[17961] in APO-L
Re: Open Membership Apology
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William B. Rugh)
Sat Dec 13 19:53:44 1997
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 19:26:51 -0500
Reply-To: "William B. Rugh" <wbrugh@BRIGHT.NET>
From: "William B. Rugh" <wbrugh@BRIGHT.NET>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
-----Original Message-----
From: John R Hall [SMTP:Jrhmdtraum@AOL.COM]
Sent: Saturday, 13 December, 1997 10:44
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L
Subject: Re: Open Membership Apology
Bill
The written policy is "all students" and a cross-section of the campus.
How do you support such an assertion? Remember that all this started by my
providing the exact wording of the policy that was passed by the Convention
(quoted from the Convention report).
Re-read the complete sections where those phrases came from; do you see
permissive (ie should) or mandatory language?
Besides, if these sections of the By-Laws were mandatory then why has no
Board in 20 years forced the all-male chapters to go co-ed? Don't come
back with the APO myth of a grandfather clause; no such agreement was made
either in writing or verbally.
Look, for 20 years the National Board has not interpreted the actions of
the 1976 Convention as being mandatory (and, of course, only another
Convention can change that policy), otherwise there would be no all-male
chapters today. So, let's quit denying the written record from the 1976
Convention. If you think that the policy should be changed, and all-male
chapters forced to go co-ed, then center on that. It does your arguments
no good to be based on a misconception (no matter how widely held).
Frankly, to change the Board's 20 year intrepretation of that policy now
(without Convention action) would open us up to lawsuits (especially from
chapters on predominatly black campses).
My whole point has been to try to get the people involved in this
discussion, to get their facts right about what happened 20 years ago. I
was there, and all I did was quote from the Fraternity's publications.
Deal with it!
Bill
