Status of all-male chapters

[PADFSUGirl2K2]

Okay, must we resort to bashing each other? I don't know much yet but considering we are co-ed, I like it. Our chapter is about 85% female and we still get respect from others here. I haven't interacted with Kappa Delta yet but I guess it is different other places. I just hope that the males who wish to keep A Phi O traditional should realize that there aren't many other options to a service organization besides Gamma Sig and Omega Phi Alpha. If anyone wants to send me some more history about the break to make APO co-ed, drop me a PM.

[Quala67]

I guess I wish that these folks had said they'd decided to disaffiliate with Alpha Phi Omega and start their own fraternity, rather than say they've changed names. I can call myself by a different name, but it doesn't change who I am.

To be fair, the clarification came from the 'adults' (and I use that term loosely!) on the Board, but the decision to affirm the BOD's move was passed by the voting body of Alpha Phi Omega, the National Convention. (Which, is made up of over 90% student voting delegates)

By doing what has been done, they have broken the first sentence of our Oath: "...to exemplify the principles and to advance the organization of Alpha Phi Omega..." There is no advancement of the organization here. It is a blatant attempt to discredit what was affirmed by their fellow students.

I just feel sad.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Quala67

I guess I wish that these folks had said they'd decided to disaffiliate with Alpha Phi Omega and start their own fraternity, rather than say they've changed names. I can call myself by a different name, but it doesn't change who I am.

I'm hoping that they ARE saying that in real life, and that this newspaper article was just spectacularly poorly written. They never did quote a member saying "we changed our name" - those were the author of the article's words.

[Senusret I]

What a coincidence, my chapter is the same way. Mu Alpha. You may have heard of us.... you know, a past national president, diplomats, filmmakers, authors.... leaders of the free world?

Ask about us!

[AndrewPiChi]

yea we never had a national president lol you have me there

[Senusret I]

Hey arvid1978.... just curious.... could you remind me how many national conventions you've been to since you were initiated?

[arvid1978]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

Hey arvid1978.... just curious.... could you remind me how many national conventions you've been to since you were initiated?

I initiated in Spring 2000 (keep regretting that I didn't do it much much earlier in my college career, since I was already on the 6-year plan). I attended Philly 2000 as a student, and New Orleans 2002, Denver 2004 and Louisville 2006 as an alumni volunteer. So, to answer your question, I've been to 4 national conventions.

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by arvid1978

I initiated in Spring 2000 (keep regretting that I didn't do it much much earlier in my college career, since I was already on the 6-year plan). I attended Philly 2000 as a student, and New Orleans 2002, Denver 2004 and Louisville 2006 as an alumni volunteer. So, to answer your question, I've been to 4 national conventions.

While I applaud your regular attendance at National Conventions, what does that have to do with the core issues raised by the posting AMC here?

Let's not deflect the issue by proving a meaningless point.

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

Hey arvid1978.... just curious.... could you remind me how many national conventions you've been to since you were initiated?

Deflecting by bringing up irrelevant items isn't going to work.

You don't have to attend a convention to know when there are hypocritical and self-righteous attitudes that serve only to manipulate.

The one thing I fault the '76 AMC for is not getting that promise in writing. Then any subsequent issue on the matter would've been a non-starter and thus not up for vote or discussion (at least not without some serious backlash). OTOH, if word was bond, a written promise wouldn't have been necessary. So much for that.

*SMH*

[Senusret I]

It's not meaningless that arvid knows what he's talking about through experience of the legislative process and you don't.

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

It's not meaningless that arvid knows what he's talking about through experience of the legislative process and you don't.

It is when he gave his own opinion (as opposed to being objective with the facts) when asked why a promise critical as to whether or not APO would be co-ed was broken.

If that promise was going to be broken at some point because "it was so evil", then a suitable compromise or other alternative means in satisfying the AMC should have been readily available for discussion and vote. You don't make a promise and then break it because you don't feel that is any longer relevant, especially considering that in 1976 the AMC was critical in the continuity of APO.

ETA: Show me where in the legislative process it is justified to break an agreement critical to APO's continuity without paying mutually agreeable restitution to the orignal party, and I'll concede to your point. You forget, if it wasn't for the AMC, APO would've shut down on January 1, 1977. The AMC didn't have to let women in. They could've easily said "Shut it down." The CEC can't even give deference to those who made it possible for the org to be co-ed without saying that they somehow made a mistake.

It was wrong to not fully open the door to women 30 years ago

It was also wrong for the CEC to exploit the AMC in the process to meet these ends, all the more so when the CEC became the majority of the brotherhood.

but I'm glad the students of today have enough vision to correct the errors of the past.

This quote reeks of sanctimonious arrogance, but I'll leave that alone.

[arvid1978]

It would be an interesting history lesson to know if there was this much contention when we dropped the Scouting requirement for membership.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by arvid1978

It would be an interesting history lesson to know if there was this much contention when we dropped the Scouting requirement for membership.

As far as I've been able to tell, No. Not really sure why, but some of it may have been that any chapter that wanted to pledge and initiate those who hadn't had scouting experience could simply register them with the local Boy Scout Council as a member of "College Scouter Reserve" (a position that doesn't exist any more) for $5.

The closest equivalent that I can come to for gender is the following (and yes it is wierd) Instead of requiring that Alpha Phi Omega is limited to men, the fraternity requires that all members have mustaches when they become members of the Fraternity. Various chapters around the fraternity decide they are going to pledge anyone who wants and if someone doesn't want or can't grow a mustache, then a fake one will be provided for $5. After fifteen or more years of that, the fraternity decides that mustaches will no longer be required and thus women can join as long as chapters volunteer at Barber Shops.

[Senusret I]

Show me your letter of renunciation citing homosexuality as a reason.

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

Show me your letter....

In other words, you can't prove I ever said it. That's what I thought.

Senusret, you have a bad habit of deflecting when you are taken to task on something you know you can't prove. I thought you were above such juvenile tactics. Step it up, partner.