Status of all-male chapters

[AndrewPiChi]

Back in 1976 a large group of chapters attempted to form a new national fraternity. Several chapters signed on, our chapter was invited in earnest to join them. I have seen the letters of correspondence and the invitation letter from these chapters personally, its been in alumni's possestion and I've only seen it once. (cant remember the national name or the chapters off the top of my head). We almost left. But national Alpha Phi Omega promissed us (to our face) they would never force us to change our membership policies. We stayed in Alpha Phi Omega based off this promiss, and thirty years later in the living memory of our alumni they went back upon it.

thats all I have, I wish I had access to these letters myself

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by AndrewPiChi

But national Alpha Phi Omega promissed us (to our face) they would never force us to change our membership policies. We stayed in Alpha Phi Omega based off this promiss, and thirty years later in the living memory of our alumni they went back upon it.

You do realize that thirty years is a long time, right?

And that circumstances change?

And that tough decisions often have to be made to ensure the strength of the fraternity?

[emb021]

Originally Posted by AndrewPiChi

But national Alpha Phi Omega promissed us (to our face) they would never force us to change our membership policies. We stayed in Alpha Phi Omega based off this promiss, and thirty years later in the living memory of our alumni they went back upon it.

Alpha Phi Omega is not a 'they'. It's an 'us'. WE are all Alpha Phi Omega.

[AndrewPiChi]

I was refering to the national office in 'they'

I am Alpha Phi Omega, we are Alpha Phi Omega, Almost everyone posting is a brother ect ect...

yes 30 years is a long time however the legal context of title nine has not significantly changed and Alpha Phi Omega nationally is coed, has not seen any legal action in this right nor proabably will it. the all male chapters of alpha phi omega stood by alpha phi omega (nationally) in its time of crisis back in 1976, now it should be time for alpha phi omega to stand by us. I find the lack of commitment to long established chapters, fraternity leaders in their respective section and region and brothers in leadership, friendship and service to be quite disturbing.

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by AndrewPiChi

I was refering to the national office in 'they'

What has the national office done that hasn't been in direct support of chapters?

[emb021]

Originally Posted by AndrewPiChi

I was refering to the national office in 'they'

Oh? That's still showing an unwarrented 'us vs. them' attitude.

The National Office had nothing to do with the recent move to have all chapters go co-ed. The National Office are our employees, several of whom, btw, are Brothers also.

The move to have all chapters go co-ed was made by our National Board of Directors, all Brothers ELECTED by the voting delegates (mainly actives) to lead our Fraternity. Right or wrong, they did so because of the issues involved with still having all-male chapters.

The Legislative Session of the National Convention in 2006 had the power to either stop such effort, or approve it. They approved it. The voting delegates are comprised mainly of active students, not alumni. So while you might not like it, your Brothers agreed with the move. The Legislative Session is and was the proper forum for addressing the issue.

So, stop blaming some mythical 'them'. It wasn't the National Office. It wasn't the alumni. WE, Alpha Phi Omega, decided to have all chapters go co-ed.

Furthermore, WE, Alpha Phi Omega, has bent over backwards to help and assist those chapters go co-ed. They weren't demanded to go co-ed overnight. There was no 'lack of commitement' to those chapters. Regional and Section leadership have been working with them to help them out. In fact, I believe it's been over 3 years since that decision was first made.


While I don't agree with how things have happened, nor fully agree with the justification of doing so, I frankly get sick and tired of this kind of attitude being displayed by Brothers.

[AndrewPiChi]

>>>

Originally Posted by emb021

Oh? That's still showing an unwarrented 'us vs. them' attitude.

The National Office had nothing to do with the recent move to have all chapters go co-ed. The National Office are our employees, several of whom, btw, are Brothers also.

The move to have all chapters go co-ed was made by our National Board of Directors.

[33girl]

There's a difference between the National Board of Directors (composed of elected and appointed officials, all of whom are volunteers, all of whom are brothers) and the people who are employed at the National Office (who are paid, since it is a job, and who may or may not be brothers).

[naraht]

Originally Posted by 33girl

There's a difference between the National Board of Directors (composed of elected and appointed officials, all of whom are volunteers, all of whom are brothers) and the people who are employed at the National Office (who are paid, since it is a job, and who may or may not be brothers).

At this time all of the members of the National Board of Directors are brothers of the Fraternity, however there is no requirement of it. Given that the current Legal Counsel and Representative from BSA (both ex-officio members) are brothers, my belief is that the last time that we had a non-brother on the board is immediately after Bob London was hired as National Executive Director. I'm pretty sure there was a gap between the time he was hired and when he first received membership in the Fraternity(Now an advisor to two chapters and an Honorary brother or a third)

In fact there is no requirement in the bylaws that *any* of our elected National Board members have to be brothers of the fraternity, but things get a little twisted in the bylaws, especially in terms of the National Conventions if they aren't

[arvid1978]

Originally Posted by AndrewPiChi

The move to have all chapters go co-ed was made by our National Board of Directors.

It's not like the members of the BOD woke up one day, flew to a meeting place, and decided to force this upon the chapters. If this is what you want to believe, that is your choice, however reality disagrees with you.

They are charged with acting in the best interest of the Fraternity as a whole. After deliberation, they set it in motion, but your fellow students could have voted it down. They didn't, so it is now the law of the fraternity. Time to focus more on being a leader, being a friend, and being of service than to make up reasons why you have been wronged by the active members taking the fraternity in this direction.

As far as the agreement goes, that was never made with you, that was made with the brothers of all-male chapters 30+ years ago, and it was never said that this would never happen. The times have changed, and now it's time to move on.

[AndrewPiChi]

Originally Posted by arvid1978

As far as the agreement goes, that was never made with you, that was made with the brothers of all-male chapters 30+ years ago, and it was never said that this would never happen. The times have changed, and now it's time to move on.

It was made to our brothers, to our alumni and to our chapter. It was made to my uncle, who pledged my chapter in 1974. He was there in 1976. Two of those brothers that were there at the atlanta convention are our active advisors. Time changes? What has changed? The All Male Chapters are still here and that promiss was still made. it has just not been honored

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by emb021

The Legislative Session of the National Convention in 2006 had the power to either stop such effort, or approve it. They approved it. The voting delegates are comprised mainly of active students, not alumni. So while you might not like it, your Brothers agreed with the move.

For emphasis.