Status of all-male chapters

[lee pi chi]

Originally Posted by naraht

That is the purpose. The Oath is the one that starts "I will do my best to exemplify the principles..." as put on page 5 of the current pledge manual. (whether or not the oath should be in the pledge manual is a different thread)

The purpose has changed from "to assemble college men" to "assemble college students". (and did so many years ago).

Randy

I understand, maybe I should have been more clear. What I meant to say was I think that the all-male chapters in Alpha Delta believed that the Purpose was not only an oath, but the most important oath in our Pledge Books. For obvious reasons we have not made the changes to the Purpose as indicated by nationals. Furthermore, our chapters (obviously) believe that both (p)Purposes were completely incongruent with each other.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by lee pi chi

I understand, maybe I should have been more clear. What I meant to say was I think that the all-male chapters in Alpha Delta believed that the Purpose was not only an oath, but the most important oath in our Pledge Books. For obvious reasons we have not made the changes to the Purpose as indicated by nationals. Furthermore, our chapters (obviously) believe that both (p)Purposes were completely incongruent with each other.

What do you think of the original purpose for Alpha Phi Omega?

As of the 1926 Yearbook at Lafayette College

The purpose of the fraternity shall be to assemble those who have had experience and training under the Scout Oath and Laws, to revive the spirit of that Oath and Law, to develop friendship, to encourage encourage service, and to enable its members to become leaders of America's youth, through character-building, citizenship, college spirit and manly strength.

[lee pi chi]

Symbols on a page are only half of a text's potential meaning. With this being said, I obviously feel a more intimate connection with our version of the Purpose than the original penned by Horton simply because of the fact that I, nor many of my own chapter have ever been Boy Scouts, let alone Eagle Scouts.

Furthermore, I feel that the term "manly strength" is offensive in that it, in some ways, supposes (or at least connotes) that there is a "feminine weakness." But that's just (if I can speak for my chapter) our chapter's opinion.

I also feel that "encourage" is too weak of a word, provide is much more suitable.

If you're asking me how do I account for my chapter's position in the context that, at one time, Alpha Phi Omega was a national fraternity exclusively for Eagle Scouts, then Boy Scouts...etc, my argument would be based around the concept of state's rights.

I believe that as long as a chapter maintains a set minimum of requirements, such as hours of community service required, cardinal principles, etc..., that most any delineation from that standard should be acceptable insofar as the said modifications pass by each chapter's respective university. I feel that these changes should be respected, but not enforced nationally. Each chapter was given birth under the organization of a particular set of standards and bylaws which ultimately play a VERY large role in the type of neophytes were inducted: our character is so distinct on campus that when people we don't even know see us on campus they KNOW we are brothers of A-Phi-O. There are many other organizations on campus that have similar experiences to that of Alpha Phi Omega: co-ed organizations with service requirements that offer leadership that do not insist on a very (very) high set of standards for admission. The only difference is no national dues are required and they do not have the privilege of wearing similar shirts.

Without respecting these differences, the national office runs the risk of cheapening the entire experience by using a "service fraternity" as a guise to market an ideology (which is more often than not a bad thing).

[arvid1978]

Originally Posted by lee pi chi

Alpha Phi Omega was a national fraternity exclusively for Eagle Scouts, then Boy Scouts

I want to address more of your comment, but this sticks out as patently false. We were never founded just for Eagle Scouts; that is a rumor that has been going around for quite some time. Randy/Michael, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[emb021]

Originally Posted by arvid1978

I want to address more of your comment, but this sticks out as patently false. We were never founded just for Eagle Scouts; that is a rumor that has been going around for quite some time. Randy/Michael, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

You are not wrong.

In fact, of our Founders, I think only 1 or 2 were Eagle Scouts. Horton was NEVER a scout as a youth, joining as a leader. I've read in early issues of the Lightbearer (our National Magazine) statements made that chapters should NOT restrict their recruitement to just Eagle Scouts.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by arvid1978

I want to address more of your comment, but this sticks out as patently false. We were never founded just for Eagle Scouts; that is a rumor that has been going around for quite some time. Randy/Michael, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Agreed, this is False. Frank Reed Horton was never an Eagle Scout. While looking through the old Torch and Trefoils, I have found several reminders from the National Fraternity to the chapters that chapters are not allowed to add additional requirements in terms of rank achieved in determining admission. This goes back almost to the beginning in that the group of scouts at Auburn that were looking to form their own college scouting related fraternity (and were pointed by BSA HQ in NY to Frank Reed Horton's group at Lafayette, Pitt and Cornell) were entirely Eagle Scouts.

The only change to the scouting membership requirements came in the 1950s (I believe, I'll have to go look) in that membership in other National scouting organizations in WOSM was allowed.

Remember, Brother Bill Clinton was never a boy scout at all, he was able to join Mu Alpha chapter because he had been a cub scout. Also, by the 1960s, some (possibly many) chapters were simply registering those interested in "College Scouter Reserve" with their local council, which defacto allowed any man to join.

Randy

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by lee pi chi

Symbols on a page are only half of a text's potential meaning. With this being said, I obviously feel a more intimate connection with our version of the Purpose than the original penned by Horton simply because of the fact that I, nor many of my own chapter have ever been Boy Scouts, let alone Eagle Scouts.

Furthermore, I feel that the term "manly strength" is offensive in that it, in some ways, supposes (or at least connotes) that there is a "feminine weakness." But that's just (if I can speak for my chapter) our chapter's opinion.

I also feel that "encourage" is too weak of a word, provide is much more suitable.

If you're asking me how do I account for my chapter's position in the context that, at one time, Alpha Phi Omega was a national fraternity exclusively for Eagle Scouts, then Boy Scouts...etc, my argument would be based around the concept of state's rights.

I believe that as long as a chapter maintains a set minimum of requirements, such as hours of community service required, cardinal principles, etc..., that most any delineation from that standard should be acceptable insofar as the said modifications pass by each chapter's respective university. I feel that these changes should be respected, but not enforced nationally. Each chapter was given birth under the organization of a particular set of standards and bylaws which ultimately play a VERY large role in the type of neophytes were inducted: our character is so distinct on campus that when people we don't even know see us on campus they KNOW we are brothers of A-Phi-O. There are many other organizations on campus that have similar experiences to that of Alpha Phi Omega: co-ed organizations with service requirements that offer leadership that do not insist on a very (very) high set of standards for admission. The only difference is no national dues are required and they do not have the privilege of wearing similar shirts.

Without respecting these differences, the national office runs the risk of cheapening the entire experience by using a "service fraternity" as a guise to market an ideology (which is more often than not a bad thing).

Co-sign^10 at the bolded.

Excellent post, save for the part about the fraternity being founded exclusively for former Eagle Scouts. That was never the case. Former Boy Scouts, yes, but not Eagle Scouts.

Lee_pi_chi, I have been saying what you've expressed for years. And for the record, I am very much pro-all-male, so I truly empathize with you and your chapter.

[emb021]

Originally Posted by lee pi chi

I believe that as long as a chapter maintains a set minimum of requirements, such as hours of community service required, cardinal principles, etc..., that most any delineation from that standard should be acceptable insofar as the said modifications pass by each chapter's respective university. I feel that these changes should be respected, but not enforced nationally.

Without respecting these differences, the national office runs the risk of cheapening the entire experience by using a "service fraternity" as a guise to market an ideology (which is more often than not a bad thing).

Each chapter has a lot of latitude within the bounds of national policy to create a unique group.

That said, chapters do a disservice to our National Fraternity when they lose sight that they ARE a PART of a National organization, and fail to educate their members in our National history, National organization, and the like. If you know more about your chapter history then our National history, that's not good. If you know more about the founders of your chapter, then our Founders, that's not good. The results of this is too often these Brothers think of ONLY their chapter when they think of APO, and don't become alumni volunteers or help out other chapters.


Uh, what 'ideology' is the National Office pushing? Keep in mind that our National Fraternity is lead by alumni voted in by active voting delegates. If chapters fail to participate in this process, but attending National Convention and the like, its hard for them to complain about how things are going.

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by emb021

If chapters fail to participate in this process, but attending National Convention and the like, its hard for them to complain about how things are going.

I beg to differ. Complaining is easy, that's why everyone does it.

I kid, I kid.

[emb021]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

I beg to differ. Complaining is easy, that's why everyone does it.

I kid, I kid.

Everyone complains.

But did they do something about it, or just bellyache? (what is sometimes called being a 'backseat driver' or 'monday morning quarterback'.) Anyone can shoot their mouth off on-line or the like. (case in point here)

In APO, changes in our National Org are done at on the legislative floor of the National Convention. If you want to affect change, that is where you need to be. If a chapter failed to get voting delegates to the Convention, its a bit poor for them to be complaining about how things are going. If you don't like it, get involved! Speak up in advance! Attend Section and Region Conferences, go to Nationals. Speak with other chapters and convence them.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by lee pi chi

Furthermore, I feel that the term "manly strength" is offensive in that it, in some ways, supposes (or at least connotes) that there is a "feminine weakness." But that's just (if I can speak for my chapter) our chapter's opinion.

For further fun on the topic, see the Wikipedia page on Maryland's state motto. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatti_m..._parole_femine