Show me your letter of renunciation citing homosexuality as a reason.

In other words, you can't prove I ever said it. That's what I thought.

Senusret, you have a bad habit of deflecting when you are taken to task on something you know you can't prove. I thought you were above such juvenile tactics. Step it up, partner.

In other words, I never thought I'd have to quote it for posterity. But clearly, since I'm dealing with a liar and teller of tall tales (dead babies, anyone?), I will know to do so in the future.

I know for a fact you have done this in the past when it was convenient for you to prove a point, no matter how trivial it may have been (pancake pics, anyone?). :p Nice escape attempt, though.

You're deflecting again. You can't even concede defeat without making some sort of ad hominem personal attack. *sighs and smh*

Anyway, back to the all male/co-ed issue....

You are a liar. That is the point. The people reading this should not take anything you say to heart (whether they post or not) because your thoughts are irrelevant. They are not irrelevant because you are a proponent of all male chapters -- they are irrelevant because you lie.

You have not been to a national convention nor have you proven that you have. The burden isn't on me to prove that you have not.

The people who only frequent the APO forums probably don't know the depth of your lies, but that's okay -- now they do. If it looks like I'm personally attacking you -- fine. I'll be the bad guy so that people don't fool your posts for true knowledge or wisdom.

The people on this board who deserve respect are the ones who have earned it by the years and energy they've put into this fraternity -- and NEVER have they turned their back on it for a second. There are many, but I want to mention naraht, emb, and arvid by name.

You are a disloyal quitter, a homophobe, a chauvinist, a bigot, a liar, and an idiot.

I'll take the "unbrotherly" lump from anyone here who wishes to chastise me for being so. I'd rather be unbrotherly than be YOU.

Let's get one thing perfectly clear
 

I haven't lied about a got-dang thing. I stand by everything I said, past and present.

Stop hijacking the thread with your childish name calling and spare us all your over the top emotional bitch fits.

You don't have to agree with what I believe in, and I'm ok with that. But stop sidetracking the issues by posting bullcrap irrelevant to the thread along with your drama-laden personal attacks and learn how to man up!

Is it unbrotherly if the person has renounced membership?

The reason why this has taken the turn that it has is because, as usual, Rain Man came in here as the foremost authority on a GLO (that his status in is shaky at best). Even going so far as to claim deference and that he could school someone. If this was just an interesting discussion of all-male chapters, the discussion wouldn't have gone here.

**********

I have definitely learned something new about APO because of this thread. I have only been exposed to co-ed APO chapters but, as an outsider who doesn't know things like policies and oaths, can see where both sides' points are coming from in terms of tradition and inclusion. I wouldn't have known some of the details of the "innerworkings" of APO if it had not been for this thread. :p

[quote=DSTCHAOS;1642334]
The reason why this has taken the turn that it has is because, as usual, Rain Man came in here as the foremost authority on a GLO (that his status in is shaky at best).

No, the discussion took a turn when Senusret tried to be snarky to prove a point and it severely backfired, hence his "episode".

I am not speaking as a foremost authority on anything. I am however, trying to address some critical key factors and details very much relevant to this thread that most APO brothers conveniently like to cover up or try to smooth over because it does not align with APO's politically correct image.
**********

Glad we could be of assistance :)

That was for the members of APO who contributed to this thread.

Sweetie, trust me, I am not reading into YOUR posts in particular so don't get YOUR panties in a bunch. You definitely sound like a smart ass just from the arguments you and Rashid are having. *moving on*

Let me return some "schooling" to you
 

Well, I'm pretty much done with this thread since you insist that the fraternity allow itself to disregard its own bylaws in order to appease a very vocal minority of members who are more concerned with their own selfish desires than the health and stability of Alpha Phi Omega.

The fact that you didn't feel comfortable in a co-ed chapter is understandable and it's ok. APO has room for everybody, but not everybody has room for APO. That's fine, and I have no issues with anybody who chooses to leave the fraternity for those reasons. But to leave, join someone else, then keep coming back and bitching to APO about an ORAL agreement (note that it was never written down) that was made 30 years ago is the height of ballsy. Then, to get pissed at the actives (who were not even born when said agreement was made) and demand that they honor something that they didn't personally agree to shows incredible disrespect to the Active members, who this Fraternity belongs to.

The actives could've codified the so-called "gentleman's agreement" any time in the past 30 years, but they didn't. Instead, they decided that it is no longer in the fraternity's best interest. Nowhere was it written that this was how APO was to remain forever and ever. If APO never changed, I seriously doubt you and I would be having this conversation unless you has previous Scouting affiliation like I do. Respect their decision to do what they did. You may not like it (and you're certainly entitled to not like it), but if you can't respect the decisions of the active members to direct the fraternity in what THEY believe (not you or me) is in its best interest, then APO was never the right group for you in the first place.

Whoa, whoa, slow it down now partner
 

I think you're getting things seriously twisted with what I've been talking about.

For the record, I am not demanding that APO does anything, I am not pissed off at anyone, least of all the actives who sealed the all co-ed decision (though the pious attitudes surrounding this issue do tend to irritate/annoy me, it's something I can live with). I am not disrespecting APOs collective decision; you don't see me promoting or encouraging the remaining AMCs to disregard/rebel against APO's co-ed mandate, do you?

If anything, I told them that they need to either (plan to) comply with the mandate or secede from APO. And that was even before the 2006 Convention ever took place. Because just like you and everybody else, I am tired of the perpetual battle between the AMCs and the CECs and would like for it to be put to an ultimate rest one way or another.

The only thing I have done here was to speak on the side of an issue, that while it was unpopular and most definately in the minority as far was APO was concerned, was one I felt very passionately about. That was it, that was all. Where you got all this other nonsense about me demanding that APO do whatever, or me being pissed at the actives for making APO all coed, or disrespecting their decision I have no flippin' clue.

OTOH, if merely speaking an opinion on an issue is equal to disrespecting someone's decision in yours or anyone else's eyes, that's their problem, not mine.

And for the record, I think the way the '76 Convention delegates and attendees handled the decision to go co-ed (including the oral agreement) was downright sloppy, which I think explains the 30 year debate on the matter.

Nonetheless, irrespective of what APO's actives decided, it does not preclude me from commenting on the decision, which is the only thing I have done here.

I'm glad you're mature enough to essentially see that while we mutually disagree, we can still be civil in so doing.

Take care, partna.

Those who refuse to learn the lessons of history...
 

A tangental commment on this.

One thing that really annoys me with some Brothers is their rigid attitude toward change. I heard a lot of this in regards to recent proposals to change the Toast Song. The worse of this attitudes would be "I want APO to remain just the way it was when Frank Reed Horton founded it". This is just such a stupid attitude.

I love and respect history, and I love and respect the history of APO. But if there is ONE thing I've learned in my studies of our history is HOW MUCH WE HAVE CHANGED. I do not feel that these changes have altered our fundamental principles (tho there have, IMO, been attempts to do so). But there have been changes. Sadly, since so few Brothers have a decent understanding of our history, this attitude prevails. The history given in our Pledge Manual is just a high-level basics. And many chapters, IMO, emphasis their chapter history over national history such that their members have an even poorer understanding of it.

For instance. Our Toast Song did not come around until after H. Roe Bartle was our National President. How many realize this?

This is why I've been working on a series of presentations on APO history that I finally hope to present as a workshop at our next National Convention. Hopefully it will happen.

Oh *lots* of things have changed since Frank Reed Horton was an active brother.

We aren't a National Service Fraternity, our purpose has changed, our coat of arms has changed, our officer titles have changed, our toast song didn't exist and given the extensive rewrite of the rituals in 1932, I wouldn't be all that suprised if *NO* sentence of our rituals was the same as the one where Frank Reed Horton brought in the first two pledge classes.

Oh and our pledge pins were two color shield shapes (left half one color, right half another)

Randy

The thing that upsets me about proposals to change the Toast Song is the same kind of thing that upsets me when schools insist that APO be in IFC just because we have "fraternity" in the name. It's the lack of thinking or trying to understand behind the request.

Some people in that toast song thread were saying we were being threatened to get kicked off campuses, denied extension requests etc because of the toast song. They (these mythical campuses) didn't understand WHY we all are called "brothers" or that some women in APO (myself among them) would be insulted to be called "sisters" or "members" instead. They just assumed brothers = men = patriarchy and sexism, assumed the worst.

Stuff like that, I don't think should be dignified with caving in. To me it's the same as when social Greeks get stuck with a guaranteed bid system where they have to give bids to everyone who wants one (and for them, once you're bid, you're pretty much in). Whoever instituted that didn't look beyond to understand WHY social Greeks have selective membership. I don't know why sororities stay on campuses like that, but that's their choice, not mine.

I understand what you're saying and that this is a tangent, but I think making the AMC go co-ed has a point. I think changing the toast song is pointless.

Speaking for myself only (though I am sure a number of brothers with these "rigid attitudes towards change" would agree with me to one extent or another), the reason why I am so resistant to all these changes is because it is turning APO from a service fraternity to a Circle K-ish greek letter service club. I didn't pledge a club, I pledged a fraternity.

And FWIW, being part of an all-male chapter intrinsically brought with it certain elements and traditions that gave APO the appearance, both in form and in substance of being a true-to-form fraternity rather than just a fraternity in structure, but a service club in form.

These changes IMHO are undermining the very essence of what Alpha Phi Omega was founded to do: to serve in a FRATERNAL bond. And I resent the notion that for this reason, my attitude is a so-called "stupid" one.

Being opposed to changes that changes a groups fundamental principles is one thing. I am speaking against mindless opposition to change just because it's a change. Any organization will and must change over time. When we became a National Organization, our Board of Directors was composed of just 4 elected officers. Over time, the composition of our national leadership has changed, necessary as we've grown as group. To be opposed to this just because its a change is wrong.

I, too, am opposed to changes that would turn us into a (as you put it) 'circle k-ish greek letter service club'. Going fully co-ed doesn't do this. Changing things such as de-emphasising the concept of our pledge program and rituals and the concept of fraternalism does this. There are some who feel this is already happening, and, while I don't agree with conspiricies, I agreed to an extent with this concern.

Full agreement!

any updates from other chapters?

Its been pretty quite

Haven't heard much.
 

Only thing that I've heard this summer is that Maine Orono's chapter has been in communication with the RD and even though they are leaving, they want to do so with all of the i's dotted and t's crossed moneywise and documentationwise.

I think that most of the cards will be on the table by mid-october. Most of the chapters will have gone through rush and pledging and it should be obvious at that point which all-male chapters made an attempt to recruit co-ed. Also, we'll have the proposed by-law amendments, which should be a guide to indicate which chapters are going to roll the dice and try to get the rules changed. I know that by-law amendments go into affect at the end of convention, but I don't know whether something could get passed early in convention that would change the characteristics of the vote.

Randy

Andrew, PM me. I might have some info for you.

bump

Any news through the grapevine?

Any information on such groups would be welcome.


The only fraternites that I've heard of that have been created from groups that were Alpha Phi Omega chapters (or close) at one time are:

Phi Rho Eta from a group at Southern Illinois Carbondale. Jesse Bridge's pages (http://members.tripod.com/~APQGSS/newaindex.html) say that they were formed in the 1980s. But the pages for the Fraternity say 1994 (http://www.phirhoeta.org)


A group that formed out of the failed Alpha Phi Omega extension to University of Maryland Eastern Shore in the mid 1990s. Not sure if it is still around, they had a web page at least of a few years ago.

Alpha Delta. 2008. Chapters at U of Maine, Duquesne U. and Drexel U.

To the all-male chapters that attended Convention, I want to give you a big Congratulations for your small victory at Convention. The issue isn't over by a long shot, but it clearly demonstrates that tenacity is a virtue that can pay off in the long run.

Stay strong, hang in there, see you soon.

For those of us who didn't attend convention, can we get a *tiny* bit of explanation?

Randy

Nothing has changed since the 2006 National Convention.

Here is the text off the committee's recommendation, though it was not an action item submitted to the convention for adoption (btw, I apologize for any errors - I retyped this pretty quickly.)

"After consulting with directors of regions with noncompliant chapters, but especially that of Region IV, V, and VII, it has come to our attention that the noncompliance of chapters previously identified as having resist transition efforts is not solely due to a desire to rebel against integration. For example, some chapters identified hve fallen victim to the "Two-Year Clock" rule, with a lack of female recruitment being a result of absence of any recruitment whatsoever. However, many chapters identified as being resistant to compliance are under administrative scrutiny from their respective sectional and regional chairs due to a lack of communication with the fraternity's representatives on a national level.

We have concluded that open membership in uncooperative chapters should not require further action at a national convention. A deadline was for compliance set at the 2006 National Convention and regional and sectional staff should maintain current enforcement efforts. Cooperative chapters countinue to work with regional and sectional staff, and noncompliant chapters are tending towards ceasing communication and dissociating from the national organization. Open lines of communication should be maintained between chapters and fraternity staff, and chapters should demonstrate good-faith efforts at complying with open membership. For thsoe chapters not communicating with the fraternity or not complying with established policies on open membership, standards that have been set for any breach with national bylaws should be applied and appropriate action should be taken."

In short, chapters that are attempting to make the good-faith, demonstrable effort (as required by the Board's 2006 resolution) should continue to make those efforts (and, I can assure you, this is what is happening in some of those chapters.)

Chapters which choose not to comply, and therefore do not make a good faith demonstrable effort, and which have not dissociated from Alpha Phi Omega, remain under the jurisdiction of Alpha Phi Omega, and will be treated as being non-compliant.

Nothing in the committee's recommendation has changed the status of how the Board is currently handling the question of open membership.

Fraternally,

Mark

Current Status?
 

As far as I know, the only changes to the list of all-male chapters from 2 years ago today is that Gamma Lambda at Clemson and Gamma Chi at Samford have gone co-ed and Sigma Xi at Maine-Orono is no longer active, right?

I don't want to say that these are the only changes, but the status for each is correct (as best I know it.)

I know that other chapters are working towards transition, while the status for others is unknown.

Mark

I recognize that there are a number of gradations of status in regard to efforts (which may or may not be exactly the same for each RD), but I was wondering about the macro changes. I've been surprised before, with Alpha Delta spreading to Duquesne and to Drexel, and yet the chapters continuing as active (as opposed to Maine-Orono).

Randy

The group from the Maryland Eastern Shore extension attempt was Theta Beta Phi.

Also, reading through the 1992 History Book, the APO chapter at Baylor (Zeta Omega) in 1972 unanimously voted to end the groups affiliation with Alpha Phi Omega and became Phi Kappa Alpha. In 1976 Phi Kappa Alpha applied to become a colony of Sigma Alpha Epsilon and in 1977 they received their charter from Sigma Alpha Epsilon. So I guess Phi Kappa Alpha, while it didn't last that long belongs in the list.

Nu Mu chapter at University of Minnesota Duluth is apparently in the process of going co-ed but has not done so yet. See http://media.www.umdstatesman.com/me...-page2.shtml#4

Most of the article is on APO resigning from Greek Life, but it's status is mentioned.