Status of all-male chapters

[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.