[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by arvid1978

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.

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.

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.

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".

You need to see for yourself just how minority your opinion of all-male APO is.

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.

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.

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.