[20334] in APO-L
Re: [Re: [APO-L] All-Male Chapters/Philipines]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Cliff Gilley)
Tue Mar 23 21:03:29 1999
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 18:04:27 -0800
Reply-To: Cliff Gilley <clifg@SEATTLEU.EDU>
From: Cliff Gilley <clifg@SEATTLEU.EDU>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <19990323224515.25939.qmail@www0f.netaddress.usa.net>
Jesse, et. al:
First, I would like to thank Jesse for coming up with a new and interesting idea regarding the ongoing co-ed/same sex ideological differences that we seem to encounter in APO.
However, I question the characterization that was made regarding the "Gentlemen's Agreement." First, let me state that while I do not necessarily agree with any sort of exclusive membership policy, the agreement was made by Alpha Phi Omega, and as Alpha Phi Omega, we should continue to live up to it.
It is my distinct impression that those who wish to maintain all-male chapters are in the minority of the members of APO, especially among the actual active members. And under the Gentlemen's agreement (again, as I understand it), those chapters which were all-male at the time of the agreement may continue to exist as all-male chapters if they so desire. But, should they ever go co-ed, they cannot go back. This doesn't seem to be too problematic, except when the National Conventions
come along and people try to break the agreement.
If, indeed, there were a majority of those interested in APO, or a majority of those active members of APO, who supported the idea of all-male chapters, then Jesse's suggestions might be an excellent idea. However, this is not where I think APO is in general.
APO exists as a unique entity, in that it combines the benefits of a fraternal organization with the opportunity to serve our communities. Jesse lists "APO National Service Fraternity" as deceased. Well, that may be technically true, based on name alone, but we are still Alpha Phi Omega. We still have the same founding principles. We still have the same goals. We still have the same history. We have simply evolved into something different, dare I say better?
As a part of the "new" (and continually evolving) Alpha Phi Omega, we hold a non-discrimination policy. Yes, there is a contradiction when we're faced with dealing with the "Gentlemen's Agreement", but it's not so dissonant that we can't reconcile it. It was a concession made for the betterment of the organization. Without it, we may not have gone co-ed until forced to do so by the courts. And that would have been much, much more divisive than what we have now.
To split the fraternity into three parts seems to me to be the "easy" way out. It dilutes the "conflicts" that result in intelligent discourse. It dilutes the effectiveness of our chapters. Out here in the west, we have some chapters which are just barely continuing to exist...with less than 20 members, and probably half of them women. What would happen if we began to offer 3 different alternatives? We'd have 3 smaller chapters, all feeling apart from one another due to the
ideological differences that divide them.
Granted, if we were beginning today, it might be an excellent idea to start as three separate groups. But we're not. To divide us now along the lines of the same-sex v. co-ed distinction, when the vast majority of members seem to be able to reach an agreement, seems to me to be counter-intuitive. *That* seems to me to be an artificial distinction.
Anyway, that's my 10 cents worth (or more) on the issue.
YiLFS,
Cliff Gilley
Past President, Gamma Alpha Chapter (U of WA)
Former Section 8 Vice-Chair
_______________________________________________________________________
Cliff Gilley, 2L "The greatest trick the devil ever played
Seattle U. School of Law was convincing the world that he didn't
clifg@seattleu.edu exist." - Verbal Kint, The Usual Suspects
On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Jesse Bridges <jaybee3@NETSCAPE.NET> wrote:
>I would like to say thanks Sarah And James, for being open to this discussion. I already see a large contingency of Alpha Phi Omega brothers as being separate.
>
>Now hear me out.
>
>I do not think the overall group should ever be separate. But there exist two distinctive ideas about this organization. One that is co-ed, the other is all-male. The co-ed idea should not consume the non-coed idea. But that is what is happening, artificially.
>
>Artificially because of the groups of all-males eager to join Alpha Phi Omega as a chapter, are being purposely held back, because the regional directors that are sworned to the (Genocide Gentlemen's Agreement) That, of course, they have no choice.now.
>
>So I say artificially, as opposed to non-artificially, where it would be that men would like to join Alpha Phi Omega and rather exist as a coed chapter today. If they did want to join Alpha Phi Omega as a coed chapter, then you would see men that exist as you thought they would. A desire to join equal to yours "on their own". Which is very true for most cases. But you have those guys that would not want to have to be force to get one female to become an Alpha Phi Omega fraternity.
>
>How can this idea work in the Philippines, a country with not as many cultures as our own? Easy. We have (I hate to say so, but it is true) a more dominate culture in the United States. But is it American, to control and reshape growth as the majority without considering the minority's desire or how it will effect them?
>
>On one campus, Gamma Sigma Sigma has it in their chapter history that the brothers of Alpha Phi Omega help them get started. Now if they would like to assist Alpha Phi Omega they would have to actually join Alpha Phi Omega and then be forced to stay in both organizations in order to keep Alpha Phi Omega, whom they love, possible for existence purposes.
>
>We are a Melting Pot of ideas too.
>
>And I'm just wondering why not consider the thought. And after I started wondering, I began to see the benefits. The history and the actual words Frank Reed Horton stated can be renewed. The significant history of everything that transpired to create the Coed Fraternity could have faithful documentation. A new toast song can be created. Alpha Phi Omega is big, I'm not saying split us up. I'm saying make a place for everyone.
>
>Right now, everybody in the United States, including female brothers has Sisters in the Philippines. Why, because everyone here is a brother. They're in the same organization you are in (Alpha Phi Omega), and over there, they are your sisters.
>
>
>(Philippines)
>Alpha Phi Omega National Service Sorority
>Alpha Phi Omega National Service Fraternity
>Alpha Phi Omega National Coed Service Fraternity
>
>One national president, one national convention
>
>(United States)
>Alpha Phi Omega National Service Fraternity (Deceased)
>Alpha Phi Omega National Coed Service Fraternity
>
>One national president, one national convention
>
>
>With this I can see a larger, more accepting, more encompassing Fraternity, one that would be more considerate in all aspects of life. And with that consideration I can see a more forward moving organization. I'm not saying split. Alpha Phi Omega is one organization and has several sub-national organizations already. You are brothers to everyone. And some are sisters to you. All over the world.
>
>Challenging, yes
>
>Possible, definitely
