Status of all-male chapters

[arvid1978]

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

Now can we get back to the thread topic at hand?

Well, I'm pretty much done with this thread since you insist that the fraternity allow itself to disregard its own bylaws in order to appease a very vocal minority of members who are more concerned with their own selfish desires than the health and stability of Alpha Phi Omega.

The fact that you didn't feel comfortable in a co-ed chapter is understandable and it's ok. APO has room for everybody, but not everybody has room for APO. That's fine, and I have no issues with anybody who chooses to leave the fraternity for those reasons. But to leave, join someone else, then keep coming back and bitching to APO about an ORAL agreement (note that it was never written down) that was made 30 years ago is the height of ballsy. Then, to get pissed at the actives (who were not even born when said agreement was made) and demand that they honor something that they didn't personally agree to shows incredible disrespect to the Active members, who this Fraternity belongs to.

The actives could've codified the so-called "gentleman's agreement" any time in the past 30 years, but they didn't. Instead, they decided that it is no longer in the fraternity's best interest. Nowhere was it written that this was how APO was to remain forever and ever. If APO never changed, I seriously doubt you and I would be having this conversation unless you has previous Scouting affiliation like I do. Respect their decision to do what they did. You may not like it (and you're certainly entitled to not like it), but if you can't respect the decisions of the active members to direct the fraternity in what THEY believe (not you or me) is in its best interest, then APO was never the right group for you in the first place.

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by arvid1978

Well, I'm pretty much done with this thread since you insist that the fraternity allow itself to disregard its own bylaws in order to appease a very vocal minority of members who are more concerned with their own selfish desires than the health and stability of Alpha Phi Omega.

The fact that you didn't feel comfortable in a co-ed chapter is understandable and it's ok. APO has room for everybody, but not everybody has room for APO. That's fine, and I have no issues with anybody who chooses to leave the fraternity for those reasons. But to leave, join someone else, then keep coming back and bitching to APO about an ORAL agreement (note that it was never written down) that was made 30 years ago is the height of ballsy. Then, to get pissed at the actives (who were not even born when said agreement was made) and demand that they honor something that they didn't personally agree to shows incredible disrespect to the Active members, who this Fraternity belongs to.

The actives could've codified the so-called "gentleman's agreement" any time in the past 30 years, but they didn't. Instead, they decided that it is no longer in the fraternity's best interest. Nowhere was it written that this was how APO was to remain forever and ever. If APO never changed, I seriously doubt you and I would be having this conversation unless you has previous Scouting affiliation like I do. Respect their decision to do what they did. You may not like it (and you're certainly entitled to not like it), but if you can't respect the decisions of the active members to direct the fraternity in what THEY believe (not you or me) is in its best interest, then APO was never the right group for you in the first place.

I think you're getting things seriously twisted with what I've been talking about.

For the record, I am not demanding that APO does anything, I am not pissed off at anyone, least of all the actives who sealed the all co-ed decision (though the pious attitudes surrounding this issue do tend to irritate/annoy me, it's something I can live with). I am not disrespecting APOs collective decision; you don't see me promoting or encouraging the remaining AMCs to disregard/rebel against APO's co-ed mandate, do you?

If anything, I told them that they need to either (plan to) comply with the mandate or secede from APO. And that was even before the 2006 Convention ever took place. Because just like you and everybody else, I am tired of the perpetual battle between the AMCs and the CECs and would like for it to be put to an ultimate rest one way or another.

The only thing I have done here was to speak on the side of an issue, that while it was unpopular and most definately in the minority as far was APO was concerned, was one I felt very passionately about. That was it, that was all. Where you got all this other nonsense about me demanding that APO do whatever, or me being pissed at the actives for making APO all coed, or disrespecting their decision I have no flippin' clue.

OTOH, if merely speaking an opinion on an issue is equal to disrespecting someone's decision in yours or anyone else's eyes, that's their problem, not mine.

And for the record, I think the way the '76 Convention delegates and attendees handled the decision to go co-ed (including the oral agreement) was downright sloppy, which I think explains the 30 year debate on the matter.

Nonetheless, irrespective of what APO's actives decided, it does not preclude me from commenting on the decision, which is the only thing I have done here.

I'm glad you're mature enough to essentially see that while we mutually disagree, we can still be civil in so doing.

Take care, partna.

[emb021]

Originally Posted by arvid1978

Nowhere was it written that this was how APO was to remain forever and ever. If APO never changed, I seriously doubt you and I would be having this conversation unless you has previous Scouting affiliation like I do.

A tangental commment on this.

One thing that really annoys me with some Brothers is their rigid attitude toward change. I heard a lot of this in regards to recent proposals to change the Toast Song. The worse of this attitudes would be "I want APO to remain just the way it was when Frank Reed Horton founded it". This is just such a stupid attitude.

I love and respect history, and I love and respect the history of APO. But if there is ONE thing I've learned in my studies of our history is HOW MUCH WE HAVE CHANGED. I do not feel that these changes have altered our fundamental principles (tho there have, IMO, been attempts to do so). But there have been changes. Sadly, since so few Brothers have a decent understanding of our history, this attitude prevails. The history given in our Pledge Manual is just a high-level basics. And many chapters, IMO, emphasis their chapter history over national history such that their members have an even poorer understanding of it.

For instance. Our Toast Song did not come around until after H. Roe Bartle was our National President. How many realize this?

This is why I've been working on a series of presentations on APO history that I finally hope to present as a workshop at our next National Convention. Hopefully it will happen.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by emb021

The worse of this attitudes would be "I want APO to remain just the way it was when Frank Reed Horton founded it".

Oh *lots* of things have changed since Frank Reed Horton was an active brother.

We aren't a National Service Fraternity, our purpose has changed, our coat of arms has changed, our officer titles have changed, our toast song didn't exist and given the extensive rewrite of the rituals in 1932, I wouldn't be all that suprised if *NO* sentence of our rituals was the same as the one where Frank Reed Horton brought in the first two pledge classes.

Oh and our pledge pins were two color shield shapes (left half one color, right half another)

Randy

[33girl]

Originally Posted by emb021

One thing that really annoys me with some Brothers is their rigid attitude toward change. I heard a lot of this in regards to recent proposals to change the Toast Song.

The thing that upsets me about proposals to change the Toast Song is the same kind of thing that upsets me when schools insist that APO be in IFC just because we have "fraternity" in the name. It's the lack of thinking or trying to understand behind the request.

Some people in that toast song thread were saying we were being threatened to get kicked off campuses, denied extension requests etc because of the toast song. They (these mythical campuses) didn't understand WHY we all are called "brothers" or that some women in APO (myself among them) would be insulted to be called "sisters" or "members" instead. They just assumed brothers = men = patriarchy and sexism, assumed the worst.

Stuff like that, I don't think should be dignified with caving in. To me it's the same as when social Greeks get stuck with a guaranteed bid system where they have to give bids to everyone who wants one (and for them, once you're bid, you're pretty much in). Whoever instituted that didn't look beyond to understand WHY social Greeks have selective membership. I don't know why sororities stay on campuses like that, but that's their choice, not mine.

I understand what you're saying and that this is a tangent, but I think making the AMC go co-ed has a point. I think changing the toast song is pointless.

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by emb021

A tangental commment on this.

One thing that really annoys me with some Brothers is their rigid attitude toward change. I heard a lot of this in regards to recent proposals to change the Toast Song. The worse of this attitudes would be "I want APO to remain just the way it was when Frank Reed Horton founded it". This is just such a stupid attitude.

I love and respect history, and I love and respect the history of APO. But if there is ONE thing I've learned in my studies of our history is HOW MUCH WE HAVE CHANGED. I do not feel that these changes have altered our fundamental principles (tho there have, IMO, been attempts to do so). But there have been changes. Sadly, since so few Brothers have a decent understanding of our history, this attitude prevails. The history given in our Pledge Manual is just a high-level basics. And many chapters, IMO, emphasis their chapter history over national history such that their members have an even poorer understanding of it.

For instance. Our Toast Song did not come around until after H. Roe Bartle was our National President. How many realize this?

This is why I've been working on a series of presentations on APO history that I finally hope to present as a workshop at our next National Convention. Hopefully it will happen.

Speaking for myself only (though I am sure a number of brothers with these "rigid attitudes towards change" would agree with me to one extent or another), the reason why I am so resistant to all these changes is because it is turning APO from a service fraternity to a Circle K-ish greek letter service club. I didn't pledge a club, I pledged a fraternity.

And FWIW, being part of an all-male chapter intrinsically brought with it certain elements and traditions that gave APO the appearance, both in form and in substance of being a true-to-form fraternity rather than just a fraternity in structure, but a service club in form.

These changes IMHO are undermining the very essence of what Alpha Phi Omega was founded to do: to serve in a FRATERNAL bond. And I resent the notion that for this reason, my attitude is a so-called "stupid" one.

[emb021]

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

Speaking for myself only (though I am sure a number of brothers with these "rigid attitudes towards change" would agree with me to one extent or another), the reason why I am so resistant to all these changes is because it is turning APO from a service fraternity to a Circle K-ish greek letter service club. I didn't pledge a club, I pledged a fraternity.

Being opposed to changes that changes a groups fundamental principles is one thing. I am speaking against mindless opposition to change just because it's a change. Any organization will and must change over time. When we became a National Organization, our Board of Directors was composed of just 4 elected officers. Over time, the composition of our national leadership has changed, necessary as we've grown as group. To be opposed to this just because its a change is wrong.

I, too, am opposed to changes that would turn us into a (as you put it) 'circle k-ish greek letter service club'. Going fully co-ed doesn't do this. Changing things such as de-emphasising the concept of our pledge program and rituals and the concept of fraternalism does this. There are some who feel this is already happening, and, while I don't agree with conspiricies, I agreed to an extent with this concern.

[bro_strawter]

Full agreement!

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

Speaking for myself only (though I am sure a number of brothers with these "rigid attitudes towards change" would agree with me to one extent or another), the reason why I am so resistant to all these changes is because it is turning APO from a service fraternity to a Circle K-ish greek letter service club. I didn't pledge a club, I pledged a fraternity.

And FWIW, being part of an all-male chapter intrinsically brought with it certain elements and traditions that gave APO the appearance, both in form and in substance of being a true-to-form fraternity rather than just a fraternity in structure, but a service club in form.

These changes IMHO are undermining the very essence of what Alpha Phi Omega was founded to do: to serve in a FRATERNAL bond. And I resent the notion that for this reason, my attitude is a so-called "stupid" one.

[AndrewPiChi]

any updates from other chapters?

Its been pretty quite

[naraht]

Only thing that I've heard this summer is that Maine Orono's chapter has been in communication with the RD and even though they are leaving, they want to do so with all of the i's dotted and t's crossed moneywise and documentationwise.

I think that most of the cards will be on the table by mid-october. Most of the chapters will have gone through rush and pledging and it should be obvious at that point which all-male chapters made an attempt to recruit co-ed. Also, we'll have the proposed by-law amendments, which should be a guide to indicate which chapters are going to roll the dice and try to get the rules changed. I know that by-law amendments go into affect at the end of convention, but I don't know whether something could get passed early in convention that would change the characteristics of the vote.

Randy

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by AndrewPiChi

any updates from other chapters?

Its been pretty quite

Andrew, PM me. I might have some info for you.