[9492] in APO-L
Re: Amendments
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dustin R. Christmann)
Thu Sep 29 03:36:33 1994
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 1994 02:33:25 -0500
Reply-To: "Dustin R. Christmann" <dustin@METRONET.COM>
From: "Dustin R. Christmann" <dustin@METRONET.COM>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L%PURCCVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <199409290124.AA09134@metronet.com>
On Wed, 28 Sep 1994, Cammy L. Burns wrote:
> Presenting to all an issue of prejudice:
Speaking of prejudice...
> On Wed, 28 Sep 1994, Shawn Putnam wrote:
>
> > To those who are proposing changes to the Toast Song, Please don't. The
> > last thing this fraternity needs is to become politically correct. Also,
> > please don't try to get rid of all-male chapters. As a voting delegate
> > to Nationals, I don't want to have to listen to this argument again. And
> > coming from a state with two all-male chapters, I can assure you that they
> > fight you to the bitter end.
> >
> > In LFS,
> > Shawn Putnam
>
> I'm sorry, but you have offended a lot of people. APO is known
> internationally as a "national co-ed service fraternity". APO has been
> co-ed for 18 years now. It would not be changing anything, and is not a
> new issue.
Correction: APO has been MOSTLY co-ed for 18 years now. And when you say
that it would change nothing, it is obviously easy for you to say because
it is not YOUR chapter that's affected. (Nor is it mine, for that matter.)
And contrary to popular opinion, APO's full name does not include the
word "co-ed." It is Alpha Phi Omega National Service Fraternity Inc.
> This is not your fraternity, but our fraternity --EVERYONE inclusively.
> It makes me very angry to see your blatant attitude toward women as
> second-class people. Besides, its illegal. Think I'm being rediculous?
> Wait until your chapter ends up in a lawsuit some day, and you have
> to go before a judge to explain messages like this one on APO-L.
Hmm, I wonder how you'd do in front of a judge. I see no evidence of his
"blatant attitude toward women as second-class citizens" except for maybe
"Shawn does not want the National Convention to do away with all-male
chapters, therefore Shawn is sexist," which is highly specious.
And on the other side of the coin, if Delta, Nu Mu, and other all-male
chapters are forced to go co-ed by the National Convention, it could open
the Fraternity up to a lawsuit alleging breach of contract.
The 1976 National Convention mandated that NEW chapters had to be co-ed,
but allowed existing chapters to remain all-male. Many refer to this as
a promise to the all-male chapters that going co-ed would be THEIR
decision. And most did decide to go co-ed. I'm no lawyer, mind you, but
this is pretty binding in my mind. But then, I'm one of those wacky
people that believe that a Brother's word is a good enough contract.
Incidentally, I think you'd sooner see chapters disband, rather than go
through the expense of appearing in court. But don't get me wrong, this
would be good. After all, in 1994, we should be more interested in running
all-male chapters out of the Fraternity than the service that these
chapters do.
> As far as the part about "politically correct" goes, that is a term that
> would not apply here. The changes you talk about would not be pleasant
> euphemisms, but the discontinuance of an 18 year-old prejudice that has
> co-existed with our professed principals of leadership, friendship, and
> service.
It is NOT a prejudice. It is keeping a promise that was made to ALL
chapters in 1976. And I would argue that breaking promises CONFLICTS
DIRECTLY with our Cardinal Principles.
> Yes, I agree that we should closely gaurd our traditions. They are part
> of our heritage and foundation, including the Toast Song. And yes, I know
> that you are entitled to your opinion, and it may not necessarily be that
> of your chapter. However, it makes me very angry to see this kind of
> attitude within the fraternity.
And it makes me angry to see this kind of attitude. A Brother is very
adamant about his chapter's right to remain all-male, and you label him a
sexist. You don't know him from Adam. For all YOU know, he could work
twice as hard as YOU to advance the cause of women as equal citizens in
our society. I don't know, you don't know. For all I know, he may very
be sexist, but I'm reserving judgement, because I don't know either way.
You, however, have made up your mind and label him as a sexist based on a
6-line e-mail. You, Brother Cammy, are prejudiced.
> No one is threatening you or your chapter, and if you happen to have an
> all-male chapter that is your business. If you don't want to listen to
> arguments, then I have a bad feeling that you made the wrong choice in
> becoming a voting delegate. You have to have an open mind to delegate,
> and from the tone of this post I don't think that is going to happen.
But his chapter IS threatened with having a choice taken away from it.
His chapter IS threatened with being betrayed by the Fraternity. His
chapter IS threatened with having a large part of its uniqueness as an
all-male chapter in a mostly female fraternity revoked.
And frankly, you haven't impressed me with your open mind toward any
opinion but those that resemble your own.
Finally, to APO-L, if you think that this is a rather harsh rebuttal,
please forgive me. But in 1994, labeling someone as a sexist based
solely on a rather cursory knowledge garnered from a 6-line e-mail and
basing your opinion on erroneous statements and rhetoric is inexcusable.
Thanx,
Dustin "Not from an all-male chapter, but will fight for their right to
exist." Christmann
[Donning asbestos suit...]
