Status of all-male chapters

[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

[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

[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.

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by arvid1978

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.

By your own admission, you just said that the brotherhood doesn't have the integrity to keep its own word, relevant or otherwise. The vote to go co-ed in '76 was contingent upon the all-male chapters remaining all-male. The all-male constituency (AMC) held their end of the bargain, the co-ed constituency (CEC) reneged on their end. Yet the CEC wants to play the moral card on the AMC by saying what they're doing is discriminatory while not only allowing it to happen for 30 years (if being all-male was so evil, why did you co-sign on it for so long), but breaking their promise which serves as the basis for APO to even be a co-ed organization to begin with.

The CEC is no better than the AMC when they knowingly and willingly broke their word to justify a guise of being morally correct. In other words, they manipulated the AMC in order to go co-ed, then broke their word to serve their own selfish interests and ends.

It is for this reason, that I cannot accept the vote mandating all chapters becoming co-ed. I must respect the vote by virtue that it adhered to the Fraternity bylaws as far as protocol and procedure, but I cannot accept it due to the dirty politics involved.

The AMC OTOH had no other sin than remaining all-male, which we were allowed to do all along. The CEC played their trump card by admitting by default that the co-edness APO was nothing more than a manipulative power play; which I had suspected even when I was relatively young in the frat, but with the chickens coming home to roost, made it all the more clear as time progressed.

One of the poster here said the AMC lost. Considering the dishonest tactics involved, I have to ask, "Did they really?" If they did, it was a hollow victory for the CEC.

That's politics for you. Down and dirty.

[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 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*

[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.