[19409] in APO-L
Re: All Male
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matt Grabowski)
Tue Oct 20 10:12:46 1998
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 10:12:32 -0400
Reply-To: Matt Grabowski <mattg@WPI.EDU>
From: Matt Grabowski <mattg@WPI.EDU>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <2b91f091.362c9549@aol.com>
I have a couple of questions for the debate. That are mostly spurred on by
Jeff's last email.
If we are going to make the point that it would be discrimination to say
you can't join because you are black or you can't join because you are
female. Then what right do we have to say you can't join because you were
a bad pledge? How do we rationalize the fact that we determine our
membership at all if we cannot have the right to define that membership in
our own way? The boy scouts does not allow girls, The girl scouts does not
allow boys. And the Explorers offers the oppertunity for boys and girls to
join no matter what. three different groups with three different practices
on how they determine their membership. why is APO any different? Other
organizations like the boyscouts and girl scouts use inderectly government
funded facilities from time to time. Some use them alot. (Well Ok that's a
legal matter I know little about. I'll leave it alone.)
I see where the line is in the all male debate as it has stood since the
76 convention but I don't see where people want it to be and why. With
the ideas that people are leaving for me to read I come to the conclution
that in the future we will have no way to determine our membership due to
discrimination. I don't know if I like that option.
What do you think?
matt grabowski
Omicron Iota
