[19368] in APO-L
promises
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (J. Michael Strohmenger)
Wed Oct 14 12:49:49 1998
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 01:29:48 -0400
Reply-To: mstroh@usa.net
From: "J. Michael Strohmenger" <mstroh@NETWAY.COM>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
you are talking as if the '76 national convention was a group of
individuals making a statement...one of the purposes of having
conventions, etc. is to speak as an organization or as a
fraternity...acting as a fraternity of a whole, just because membership
changes does not mean that we can immediately go against our word!
as bill rugh said, the MUST be a COMPELLING reason to go against our
word...i am yet to find one...i do believe that all chapters will go
coed eventually....but let nature take its course...nothing good EVER
came out of forcing someone or a chapter to do something against its
will...
how would you or others feel if at the same convention a resolution was
passed stating that all students will be allowed to remain as an active
brother, but the times have changed and apo is dominated by graduate
students today and they believe that undergrads are not mature enough
and demean the fraternity as a whole and they propose legislation that
states: "this will no longer happen! only graduate students are allowed
to be active members, no exceptions!" there would be alot of people out
there that would be for this and many against....but should we pass this
legislation? even though we made an agreement 20 years ago not to?
granted teh above example is a little outrageous, but it does make a
huge point...what if the graduate/undergraduate ratio was 60/40? or
75/25? or closer to 95/5? i still dont believe that we have the right to
go against an earlier agreement!
everything that every chapter does has a purpose, just because you dont
agree with it doesnt mean its broken and needs fixing! none of this
deals with legal issues...the government is not forcing this upon
us...we have no legal reason to change...if we did then the compromise
would be moot, but it isnt....
Joseph M. Fisher wrote:
>
> I posted something like this last time around, and I think it applies once
> more...
>
> It is certainly a good question to ask whether there is a legitimate need
> to go entirely coed. But I find it difficult to understand why we are
> talking about a *promise* we made to the all-male chapters. (Supposing
> that a promise was made; all I know that we did was pass the resolution
> Bill Rugh posted.) WE did not make that promise, or at least not the vast
> majority of us - the delegates at the 1976 convention did. We may choose
> to uphold their decision; but if we don't, we are in no way breaking OUR
> word. APO is a students' organization; our leadership and membership
> changes continuously. We cannot as a collective make an everlasting
> promise. We can only try to do what is right, and hope that in trying
> likewise future brothers may come to the same decisions. To base our
> honor on upholding an agreement made 20 years ago by an entirely different
> group of people is bordering on the ridiculous.
>
> -- Cyrano (advisor, Kappa Mu PG)
--
***********************************
* J. Michael Strohmenger *
* mstroh@usa.net (permanent) *
* mstroh@netway.com *
* pager/voice mail (888) 593-1749 *
***********************************
