Quote:
Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst
Sounds to me like you're making excuses to what should have been (or at least appeared to be) an unqualified promise. In other words, that promise had no disclaimers or riders when it was originally made, and you're trying to interpret that promise as if it did. Just be honest and tell us that you don't want to regard that promise as being valid because you don't think it's relevant in 2008 and doesn't fit APO's politically correct public image.
Frankly, that adds insult to injury on the whole issue. You may not agree what what the all-male constituency and issues thereof stand for, but don't sit here and tell us we didn't understand what the promise made to entailed. That's kinda offensive.
ETA: if Title IX was as big an issue as everyone here (or better yet, APO as a whole) is making it out to be, the mandate that all chapters become co-ed would've took effect December 30, 1976 (not 1986 or 2006).
|
You're absolutely right I don't find that promise to be relevant in 2008. There are lots of things that were relevant in the past that no longer work today. What you're advocating is like saying even though we passed the 14th amendment to the constitution, we never should have struck down separate-but-equal because we made a promise to those who came before us that integration would never happen. That is what you are saying from my perspective.
Times change, and APO does not exist solely in a vacuum or a time capsule. It was wrong to not fully open the door to women 30 years ago, but I'm glad the students of today have enough vision to correct the errors of the past.
Threaded Mode
