[9850] in APO-L
Re: BSA Amendments - Part II
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jonathan T. Alloy)
Wed Oct 19 16:03:31 1994
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 1994 13:27:35 -0500
Reply-To: "Jonathan T. Alloy" <C2MXALL@FRE.TOWSON.EDU>
From: "Jonathan T. Alloy" <C2MXALL@FRE.TOWSON.EDU>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L%PURCCVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>
>I am not against the rewording of the bylaws as long as the histroical ties
>to the BSA are maintained. However it pains me to see a rift arising
>between two organizations which could be much closer.
>
>Michael Newman (my $0.02)
>AB, PSU
>VD 94
FYI, it was the BSA who initiated ths dialoge, as the rationale for the
amendments points out, not APO. So this rift, as you put it, exists, and
will continue to exist regardless of our actions. Let's say we don't approve
the amendments, then what? Well, BSA will probably issue its own guidelines
on dealing with APO chapters. and there will be an even bigger fight in 96.
As for historical ties, well, again, I wasn't a scout, so I'll admit they
really aren't that important to me in this case. We have admitted women as
full Brothers - that severed a pretty historical tie right there! Also, do
we really want to be affiliated with an organization that is openly
anti-woman, anti-homosexual, and strongly pro-religion? I don't want us to...
In L,F,S,
Jonathan
Alpha Gamma Chi Voting Delegate
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan T. Alloy * Frostburg State University
University of Maryland System Student Council Secretary-Treasurer
c2mxall@fre.fsu.umd.edu * (301) 689-7705
