Interest Group at Marietta College

[Boodleboy322]

I am not re-writing history - the key words are "Even though many brothers feel it was". Whether that feeling was invoked because of a participation in a Professional Conference, initiation time period or because of some terminology that was deleted in 1985, I can assure you that when Father Mills began the Social Men's Club at NEC this specific wording or perception didn't exist.

Sure, I acknowledge the fact that brothers got initiated when the group was officially "Professional". My point is that when when this fraternity began it had social origins for men of music.

Also, how do we know that when the leadership positioned the fraternity towards being Professional it was just?


At the end of the day, a change to our original Object occurred during a time capsule in our history and this can be undisputed.

I've found that each brother's role with the fraternity by generation, time, culture and own experience influences their perception. I am proud of the fraternity's origin and our uniqueness in the Greek Community.

Regards,

Boodleboy322

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Boodleboy, it is not helpful to rewrite history. I can assure you that when I pledged and was initiated Phi Mu Alpha was a professional fraternity. Jervis Underwood's Centennial History can assure you of that as well.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Boodleboy322

I am not re-writing history - the key words are "Even though many brothers feel it was". Whether that feeling was invoked because of a participation in a Professional Conference, initiation time period or because of some terminology that was deleted in 1985, I can assure you that when Father Mills began the Social Men's Club at NEC this specific wording or perception didn't exist.

Sure, I acknowledge the fact that brothers got initiated when the group was officially "Professional". My point is that when when this fraternity began it had social origins for men of music.

Not trying to argue. Perhaps it is the choice of words that is . . . confusing.

I will not argue at all with your statement that Father Mills founded the Sinfonia as a social fraternity. The idea that we were a professional fraternity was never in his mind or in the minds of others influential in or founding and early development. To rightly assert that is not the same as saying that Phi Mu Alpha was never a professional fraternity. And you seem to agree with this when you say "Sure, I acknowledge the fact that brothers got initiated when the group was officially 'Professional.'" If you acknowledge that there was a time when we were "officially professional," then why say "Phi Mu Alpha Sinfonia never really was a Professional Organization even though many brothers feel it was"?

The latter statement implies two things that are giving me problems: that at no time in our history were we officially a professional organization, and that anyone who thinks we were is basing that thought on uninformed perception rather than reality. That's what makes it sound like history is being re-written, since as you say, there was a time when we were officially professional.

By declaring ourselves a professional fraternity, we strayed from our founding ideals and the intentions of Father Mills and others, but that doesn't change the fact that we did officially do it. Isn't it sufficient (and more accurate to the point you're making about the intent when we were founded) simply to say that Phi Mu Alpha was not founded to be a professional fraternity?

Fraternally,
MysticCat

[Boodleboy322]

Agree

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Isn't it sufficient (and more accurate to the point you're making about the intent when we were founded) simply to say that Phi Mu Alpha was not founded to be a professional fraternity?

Fraternally,
MysticCat