Status of all-male chapters

[33girl]

Originally Posted by emb021

One thing that really annoys me with some Brothers is their rigid attitude toward change. I heard a lot of this in regards to recent proposals to change the Toast Song.

The thing that upsets me about proposals to change the Toast Song is the same kind of thing that upsets me when schools insist that APO be in IFC just because we have "fraternity" in the name. It's the lack of thinking or trying to understand behind the request.

Some people in that toast song thread were saying we were being threatened to get kicked off campuses, denied extension requests etc because of the toast song. They (these mythical campuses) didn't understand WHY we all are called "brothers" or that some women in APO (myself among them) would be insulted to be called "sisters" or "members" instead. They just assumed brothers = men = patriarchy and sexism, assumed the worst.

Stuff like that, I don't think should be dignified with caving in. To me it's the same as when social Greeks get stuck with a guaranteed bid system where they have to give bids to everyone who wants one (and for them, once you're bid, you're pretty much in). Whoever instituted that didn't look beyond to understand WHY social Greeks have selective membership. I don't know why sororities stay on campuses like that, but that's their choice, not mine.

I understand what you're saying and that this is a tangent, but I think making the AMC go co-ed has a point. I think changing the toast song is pointless.

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by emb021

A tangental commment on this.

One thing that really annoys me with some Brothers is their rigid attitude toward change. I heard a lot of this in regards to recent proposals to change the Toast Song. The worse of this attitudes would be "I want APO to remain just the way it was when Frank Reed Horton founded it". This is just such a stupid attitude.

I love and respect history, and I love and respect the history of APO. But if there is ONE thing I've learned in my studies of our history is HOW MUCH WE HAVE CHANGED. I do not feel that these changes have altered our fundamental principles (tho there have, IMO, been attempts to do so). But there have been changes. Sadly, since so few Brothers have a decent understanding of our history, this attitude prevails. The history given in our Pledge Manual is just a high-level basics. And many chapters, IMO, emphasis their chapter history over national history such that their members have an even poorer understanding of it.

For instance. Our Toast Song did not come around until after H. Roe Bartle was our National President. How many realize this?

This is why I've been working on a series of presentations on APO history that I finally hope to present as a workshop at our next National Convention. Hopefully it will happen.

Speaking for myself only (though I am sure a number of brothers with these "rigid attitudes towards change" would agree with me to one extent or another), the reason why I am so resistant to all these changes is because it is turning APO from a service fraternity to a Circle K-ish greek letter service club. I didn't pledge a club, I pledged a fraternity.

And FWIW, being part of an all-male chapter intrinsically brought with it certain elements and traditions that gave APO the appearance, both in form and in substance of being a true-to-form fraternity rather than just a fraternity in structure, but a service club in form.

These changes IMHO are undermining the very essence of what Alpha Phi Omega was founded to do: to serve in a FRATERNAL bond. And I resent the notion that for this reason, my attitude is a so-called "stupid" one.

[emb021]

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

Speaking for myself only (though I am sure a number of brothers with these "rigid attitudes towards change" would agree with me to one extent or another), the reason why I am so resistant to all these changes is because it is turning APO from a service fraternity to a Circle K-ish greek letter service club. I didn't pledge a club, I pledged a fraternity.

Being opposed to changes that changes a groups fundamental principles is one thing. I am speaking against mindless opposition to change just because it's a change. Any organization will and must change over time. When we became a National Organization, our Board of Directors was composed of just 4 elected officers. Over time, the composition of our national leadership has changed, necessary as we've grown as group. To be opposed to this just because its a change is wrong.

I, too, am opposed to changes that would turn us into a (as you put it) 'circle k-ish greek letter service club'. Going fully co-ed doesn't do this. Changing things such as de-emphasising the concept of our pledge program and rituals and the concept of fraternalism does this. There are some who feel this is already happening, and, while I don't agree with conspiricies, I agreed to an extent with this concern.

[bro_strawter]

Full agreement!

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

Speaking for myself only (though I am sure a number of brothers with these "rigid attitudes towards change" would agree with me to one extent or another), the reason why I am so resistant to all these changes is because it is turning APO from a service fraternity to a Circle K-ish greek letter service club. I didn't pledge a club, I pledged a fraternity.

And FWIW, being part of an all-male chapter intrinsically brought with it certain elements and traditions that gave APO the appearance, both in form and in substance of being a true-to-form fraternity rather than just a fraternity in structure, but a service club in form.

These changes IMHO are undermining the very essence of what Alpha Phi Omega was founded to do: to serve in a FRATERNAL bond. And I resent the notion that for this reason, my attitude is a so-called "stupid" one.

[AndrewPiChi]

any updates from other chapters?

Its been pretty quite

[naraht]

Only thing that I've heard this summer is that Maine Orono's chapter has been in communication with the RD and even though they are leaving, they want to do so with all of the i's dotted and t's crossed moneywise and documentationwise.

I think that most of the cards will be on the table by mid-october. Most of the chapters will have gone through rush and pledging and it should be obvious at that point which all-male chapters made an attempt to recruit co-ed. Also, we'll have the proposed by-law amendments, which should be a guide to indicate which chapters are going to roll the dice and try to get the rules changed. I know that by-law amendments go into affect at the end of convention, but I don't know whether something could get passed early in convention that would change the characteristics of the vote.

Randy

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by AndrewPiChi

any updates from other chapters?

Its been pretty quite

Andrew, PM me. I might have some info for you.

[AndrewPiChi]

bump

Any news through the grapevine?

[naraht]

Originally Posted by AndrewPiChi

there were several chapters that left the fraternity in 1976

Some formed locals, some formed nationals, all to the best of my knowledge died however.

Any information on such groups would be welcome.


The only fraternites that I've heard of that have been created from groups that were Alpha Phi Omega chapters (or close) at one time are:

Phi Rho Eta from a group at Southern Illinois Carbondale. Jesse Bridge's pages (http://members.tripod.com/~APQGSS/newaindex.html) say that they were formed in the 1980s. But the pages for the Fraternity say 1994 (http://www.phirhoeta.org)


A group that formed out of the failed Alpha Phi Omega extension to University of Maryland Eastern Shore in the mid 1990s. Not sure if it is still around, they had a web page at least of a few years ago.

Alpha Delta. 2008. Chapters at U of Maine, Duquesne U. and Drexel U.

[KAPital PHINUst]

To the all-male chapters that attended Convention, I want to give you a big Congratulations for your small victory at Convention. The issue isn't over by a long shot, but it clearly demonstrates that tenacity is a virtue that can pay off in the long run.

Stay strong, hang in there, see you soon.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by KAPital PHINUst

To the all-male chapters that attended Convention, I want to give you a big Congratulations for your small victory at Convention. The issue isn't over by a long shot, but it clearly demonstrates that tenacity is a virtue that can pay off in the long run.

Stay strong, hang in there, see you soon.

For those of us who didn't attend convention, can we get a *tiny* bit of explanation?

Randy

[mastratton]

Originally Posted by naraht

For those of us who didn't attend convention, can we get a *tiny* bit of explanation?

Randy

Nothing has changed since the 2006 National Convention.

Here is the text off the committee's recommendation, though it was not an action item submitted to the convention for adoption (btw, I apologize for any errors - I retyped this pretty quickly.)

"After consulting with directors of regions with noncompliant chapters, but especially that of Region IV, V, and VII, it has come to our attention that the noncompliance of chapters previously identified as having resist transition efforts is not solely due to a desire to rebel against integration. For example, some chapters identified hve fallen victim to the "Two-Year Clock" rule, with a lack of female recruitment being a result of absence of any recruitment whatsoever. However, many chapters identified as being resistant to compliance are under administrative scrutiny from their respective sectional and regional chairs due to a lack of communication with the fraternity's representatives on a national level.

We have concluded that open membership in uncooperative chapters should not require further action at a national convention. A deadline was for compliance set at the 2006 National Convention and regional and sectional staff should maintain current enforcement efforts. Cooperative chapters countinue to work with regional and sectional staff, and noncompliant chapters are tending towards ceasing communication and dissociating from the national organization. Open lines of communication should be maintained between chapters and fraternity staff, and chapters should demonstrate good-faith efforts at complying with open membership. For thsoe chapters not communicating with the fraternity or not complying with established policies on open membership, standards that have been set for any breach with national bylaws should be applied and appropriate action should be taken."

In short, chapters that are attempting to make the good-faith, demonstrable effort (as required by the Board's 2006 resolution) should continue to make those efforts (and, I can assure you, this is what is happening in some of those chapters.)

Chapters which choose not to comply, and therefore do not make a good faith demonstrable effort, and which have not dissociated from Alpha Phi Omega, remain under the jurisdiction of Alpha Phi Omega, and will be treated as being non-compliant.

Nothing in the committee's recommendation has changed the status of how the Board is currently handling the question of open membership.

Fraternally,

Mark

[naraht]

As far as I know, the only changes to the list of all-male chapters from 2 years ago today is that Gamma Lambda at Clemson and Gamma Chi at Samford have gone co-ed and Sigma Xi at Maine-Orono is no longer active, right?

[mastratton]

Originally Posted by naraht

As far as I know, the only changes to the list of all-male chapters from 2 years ago today is that Gamma Lambda at Clemson and Gamma Chi at Samford have gone co-ed and Sigma Xi at Maine-Orono is no longer active, right?

I don't want to say that these are the only changes, but the status for each is correct (as best I know it.)

I know that other chapters are working towards transition, while the status for others is unknown.

Mark

[naraht]

Originally Posted by mastratton

I don't want to say that these are the only changes, but the status for each is correct (as best I know it.)

I know that other chapters are working towards transition, while the status for others is unknown.

Mark

I recognize that there are a number of gradations of status in regard to efforts (which may or may not be exactly the same for each RD), but I was wondering about the macro changes. I've been surprised before, with Alpha Delta spreading to Duquesne and to Drexel, and yet the chapters continuing as active (as opposed to Maine-Orono).

Randy