[18012] in APO-L
Scout Law: "Standard of Manhood" or just words?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert Dean)
Wed Dec 17 10:30:35 1997
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 09:28:08 -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>
Of the 12 points of the Scout Law, it seems the ones getting trampled on the
most are COURTEOUS and REVERENT. In case you haven't been paying attention,
the case for/against the all-male chapters is a RELIGIOUS argument. I have
yet to see an argument for or against that is based on anything other than
opinion. It can't be solved by objective measure (for reasons I've gone
into before), so taking sides constitutes a measure of religious faith.
If you believe otherwise, that's your right, but take a long, hard look at
ALL the issues involved and try to come up with objective (empirical or
anecdotal) evidence supporting your claims. If you claim to have some,
actually produce it. That's the only way you're going to change anyone's
mind.
As an example, let's look at one particular component of the argument.
Certain claims have been made that suggest that federal law is being
violated by the all-male chapters. These claims would fall under the Title
IX protection against gender discrimination. However, there is anecdotal
evidence to suggest that a case made on Title IX might not succeed. An
all-male professional fraternity (the only all-male of its organization)
successfully argued against Auburn (home of Delta chapter) that the Title IX
exemption for social fraternities applied to them, not because they were a
social fraternity, but because they acted like one.*** Having heard how
brothers at Delta describe their brotherhood, they can make that argument
successfully.
This is an argument that is made courteously and logically. Certainly there
may be other anecdotal or empirical evidence to suggest that my argument is
wrong, but it must be produced in order to be considered. It doesn't mean
that the all-male chapters should stick around, but it does mean that Title
IX isn't the way to go about doing it *if* someone were inclined to force
co-ed-edness upon them.
*** -- Source: Auburn's web site. Do a search on "Title IX" and
"professional fraternities".
LFS,
Robert Dean
Section 48 Staff
Theta Epsilon Advisor
Omega Epsilon '93
Life Member
