[17990] in APO-L
Nicknames and such
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Luke Sanders)
Mon Dec 15 18:06:40 1997
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 17:08:19 EST
Reply-To: Luke Sanders <UGSANDER@ECUVM.CIS.ECU.EDU>
From: Luke Sanders <UGSANDER@ECUVM.CIS.ECU.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
Hey all,
I just wanted to note that upon reading the policy on Hazing outlined in
the Risk Management Policy that came out of the last National
Convention, the definition of "Hazing" is not a definitive one. If you
read it carefully, you will note the ambiguity of the actual definition.
That's just something to keep in mind when trying to decide whether
something is hazing or not. Not that I'm disagreeing with the effort
that every brother should make to welcome everyone into our brotherhood.
The definition of hazing given in the Risk Management Policy is a study
in semantics. It carefully outlines the spirit of the issue by giving
examples of what COULD be hazing without giving a cut-in-stone
definition. That would definitely be something to consider when labeling
something as hazing.
In my chapter, we give nicknames as a sign of familiarity. Each nickname
has a story behind it and each person could have five or six nicknames
or only one. It is a way to keep the recent history of our chapter
alive. I know that is not specifically what Jim was referring to, but
the argument about the definition of hazing is. The specific term
"Nimby", or "neophyte" isn't used much here at Kappa Upsilon, but I
don't see how it would be so offensive as to provoke some change in
policy even on a chapter basis. One just has to use their own common
sense in assigning appellations to other people and not be afraid to
apologize when they make a mistake.
Almost every policy, law, resolution, etc. can be divided into two
categories: Proactive, and reactive. I may be mistaken. If I am, someone
please call me on it. I cannot, however, foresee any situation in which a
specific definition of hazing would be anything but reactive. As a
general rule of thumb, reactive policy making in the hands of anyone
less than a genius of social and/or personal dynamics is a bad idea.
I'm not even sure if I'm addressing the main issues of Jim's letter, but
even if I'm not the attempted codification of the hazing issue by the
National convention presents us with a decent effort to capture the
opposite of the "Spirit of Brotherhood" in words. And as such, it can be
applied in general terms to just about any disagreement between brothers
about what should and shouldn't be done to further our three cardinal
principles.
Using the same argument on a different issue, the all-male chapters, the
only question we should be asking ourselves is whether or not the
chapters promote our ideals or not. I think that most everyone taking
part in this argument has lost track of what is truly important. It's
like not being able to see the forest for the tree, pardon the
expression. Does it truly matter how those all-male chapters are
advancing the three cardinal principles of APO? I would argue that the
truly important issue is whether they are in the first place. I would
argue that the methods each of those chapters choose to use are really
up to them.
The truly vocal opponents of the all-male chapters should take a moment
from their noise-making and consider what they are really asking for.
They are, in fact, forcing the National office to make a decision to
regulate or not something that by precedent has been a chapter decision.
They are trying to force a gentleman to go back on his word. They are
trying to force the National office throw the 12 parts of the scout oath
out of the window in favor of being politically correct. There is
nothing wrong with respecting your brothers, even the female ones. In my
own biased opinion, females make better brothers in the first place. It
seems to me that our scouting heritage has come into conflict with the
current idea of APO's universality. How can anyone choose between the
two, even someone as wise as a board member? Forcing the National board
to deal with the issue is forcing them to abandon one tenement of APO
for another. What kind of justice is there in that?
If I were on the board, and absolutely HAD to make a ruling on the issue
I think I would opt to do nothing. It wouldn't be because it's the easy
way out or because it will solve the problem, because it won't. I am
admittedly a minimalist when it comes to a centralized government
interfering with local leadership. Confucias once said (no joke) that
the best kind of governor is the one who changes government the least.
That aside, there is no easy solution. I would even go as far to say
that there is no 100% RIGHT solution. Maybe doing nothing is for the
best.
Just my two cents (or three, or four . . . )
In Leadership, Friendship, and Service,
Luke
*******************************************************************************
* Luke Sanders - ugsander@ecuvm.cis.ecu.edu B.S. Spanish/BSBA DSCI MIS *
*******************************************************************************
* Alpha Phi Omega, Kappa Upsilon, East Carolina University *
* Be a Leader, Be a friend, Be of Service *
*******************************************************************************
* The best things in life are NOT free -- What we obtain too cheap, we esteem *
* too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value. *
* - Thomas Paine *
*******************************************************************************
