[17960] in APO-L
Re: Open Membership
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Benjamin A. Kuperman)
Sat Dec 13 19:16:33 1997
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 19:14:43 -0500
Reply-To: "Benjamin A. Kuperman" <kuperman@CS.PURDUE.EDU>
From: "Benjamin A. Kuperman" <kuperman@CS.PURDUE.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
In-Reply-To: <199712132225.RAA12064@arthur.cs.purdue.edu>; from Jrhmdtraum on
Sat, Dec 13, 1997 at 05:22:16PM -0500
It was rumored that Jrhmdtraum (Jrhmdtraum@AOL.COM) said:
> Thank you James, your input was very well done.
>
> I would also like to add a third option which I believe could be done. The
> National Executive Board could also enforce the "all students" policy without
> it going to the convention as our bylaws give them the power to enforce the
> bylaws. To my understanding, there is precedent for this.
>
> I personally feel that this should happen TODAY as I am very embarrassed that
> A Phi O still allows sexual discrimination. I think that all members should
> be too and should write the national to take this option.
Apart from the fact that the by-laws indicate that chapters "should"
(not must) represent the student body, I have a few questions as to
how this should be ``enforced''.
I know you are thinking of the male/female issue, but what about the
grad/undergrad situation, or the racial composition of the school?
Should the National E-Board be forcing chapters to induct grad
students until they are close to representing the percentage present,
or even requiring that chapters allow graduate students to be actives?
Should they suspend or revoke charters from all-black/all-white
chapters? Would it be better if they set a quota for each chapter to
meet, and present awards to those chapters that most closely represent
their student body? And there are many other groups to consider
commuters, non-traditionals, foreign, greek/independent, etc.
I'm trying to move this debate away from the specific gender issue,
hopefully towards the larger issue, chapter rights. This debate is
very similar to the arguments about state rights versus federal
rights. Many people look to our National Board as the sole authority
on APO practices and policies, but should we. I've always been under
the impression, that the Board served more of an interim role,
handling normal operations until the next national convention.
However, I also suspect that over the years, the National Board has
gained more power to make the policy and not just enforce it.
Certainly, they don't have the power to change the bylaws, but they
have a lot of power in their interpretations of them.
I'm not saying that any of this is negative, just something I have been
pondering. I would be very interested in hearing others opinions on
this matter.
YiLFS,
-Benjamin Kuperman.
