[17953] in APO-L
Stop the all-male debate, Please?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert Dean)
Sat Dec 13 12:31:58 1997
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 11:30:20 -0600
Reply-To: Robert Dean <rdean@RS6000.CMP.ILSTU.EDU>
From: Robert Dean <rdean@RS6000.CMP.ILSTU.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
If I were to summarize all the posts made to APO-L over the past MONTH (how
long this debate has been raging on APO-L, in its latest iteration), it
would basically boil down to are not, are too, are not, are too, should not,
should too, should not, should too.....are not, are too, are not, are too,
are not, are too, yes, no, yes, no, are not, are too, are not, are too,
should not, should too. Finally we tune it out so all we hear is blah blah
blah blah blah.
Some folks are refusing to let this issue die, reiterating the same old
argument time and again.
Here's a synopsis of the issue:
From the wording of the National By-laws and Title IX, there is no clear-cut
winner in the debate, at least from a legal standpoint. A case made solely
on National policy and law is a toss-up at best. "should" can equal "must",
but it doesn't always (National By-laws). There isn't necessarily a LEGAL
distinction between a service and a social fraternity (at least no one has
cited case law that indicates such). Title IX provides an exemption for
social fraternities.
This being said, the matter boils down to what the National Convention
decides. When the committee that's studying the issue reports back,
*discuss* and *debate* it in your chapters, but do not ARGUE it. There are
perfectly rational reasons for why the all-male chapters to remain as such,
just as there are perfectly rational reasons for them to "change with the
times".
