Thank you for the additional information.

Randy

Back in 1976 a large group of chapters attempted to form a new national fraternity. Several chapters signed on, our chapter was invited in earnest to join them. I have seen the letters of correspondence and the invitation letter from these chapters personally, its been in alumni's possestion and I've only seen it once. (cant remember the national name or the chapters off the top of my head). We almost left. But national Alpha Phi Omega promissed us (to our face) they would never force us to change our membership policies. We stayed in Alpha Phi Omega based off this promiss, and thirty years later in the living memory of our alumni they went back upon it.

thats all I have, I wish I had access to these letters myself

You do realize that thirty years is a long time, right?

And that circumstances change?

And that tough decisions often have to be made to ensure the strength of the fraternity?

Alpha Phi Omega is not a 'they'. It's an 'us'. WE are all Alpha Phi Omega.

I was refering to the national office in 'they'

I am Alpha Phi Omega, we are Alpha Phi Omega, Almost everyone posting is a brother ect ect...

yes 30 years is a long time however the legal context of title nine has not significantly changed and Alpha Phi Omega nationally is coed, has not seen any legal action in this right nor proabably will it. the all male chapters of alpha phi omega stood by alpha phi omega (nationally) in its time of crisis back in 1976, now it should be time for alpha phi omega to stand by us. I find the lack of commitment to long established chapters, fraternity leaders in their respective section and region and brothers in leadership, friendship and service to be quite disturbing.

What has the national office done that hasn't been in direct support of chapters?

Oh? That's still showing an unwarrented 'us vs. them' attitude.

The National Office had nothing to do with the recent move to have all chapters go co-ed. The National Office are our employees, several of whom, btw, are Brothers also.

The move to have all chapters go co-ed was made by our National Board of Directors, all Brothers ELECTED by the voting delegates (mainly actives) to lead our Fraternity. Right or wrong, they did so because of the issues involved with still having all-male chapters.

The Legislative Session of the National Convention in 2006 had the power to either stop such effort, or approve it. They approved it. The voting delegates are comprised mainly of active students, not alumni. So while you might not like it, your Brothers agreed with the move. The Legislative Session is and was the proper forum for addressing the issue.

So, stop blaming some mythical 'them'. It wasn't the National Office. It wasn't the alumni. WE, Alpha Phi Omega, decided to have all chapters go co-ed.

Furthermore, WE, Alpha Phi Omega, has bent over backwards to help and assist those chapters go co-ed. They weren't demanded to go co-ed overnight. There was no 'lack of commitement' to those chapters. Regional and Section leadership have been working with them to help them out. In fact, I believe it's been over 3 years since that decision was first made.


While I don't agree with how things have happened, nor fully agree with the justification of doing so, I frankly get sick and tired of this kind of attitude being displayed by Brothers.

>>>

For emphasis.

There's a difference between the National Board of Directors (composed of elected and appointed officials, all of whom are volunteers, all of whom are brothers) and the people who are employed at the National Office (who are paid, since it is a job, and who may or may not be brothers).

At this time all of the members of the National Board of Directors are brothers of the Fraternity, however there is no requirement of it. Given that the current Legal Counsel and Representative from BSA (both ex-officio members) are brothers, my belief is that the last time that we had a non-brother on the board is immediately after Bob London was hired as National Executive Director. I'm pretty sure there was a gap between the time he was hired and when he first received membership in the Fraternity(Now an advisor to two chapters and an Honorary brother or a third)

In fact there is no requirement in the bylaws that *any* of our elected National Board members have to be brothers of the fraternity, but things get a little twisted in the bylaws, especially in terms of the National Conventions if they aren't :)

It's not like the members of the BOD woke up one day, flew to a meeting place, and decided to force this upon the chapters. If this is what you want to believe, that is your choice, however reality disagrees with you.

They are charged with acting in the best interest of the Fraternity as a whole. After deliberation, they set it in motion, but your fellow students could have voted it down. They didn't, so it is now the law of the fraternity. Time to focus more on being a leader, being a friend, and being of service than to make up reasons why you have been wronged by the active members taking the fraternity in this direction.

As far as the agreement goes, that was never made with you, that was made with the brothers of all-male chapters 30+ years ago, and it was never said that this would never happen. The times have changed, and now it's time to move on.

It was made to our brothers, to our alumni and to our chapter. It was made to my uncle, who pledged my chapter in 1974. He was there in 1976. Two of those brothers that were there at the atlanta convention are our active advisors. Time changes? What has changed? The All Male Chapters are still here and that promiss was still made. it has just not been honored

Very interesting.

I'm proud to say our chapter has many active alumni, many choose to serve as community advisors

What a coincidence, my chapter is the same way. Mu Alpha. You may have heard of us.... you know, a past national president, diplomats, filmmakers, authors.... leaders of the free world?

Ask about us! :p

yea we never had a national president lol you have me there

Yes, and the promise was made to all students everywhere that Alpha Phi Omega has a place for them when we declared an open membership policy. It's great that you're a legacy and you have active advisors who have been around for a long time, but they should also never forget that Alpha Phi Omega does not belong to us alumni, it belongs to the students, and we must abide by their decisions. They have decided that if you want to have your chapter able to be part of Alpha Phi Omega, then you must accept all students.

Since our purpose is to "assemble college students in a fraternity based on the principles of the Boy Scouts of America, specifically the Scout Oath and Law, you should know that:

"A Scout is Obedient. A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobeying them."

You may not like it, but it is the law of the land now. The correct thing would be to get an exemption for groups like APO, not flaunt the law because some of our chapters want to stay all-male. Ignoring Title IX, whether or not we have been sued for being in violation, is not living up to the ideals that Alpha Phi Omega was founded upon, and any brother who would openly disrespect the very core of our being to satisfy their own selfish needs should spend some time seriously re-evaluating what this fraternity is all about.

Sorry to erupt, but APO is much more than Pi Chi chapter.

Sounds to me like you're making excuses to what should have been (or at least appeared to be) an unqualified promise. In other words, that promise had no disclaimers or riders when it was originally made, and you're trying to interpret that promise as if it did. Just be honest and tell us that you don't want to regard that promise as being valid because you don't think it's relevant in 2008 and doesn't fit APO's politically correct public image.

Frankly, that adds insult to injury on the whole issue. You may not agree what what the all-male constituency and issues thereof stand for, but don't sit here and tell us we didn't understand what the promise made to entailed. That's kinda offensive.

ETA: if Title IX was as big an issue as everyone here (or better yet, APO as a whole) is making it out to be, the mandate that all chapters become co-ed would've took effect December 30, 1976 (not 1986 or 2006).

You're absolutely right I don't find that promise to be relevant in 2008. There are lots of things that were relevant in the past that no longer work today. What you're advocating is like saying even though we passed the 14th amendment to the constitution, we never should have struck down separate-but-equal because we made a promise to those who came before us that integration would never happen. That is what you are saying from my perspective.

Times change, and APO does not exist solely in a vacuum or a time capsule. It was wrong to not fully open the door to women 30 years ago, but I'm glad the students of today have enough vision to correct the errors of the past.

By your own admission, you just said that the brotherhood doesn't have the integrity to keep its own word, relevant or otherwise. The vote to go co-ed in '76 was contingent upon the all-male chapters remaining all-male. The all-male constituency (AMC) held their end of the bargain, the co-ed constituency (CEC) reneged on their end. Yet the CEC wants to play the moral card on the AMC by saying what they're doing is discriminatory while not only allowing it to happen for 30 years (if being all-male was so evil, why did you co-sign on it for so long), but breaking their promise which serves as the basis for APO to even be a co-ed organization to begin with.

The CEC is no better than the AMC when they knowingly and willingly broke their word to justify a guise of being morally correct. In other words, they manipulated the AMC in order to go co-ed, then broke their word to serve their own selfish interests and ends.

It is for this reason, that I cannot accept the vote mandating all chapters becoming co-ed. I must respect the vote by virtue that it adhered to the Fraternity bylaws as far as protocol and procedure, but I cannot accept it due to the dirty politics involved.

The AMC OTOH had no other sin than remaining all-male, which we were allowed to do all along. The CEC played their trump card by admitting by default that the co-edness APO was nothing more than a manipulative power play; which I had suspected even when I was relatively young in the frat, but with the chickens coming home to roost, made it all the more clear as time progressed.

One of the poster here said the AMC lost. Considering the dishonest tactics involved, I have to ask, "Did they really?" If they did, it was a hollow victory for the CEC.

That's politics for you. Down and dirty.

Hey arvid1978.... just curious.... could you remind me how many national conventions you've been to since you were initiated?

I initiated in Spring 2000 (keep regretting that I didn't do it much much earlier in my college career, since I was already on the 6-year plan). I attended Philly 2000 as a student, and New Orleans 2002, Denver 2004 and Louisville 2006 as an alumni volunteer. So, to answer your question, I've been to 4 national conventions.

Deflecting by bringing up irrelevant items isn't going to work.

You don't have to attend a convention to know when there are hypocritical and self-righteous attitudes that serve only to manipulate.

The one thing I fault the '76 AMC for is not getting that promise in writing. Then any subsequent issue on the matter would've been a non-starter and thus not up for vote or discussion (at least not without some serious backlash). OTOH, if word was bond, a written promise wouldn't have been necessary. So much for that.

*SMH*

While I applaud your regular attendance at National Conventions, what does that have to do with the core issues raised by the posting AMC here?

Let's not deflect the issue by proving a meaningless point.

It's not meaningless that arvid knows what he's talking about through experience of the legislative process and you don't.

It would be an interesting history lesson to know if there was this much contention when we dropped the Scouting requirement for membership.

It is when he gave his own opinion (as opposed to being objective with the facts) when asked why a promise critical as to whether or not APO would be co-ed was broken.

If that promise was going to be broken at some point because "it was so evil", then a suitable compromise or other alternative means in satisfying the AMC should have been readily available for discussion and vote. You don't make a promise and then break it because you don't feel that is any longer relevant, especially considering that in 1976 the AMC was critical in the continuity of APO.

ETA: Show me where in the legislative process it is justified to break an agreement critical to APO's continuity without paying mutually agreeable restitution to the orignal party, and I'll concede to your point. You forget, if it wasn't for the AMC, APO would've shut down on January 1, 1977. The AMC didn't have to let women in. They could've easily said "Shut it down." The CEC can't even give deference to those who made it possible for the org to be co-ed without saying that they somehow made a mistake.

It was also wrong for the CEC to exploit the AMC in the process to meet these ends, all the more so when the CEC became the majority of the brotherhood.

This quote reeks of sanctimonious arrogance, but I'll leave that alone.

As far as I've been able to tell, No. Not really sure why, but some of it may have been that any chapter that wanted to pledge and initiate those who hadn't had scouting experience could simply register them with the local Boy Scout Council as a member of "College Scouter Reserve" (a position that doesn't exist any more) for $5.

The closest equivalent that I can come to for gender is the following (and yes it is wierd) Instead of requiring that Alpha Phi Omega is limited to men, the fraternity requires that all members have mustaches when they become members of the Fraternity. Various chapters around the fraternity decide they are going to pledge anyone who wants and if someone doesn't want or can't grow a mustache, then a fake one will be provided for $5. After fifteen or more years of that, the fraternity decides that mustaches will no longer be required and thus women can join as long as chapters volunteer at Barber Shops.

After reading these posts, I honestly think I am starting to regret my membership. It is apparent that women will still be beneath most men but I am thankful that there some men who believes in equal footing. My other organization is co-ed but I have yet to experience any beef with my bruhs there.

Please don't do feel that way.

Those who think that women are not equals in APO or don't belong in the Fraternity are in the (vocal) minority.

GreekChat isn't exactly a microcosm of Alpha Phi Omega, and it isn't "most men" that feel this way considering that only 13 of 363 (3.5%) practice gender discrimination. I wouldn't regret your decision if I were you. The all-male contingency is a quickly shrinking fringe group who seem to be stuck on decisions made 30 years ago without taking modern times into consideration.

I don't know what posts you are getting (the bolded) from, but I think you're reading way too much into this discussion to come to such a conclusion, especially if you are reading my posts, because I never said that, implied that, believed that, or practiced that in my life, much less my years of being a member of APO.

As for you regretting your membership in APO, that's on you. I ain't about to feel guilty for expressing what I believe in, and it most definately isn't women being inferior to men or any such nonsense.

i.e., that are not ongoing.

All this pious hypocritical arrogant talk about so-called "discrimination" and guilt tripping that all male chapters are somehow evil is killing me. The CEC wouldn't be where they are today if it wasn't for the AMC, but I guess due to "modern times" and selective amnesia, the CEC doesn't want to acknowledge that, hence they conveniently ignore that fact.

*smh*

That's a rather bold statement to make, and one that you can't even begin to back up because it's unprovable, especially considering it took a majority of the chapters to go co-ed in the first place. Your inability to see that we are not stuck in the 70's is killing me. The All-Male chapters did not "save" APO, going co-ed did. That is when the membership numbers went up. Selective amnesia, indeed.

Since it has been pointed out that you have never been to a national convention, I humbly suggest you take the time to come to Boston this winter and see what the fraternity is actually about. You need to see for yourself just how minority your opinion of all-male APO is.

I noted that you completely glossed over the analogy to the 14th amendment and selectively ignoring that should still be allowed today because we promised a bunch of rich, old, white men that they wouldn't have to treat minoritiets equally. Explain how "separate-but-equal" is NOT OK, but selectively ignoring not only what the bylaws say (membership is open to all, regardless of gender, etc.) but what the law says (Title IX does not grant an exemption to groups like APO) is acceptable to you.

Lookahere, young brother, lemme school you on a coupla things
 

The AMC DID save APO in that they could've decided that they would sooner have the org shut down than let women in it. Hence I admittedly daresay served at least in part for the reason why the promise that their chapters could remain all male if they desired it was made. Otherwise the org would've been long since shut down and based on the subsequent fallout of the org going co-ed (some chapters and/or brothers dissociating with APO after the co-ed decision), I am reasonably sure at least some brothers/chapters would've been okay with the org shutting down. You can take that for what it's worth.

The individual who pointed it out doesn't know what he's talking about, since he wasn't a member when I was attending the National Conventions, so I know firsthand "what the fraternity is actually about".


Bruh, I don't/didn't need a national convention to tell me my opinion of APO chapters being all-male was a minority one. I knew that when I became a brother and conversed with other brothers.

I subsequently transferred to not one, but TWO co-ed chapters. While my relationships with the co-ed brothers were reasonably copasetic, frankly I really couldn't relate to them, nor them to me. That doesn't make it anything implicitly bad or wrong, it just was what it was. I do however applaud one of the two chapters for (at least for a season) incorporating a "Last Rites March" across campus for the pledges just before they got initiated after the march. But I digress. The bottom line is, I found nothing wrong with us having all male chapters and I'm sticking to my guns on that issue.

If your 14th Amendment/Separate But Equal analogy held any real weight as far as this issue is concerned, then single gender orgs of any type would've been outlawed, Title IX or not. Your analogy is IMO a weak attempt to justify why the entire org should be co-ed.

Also, you still haven't explained why it's okay to break a promise that appeared to be rooted in what would ultimately be a manipulation scheme.

Apparently, the lesson learned is, "It's okay to break your word, as long as you're not a "woman hater. Oh, remember that promise we made to you back in '76? Well, we didn't tell you that it had an expiration date."

Spare me the pseudo-moral/legal dribble. I heard that when I joined in the 90s and thought it was a bunch of bunk, especially because APO is the only Title IX org that really preaches the issue, even though there has been no real precedent for an issue like ours in dealing with fraternities and sororities. Furthermore, it does not justify forcing every chapter to go co-ed.

You have stated openly that you've never attended an Alpha Phi Omega convention.