[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by lee pi chi

Symbols on a page are only half of a text's potential meaning. With this being said, I obviously feel a more intimate connection with our version of the Purpose than the original penned by Horton simply because of the fact that I, nor many of my own chapter have ever been Boy Scouts, let alone Eagle Scouts.

Furthermore, I feel that the term "manly strength" is offensive in that it, in some ways, supposes (or at least connotes) that there is a "feminine weakness." But that's just (if I can speak for my chapter) our chapter's opinion.

I also feel that "encourage" is too weak of a word, provide is much more suitable.

If you're asking me how do I account for my chapter's position in the context that, at one time, Alpha Phi Omega was a national fraternity exclusively for Eagle Scouts, then Boy Scouts...etc, my argument would be based around the concept of state's rights.

I believe that as long as a chapter maintains a set minimum of requirements, such as hours of community service required, cardinal principles, etc..., that most any delineation from that standard should be acceptable insofar as the said modifications pass by each chapter's respective university. I feel that these changes should be respected, but not enforced nationally. Each chapter was given birth under the organization of a particular set of standards and bylaws which ultimately play a VERY large role in the type of neophytes were inducted: our character is so distinct on campus that when people we don't even know see us on campus they KNOW we are brothers of A-Phi-O. There are many other organizations on campus that have similar experiences to that of Alpha Phi Omega: co-ed organizations with service requirements that offer leadership that do not insist on a very (very) high set of standards for admission. The only difference is no national dues are required and they do not have the privilege of wearing similar shirts.

Without respecting these differences, the national office runs the risk of cheapening the entire experience by using a "service fraternity" as a guise to market an ideology (which is more often than not a bad thing).

Co-sign^10 at the bolded.

Excellent post, save for the part about the fraternity being founded exclusively for former Eagle Scouts. That was never the case. Former Boy Scouts, yes, but not Eagle Scouts.

Lee_pi_chi, I have been saying what you've expressed for years. And for the record, I am very much pro-all-male, so I truly empathize with you and your chapter.