[9667] in APO-L
Re: Sub/Ob-jective Pledge Standards...
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dale I. Newfield)
Thu Oct 6 02:47:03 1994
Date: Thu, 6 Oct 1994 02:45:40 -0400
Reply-To: "Dale I. Newfield" <dn1l+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU>
From: "Dale I. Newfield" <dn1l+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L%PURCCVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Added.MiYpY9y00UdbNldk4k@andrew.cmu.edu>
On 05-Oct-94 in Sub/Ob-jective Pledge Stand..
user Shawn BB Hillis@PEGASUS. writes:
> One answer was it was a requirement from some schools (those that
>require open memberships) and that if your school did not have that
>policy, then it didn't apply.
Yes.
> A second answer was that it came from some 'higher-up' APO
>'official(s)'.
I don't doubt some 'higher-up' might feel this way, but I claim that
even if one ever said this, it was *not* official.
> A third answer was that a chapter COULD have a subjective
>standard, but it had to be stated in the program.
Yes.
> And the last answer was that it was against National Policy (re:
>National Pledging Standards) to have anything but objective standards.
Not by my interpretation of 19. Possibly by someone's interpretation,
but I would like the chance to convince them otherwise.
-Dale Newfield
