Status of all-male 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 AndrewPiChi

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

Very interesting.

[AndrewPiChi]

I'm proud to say our chapter has many active alumni, many choose to serve as community advisors

[arvid1978]

Originally Posted by AndrewPiChi

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

Yes, and the promise was made to all students everywhere that Alpha Phi Omega has a place for them when we declared an open membership policy. It's great that you're a legacy and you have active advisors who have been around for a long time, but they should also never forget that Alpha Phi Omega does not belong to us alumni, it belongs to the students, and we must abide by their decisions. They have decided that if you want to have your chapter able to be part of Alpha Phi Omega, then you must accept all students.

Since our purpose is to "assemble college students in a fraternity based on the principles of the Boy Scouts of America, specifically the Scout Oath and Law, you should know that:

"A Scout is Obedient. A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobeying them."

You may not like it, but it is the law of the land now. The correct thing would be to get an exemption for groups like APO, not flaunt the law because some of our chapters want to stay all-male. Ignoring Title IX, whether or not we have been sued for being in violation, is not living up to the ideals that Alpha Phi Omega was founded upon, and any brother who would openly disrespect the very core of our being to satisfy their own selfish needs should spend some time seriously re-evaluating what this fraternity is all about.

Sorry to erupt, but APO is much more than Pi Chi chapter.

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by arvid1978

Yes, and the promise was made to all students everywhere that Alpha Phi Omega has a place for them when we declared an open membership policy. It's great that you're a legacy and you have active advisors who have been around for a long time, but they should also never forget that Alpha Phi Omega does not belong to us alumni, it belongs to the students, and we must abide by their decisions. They have decided that if you want to have your chapter able to be part of Alpha Phi Omega, then you must accept all students.

Since our purpose is to "assemble college students in a fraternity based on the principles of the Boy Scouts of America, specifically the Scout Oath and Law, you should know that:

"A Scout is Obedient. A Scout follows the rules of his family, school, and troop. He obeys the laws of his community and country. If he thinks these rules and laws are unfair, he tries to have them changed in an orderly manner rather than disobeying them."

You may not like it, but it is the law of the land now. The correct thing would be to get an exemption for groups like APO, not flaunt the law because some of our chapters want to stay all-male. Ignoring Title IX, whether or not we have been sued for being in violation, is not living up to the ideals that Alpha Phi Omega was founded upon, and any brother who would openly disrespect the very core of our being to satisfy their own selfish needs should spend some time seriously re-evaluating what this fraternity is all about.

Sorry to erupt, but APO is much more than Pi Chi chapter.

Sounds to me like you're making excuses to what should have been (or at least appeared to be) an unqualified promise. In other words, that promise had no disclaimers or riders when it was originally made, and you're trying to interpret that promise as if it did. Just be honest and tell us that you don't want to regard that promise as being valid because you don't think it's relevant in 2008 and doesn't fit APO's politically correct public image.

Frankly, that adds insult to injury on the whole issue. You may not agree what what the all-male constituency and issues thereof stand for, but don't sit here and tell us we didn't understand what the promise made to entailed. That's kinda offensive.

ETA: if Title IX was as big an issue as everyone here (or better yet, APO as a whole) is making it out to be, the mandate that all chapters become co-ed would've took effect December 30, 1976 (not 1986 or 2006).

[arvid1978]

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

Sounds to me like you're making excuses to what should have been (or at least appeared to be) an unqualified promise. In other words, that promise had no disclaimers or riders when it was originally made, and you're trying to interpret that promise as if it did. Just be honest and tell us that you don't want to regard that promise as being valid because you don't think it's relevant in 2008 and doesn't fit APO's politically correct public image.

Frankly, that adds insult to injury on the whole issue. You may not agree what what the all-male constituency and issues thereof stand for, but don't sit here and tell us we didn't understand what the promise made to entailed. That's kinda offensive.

ETA: if Title IX was as big an issue as everyone here (or better yet, APO as a whole) is making it out to be, the mandate that all chapters become co-ed would've took effect December 30, 1976 (not 1986 or 2006).

You're absolutely right I don't find that promise to be relevant in 2008. There are lots of things that were relevant in the past that no longer work today. What you're advocating is like saying even though we passed the 14th amendment to the constitution, we never should have struck down separate-but-equal because we made a promise to those who came before us that integration would never happen. That is what you are saying from my perspective.

Times change, and APO does not exist solely in a vacuum or a time capsule. It was wrong to not fully open the door to women 30 years ago, but I'm glad the students of today have enough vision to correct the errors of the past.

[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.