[19412] in APO-L
Re: All Male
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard Quodomine, Thomas Register)
Tue Oct 20 11:54:35 1998
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 11:53:43 -0400
Reply-To: "Richard Quodomine, Thomas Register Rep. on Long Island" <trrdq@SPRINTMAIL.COM>
From: "Richard Quodomine, Thomas Register Rep. on Long Island" <trrdq@SPRINTMAIL.COM>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Jrhmdtraum@AOL.COM wrote:
*snip*
> Jeff,
> We were confident that the issue would resolve itself too and... At the '76
> National, most chapters did not want to go coed at the start of the meeting,
> as you know, it was turned down at the previous conventions. We forced the
> issue with a lawsuit pending that would have a) cost the National alot of
> money to defend (they had a sizable amount set aside for this reason) b) would
> have forced the fraternity to go coed (the 6th (?) (San Francisco) Circuit
> Court had already reviewed the case (via Stanford Law School faculty whom were
> our lawyers) and said that they would accept the case and that their initial
> opinion was that we were in violation of Title 9 (to my understanding, this
> has not changed as chapters use indirect federal money for office space, etc
> -- unless they meet completely off campus) c) forcing the issue via the
> courts would have left a bad taste for all. Thus due to our BIG STICK
> (negotiation Roosevelt style) we got the fraternity to accept the compromise
> without too big of a fight.
Title IX, as it has been ruled in some courts, applies to indirect funds. However,
in other courts, it has not been ruled so. In fact, in the increasingly
conservative court structure that has pervaded the legal arena since the 1980's,
Title IX has been consistently used to apply more to collegiate activities, but
not so to fraternities. California's bench, which includes the Liberal 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals, has often seen ts decisions thrown out. Taken to Title IX task
now, I sincerely doubt Alpha Phi Omega would fail under its current structure. I
once served on the University Board off Trustees, and we had to deal with a Title
IX case at the University at Buffalo.The rules are subject to legal
interpretation, but the views of the court that pervaded in 1970- 1976 are far
different from today.
> Retrospectively, I sort of wish we had gone the legal way. It is of no doubt
> that going coed "saved" the fraternity.
That's a debateable opinion. While I fully believe in co-ed chapters, and think
they do justice to the fraternity, Fraternal membership in general was down in the
1970s. For example, SUNY banned National Fraternities on campus in 1972. While
some operated as de facto locals, others died completely. It took 15 years to
bring back UBuffalo's. Primarily, attitudes toward fraternal organizations had
changed, and so to claim that any action in the 1970s "saved" an organization is
too broad. I believe it strengthened the organization, and was the right move, but
to use the term "saved the fraternity" is too broad a term than I would be willing
to take. I suggest the term "new heights and new horizons were found" would be
more accurate.
> The chapters that are still all male
> see no reason to change and, I believe, won't unless they are forced. Why
> force them now. I believe that you and I and all of our brothers thus
> indirectly support discrimination by allowing some of "our" chapters to
> discriminate. I hope that you and the members of your chapter consider this
> and consider how you would feel if it were not sex but race that we are
> talking about. One of the problems with America today, in my opinion, is that
> we do not consider race and sex the same. That is why women get paid less
> then a man for doing the same work, etc.
First and foremost, everyone discriminates. We make choices as to who and what
will not be part of our group. If you join the Boy Scouts, you are all-male. If
you join the League of Women Voters, you are all-female (I've heard rumor of male
membership among some chapters, but that is not the rule). The kind of wrong we
are talking about here is not in allowing continued discrimination. What we are
allowing is deference to a compromise reached a number of years ago to preserve
those who wished for tradition, and to allow those who wished to go forward with
change. Effectively, the best of both worlds. Continuing all-male chapters is
what we agreed upon. Today, there are 1/10 th of the chapters that are all male
that were in 1976. Meanwhile, our Co-ed membership is over 90% of chapters. It is
proof positive that co-ed grows. However, we made a commitment, and your sense of
"what is right" is not their sense of "what is right" . The Fraternity made a fair
and honorable compromise. Co-Ed chapters now dominate the landscape. They should
honor the very compromise that allowed them to be created without tearing apart
the fraternity.
> Yes, some members might quit if forced to change. At about the same time that
> the above was first being seriously considered, the Stanford Band which had
> been all male for years was forced by the University (Title 9) to go coed
> (1973, I believe). A lot of members quit and the Band was not as good as it
> had been for several years. It is now as good as it ever was and perhaps the
> best college Band in the country again.
Again, this is a separate situation from fraternities. This is the school band,
receiving funds from the school, and using school property for performances and
everything else they do. Fraternities, even when using school funds, are
consistently held under a different legal light, and should not be put in the same
basket.
> So, I would urge you and your brethern to look at the issue as if it were race
> and if some of our chapters did not let blacks or hispanics join. How would
> you feel about the issue then. If you still believe that a forced change
> would be bad, then that is your opinion. If you would feel that we must allow
> blacks to join, then I would urge you to feel the same about women.
I disagree. Fraternities and Sororities are, by definition, male and female. By
tradition and establishment from the 19th century, they are gendered social
constructions ingrained into society. This is not a battle to preserve an
inequality or even separate but equal. Fraternities and Sororities are about bond
and spirit, word, and deed. They are also about fun and friendships. I see this
fraternity as growing and thriving because of its co-ed growth, but it cannot deny
its past, nor force others to live in their definition of "the now."
-- Rich Quodomine, Whose Opinions reamin his own
