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.