I am a member of Omega Phi Alpha, which I assume you all know is based off of A Phi O. I am curious about this situation because I find it strange that nationals would require all chapters to be co-ed. In OPA we are mostly all female chapters, however we do have chapters with male members. We do not discriminate against anyone who wants to join, and yet we are not forced to be co-ed.

Our purpose in OPhiA as far as I know, has always been:

The purpose and goals of this sorority shall be to assemble its members in the fellowship of Omega Phi Alpha, to develop friendship, leadership and cooperation by promoting service to the university-community, to the community-at-large, to the members of the sorority and to the nations of the world.

It does not contain any gender biased language, it simply refers to "members".

It would have been interesting to hear the discussion at convention when this action was voted on. It seems like there could have been a better compromise in the national organization rather than to say make these changes or leave.

By the way... does anyone know if there are any APO chapters still around in Arizona? I went to NAU, and there was a small chapter there when I was still in college, but I don't know if they are still around.

Andrew,

I'm getting really confused.

Can you perhaps write out the purpose your chapter uses so we can compare it with the original purpose penned by FRH and the current purpose?

It just sounds like you're saying your chapter took the Purpose and added/subtracted bits to get something you liked. If that's not the case, I'm sorry for thinking so.

APO and OPA have two different "nationals."

I never said they didn't.

ETA: I'm sorry if I wasn't clear before. I just meant that I thought it was strange that APO as a national organization would require all of its chapters to recruit women. I know our two separate organizations (OPA and APO) are similar, so I was just interested in how they, as a group, were handling this situation.

It seemed from the wording of your post that you were saying that. Just my interpretation.

You said that "you do not discriminate against anyone who wants to join." The problem is that some of the all male chapters were doing that (i.e. discriminating against women).

I hope I am not out of order for asking, but are there any documented cases of this happening? That's a pretty strong statement to make.

Also another question. Wouldn't this ruling have an affect on any chapters that are all female, because to my understanding, the fraternity has a few of them as well? So aren't they discriminating towards men if that's the case?

Without quoting lisarpotter's whole post, Gamma Sig is the same way. We are mainly comprised of women, but we do have male members. However I couldn't see our organization making our chapters be co-ed. I also wonder if there were any attempts to compromise before this happened.

Again I hope I am not being out of line...but just wanting to know so I have a clearer picture.

Yes.

All-woman chapters don't de jure discriminate against men, and as far as I know still make a good faith effort to recruit them.


Do GSS chapters have the power to decide whether to allow a man to pledge? I believe this is the issue in our fraternity.

Among other reasons, it is a bad move legally to continue to allow all-male chapters to discriminate against women. It leaves the fraternity and the university open to litigation on the basis of Title IX rules, from which APO is not exempt.

You are not wrong.

In fact, of our Founders, I think only 1 or 2 were Eagle Scouts. Horton was NEVER a scout as a youth, joining as a leader. I've read in early issues of the Lightbearer (our National Magazine) statements made that chapters should NOT restrict their recruitement to just Eagle Scouts.

Oh? And where is the Fraternity heading? We were a co-ed National Service Fraternity with a few all-male chapters (which apparently were caused some problems for us in regards to working with some other national orgs). We are STILL a co-ed National Service Fraternity but with a few all-male chapters moving to being co-ed. We will soon and I hope continue to be a co-ed National Service Fraternity.

I have to agree with the original poster at not liking some of the statements said in this article. Ok, so the chapter didn't like being forced to go co-ed and decided to go local/independent. Sorry that happend. BUT, to claim that somehow APO is being 'adult run' OR that APO has gotten away from service OR they were being threatened by the National President is IMO insulting.

I personally didn't like how the co-ed thing was handled. And I think many felt the same way. I think the way elections turned out in 06 are due in large part to that. HOWEVER, the voting delegates at 06, made up predominately by ACTIVE BROTHERS, not alum, voted to approve the move to go entirely co-ed. So obviously the actives agreed with the goal, even if they didn't like the means. (Keep in mind that if every chapter sends their voting delegates to Nationals, that would give actives 720 or so voting delegates vs about 30-40 or so voting delegates who are alum. Kind of outnumber them, don't you think?)

Furthermore, I happen to know that the alumni volunteers (RD and SC) have been working for some time to HELP those all-male chapters go co-ed, AND I think it safe to say that their fellow co-ed chapters have ALSO stepped forward to help them. They have time to move to going co-ed!

Just for the record:

Sigma Xi chapter was not the first chapter to secede from APO due to being forced to go co-ed.

Theta Xi chapter (Parks College of St. Louis University) was an all male chapter that had to merge with another chapter when Parks College closed down. The chapter they merged with was co-ed and would not allow the all-male group to stay all male, so the all-male group seceded from Alpha Phi Omega and formed a social fraternity which later got picked up as a chapter of Theta Xi Fraternity.

Interesting story.

Not to nitpick, but I don't think it's a true secession if the chapter closed due to the school closing.

Co-sign^10 at the bolded.

Excellent post, save for the part about the fraternity being founded exclusively for former Eagle Scouts. That was never the case. Former Boy Scouts, yes, but not Eagle Scouts.

Lee_pi_chi, I have been saying what you've expressed for years. And for the record, I am very much pro-all-male, so I truly empathize with you and your chapter.

Some may agree, some may disagree. Depends on your perspective.

The fact is, a group of brothers left APO because of an ideological dispute that could've otherwise been averted.

Each chapter has a lot of latitude within the bounds of national policy to create a unique group.

That said, chapters do a disservice to our National Fraternity when they lose sight that they ARE a PART of a National organization, and fail to educate their members in our National history, National organization, and the like. If you know more about your chapter history then our National history, that's not good. If you know more about the founders of your chapter, then our Founders, that's not good. The results of this is too often these Brothers think of ONLY their chapter when they think of APO, and don't become alumni volunteers or help out other chapters.


Uh, what 'ideology' is the National Office pushing? Keep in mind that our National Fraternity is lead by alumni voted in by active voting delegates. If chapters fail to participate in this process, but attending National Convention and the like, its hard for them to complain about how things are going.

I beg to differ. Complaining is easy, that's why everyone does it. ;)

I kid, I kid.