Holding back the train (proposals by the all-male chapters)
 

A *very* large percentage of the amendment proposals that I saw
were either by Delta (Auburn) or Sigma Xi (UMaine-Orono).
Now everything that I can see (the fact that the board structure didn't obviously change,
etc.) seems to indicate that the majority of their proposals didn't
get very far, but did *any* of them get through?

Also, for the all-male chapters (excepting Wabash, of course), do they have
to have female brothers in order to avoid having the charter pulled,
or is the RD going "They tried, they honestly tried" good enough (or some other criteria).
Also, any public statements one way or another from any of the all-male chapters as to whether they were going to go co-ed or simply going to go?

Can you provide a link to these?

http://www.apo.org/show/Conferences_...on/Legislation , but you'll have to log in. (you can log in with your national membership id)

All-

Few of the proposed changes to the National Org go thru the reference committess. One I recall that did was to setup a "Student Advisory Committee" that would bring an active student from each region together, election on to be a member of the BoD. It was defeated.

The decision to go co-ed by 2008 was confirmed. As with all membership issues with chapters, I think most SC & RD will be reasonable that if a former all-male chapter is working to recruit females (promos, getting assistance from nearby co-ed chapters, etc), but is not being successful, they will not penalize them unless its clear that they have been discouraging or turning away females. I know my RD has made that clear many times in the past year or two with chapters.

And IV (yours) and VII are the only ones with more than 2 all-male chapters in them. As such they are the model, I think.

The phrase "good faith effort" was in there somewhere, I think.

OK, sounds reasonable. At this point that could probably end up getting used against one of the chapters at a heavily female school like Carlow, Cedar Crest or the extension effort at Chatham...

But it shouldn't be.

So long as a chapter is making their best effort to recruit from the entire spectrum of students (gender, race/ethnicity, area of study, etc). My home chapter has many times had no male students. This does not make them an 'all-girl chapter' in the same sense of the 'all-male chapters'. They make an effort to recruite men, and most times are successful.

All --

For Region IV, all Chapters have to be in compliance with the membership policies of the Fraternity, regardless of what their current gender designation may be. The Section Chairs will be working with predominately-female Chapters on co-ed campuses to help them reach more of the student body, the same as they will be doing on the campuses of the 6 "all-male" Chapters.

As long as any Chapter is working with the Section and Region staffs to come into compliance, then the attitude from the Section and the Region will be one of support and guidance. If any Chapter chooses to not be in compliance with any rule or policy of the National Fraternity AND actively works against efforts to bring said Chapter into compliance, then the attitude will shift to one of enforcement and rigidity. I can not speak for any other RDs. I can be contacted off-list if you have specific questions for me.

That being said, I ask that all Chapters and Brothers govern themselves accordingly.

Note, from my information, the six as of the 2006 national convention are:
Auburn U. - Delta (69)
Clemson U. - Gamma Lambda (77)
Samford U. - Gamma Chi (69)
Florida A&M U. - Kappa Delta (74)
Tuskegee U. - Pi Zeta (69)
Fort Valley State U. - Phi Zeta (72)

From the last time I posted the list of all-male chapters, the ones in Region IV which are no longer are Austin Peay State U and Carson-Newman College, which were declared inactive in 2004 and 2007 respectively.