable! To show
the flip side, what if we had been an organization made up soley of Native
Americans, and some whites wanted to join? Silly, huh?
-Delta 1159
Mark Librizzi
