[19367] in APO-L
Re: Your message to apo-l
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (J. Michael Strohmenger)
Wed Oct 14 12:17:58 1998
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 00:45:54 -0400
Reply-To: mstroh@usa.net
From: "J. Michael Strohmenger" <mstroh@NETWAY.COM>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
i agree that there was a compromise made, BUT the way i understand the
compromise was that if the all male chapters voted to allow women to
join then the fraternity would not force them to accept women as
members....without this compromise the legislation would not have passed
(if it would have passed, then why make a compromise?) so in essence we
did make a promise to them (not to change their status), you may call it
a compromise or you may call it something else, but a deal was made, and
we should still honor that deal!
what do you think would happen to a legislator in congress: if
legislator A made compromise on bill 1, on the condition that legislator
B would go along with bill 2? if legislator 2 backed out and voted
other than he stated he would vote, he would be branded as someone you
couldnt trust (someone who goes against their word), hence no-one would
go to this person for help in the future...
if we go against a compromise we are no better than legislator 2! how
can we (apo) be trusted to hold to any comromise that we make in the
future?
stroh
> Mindi
> Read the posts on the list. There was NO PROMISE> That is something
> perpetuated by the all-male chapters. A compromise was made to pass the
> previous legislative amendment to the by-laws in 1976. But there was no
> promise. Just like every day in every legislative body, compromises are made
> to pass bills. If the convention now feels that such a compromise is not
> needed, then they have the right and ability to make that change.
--
***********************************
* J. Michael Strohmenger *
* mstroh@usa.net (permanent) *
* mstroh@netway.com *
***********************************
