emb021 |
09-13-2007 04:04 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst
(Post 1512865)
THAT WAS NOT [IMMEDIATELY] TRUE; it wasn't until 1986 that new chapters had to be co-ed. That is one APO urban legend that needs to be put to bed, along with the whole "Gentlemen's Agreement", but I digress.
|
My mistake in not making it clear that we didn't immediately require new Chapters to be co-ed.
However, I don't understand your claim about the "Gentlemen's Agreement" being an "APO urban legend". The GA most certainly did exist, and I know of people who were involved in committees looking at this matter at past National Conventions. Are you claiming it didn't exist?
Quote:
As much as I despise this ruling, in all fairness the all-male constituency had more than an ample opportunity to kill this where it stood. All they needed were six delegates from 3 active chapters and this issue would've been squashed flat! And mind you, the all male constituency getting the needed votes in their favor that they did get was not easy at all.
I have always thought the all-male constituency needed to form their own brotherhood anyway. Not to say that this will happen, but this debate has been raging on for at least 15 years and needs to be put to rest one way or another. Forcing the chapters to go co-ed really isn't effective in doing this. Oh well. I wish them all the best.
|
The thing to keep in mind is that this so-called "all-male constituency" was never a monolithic group. You had the so-called "APQ" elements, you had the non-APQ all-male schools. You had some who had no problem with APO being co-ed, they just wanted to keep their own chapter all-male. You had those who couldn't get over the fact that we went co-ed, wanted us to go back to all-male, and thought going co-ed was some eeevil plot. (some of these couldn't understand what Title IX was about or how we were affected by it). But, yes, I think part of the problem of the so-called 'a-m c' was that many of them wouldn't work with other chapters. I think if more of them had come out to section, regional, and national events, and worked with the other chapters, they might have won more friends and allies amoung the other chapters.
On the other side were people who had no problem with the remaining all-male chapters, but you also had various people who seemed to have a problem with it, and you had to wonder if some of the 'issues' that were put forth as reasons for forcing the issue (claims of certain groups not wanted to work with APO because we had a few all-male chapters, claims of issues with our Toast Song loosing potential members, etc) were really legit or inflated. If certain groups didn't want to work with us because of this, I think we should know who these are. Otherwise how can we judge if this was true?
But its now part of the past for the most part. Hopefully we can move forward and forge a stronger Fraternity.
|