[20340] in APO-L
Re: All-Male Chapters/Philippines
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (James Thomas)
Wed Mar 24 08:49:59 1999
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 08:49:38 -0500
Reply-To: James Thomas <dremwlkr@IX.NETCOM.COM>
From: James Thomas <dremwlkr@IX.NETCOM.COM>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Ok, being a newbie and trying to understand what this actual arguement is
about was a little odd for me. From Jesse's original post I was under the
impression of the arguement being against forcing current all male chapters
to include females, but at the same time allowing for a female APO Service
Sorority to exist. This is a fundamentally
sound idea if there did not exist already a Female Service Sorority on the
campus where all Male Chapters exist. I personally do not agree with a
seperate toast song or seperate
national bylaws if a sperate but equal female chapter of APO existed on
campuses where all male chapter existed. But, this is not the crux of the
problem that bore the fruit of Jesse's arguement. The problem is that all
male petitioning groups may be turned away from APO membership if they exist
on a co-ed campus.
This I agree is wrong, true we have an obligation to make sure that no
one is discriminated against, but at the same time we must keep an open mind
about what we
as a fraternity are about and that is service. Is it service to the
fraternity to not accept people who wish to join simply because they do not
have a female voice in their petitioning group? No, just because a group is
all male when they ask to join us does not
that they will stay that way when they are accepted as members. Yes, we
have the obligation to accept women in all of our newly formed chapters, but
that does not give us the right to turn away any group of students who meet
our requirements simply because they are not currently coed. Rush and
pledging events as well as co-ed communication
training would be an asset to such groups and would bring more voices to the
philosophy of service that we are all members of.
Just my two cents.
JT
James Thomas
Alumnus Epsilon Mu
Life Member
Charter Member National Alumni Association
-----Original Message-----
From: Jesse Bridges <jaybee3@NETSCAPE.NET>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU <APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU>
Date: Wednesday, March 24, 1999 1:32 AM
Subject: [APO-L] All-Male Chapters/Philippines
>(Jesse)
>Thanks for your comments. You have to know there is a contingency that
feel
>differently than most of the people who read this post. Some you gentlemen
>have seriously mad some valid points. However, I know that sometimes
there
>are people that has views that will not make them after one has received
>opposition.
>
>The idea was to create another organization under Alpha Phi Omega. One
that
>would encompass all-male organizational views and allow growth in both
worlds.
> One being the coed side and the all-male side, two entities not three.
>
>(One person)
>I think Jesse, considering there are chapters today that remain all-male,
the
>idea of
> all-male chapters has not been consumed. The 6.5-hour debate and vote on
> the "gender" resolution at the National Convention bears that out.
>
>(Jesse)
>I think your this statement is evidence of a blind eye being turn toward
the
>desires of men that are on campuses that would like to become a chapter
today.
> Our chapters do still exist today. But can they come back. Can the
>graduates of Florida A&M University, step back and assist their chapter if
it
>becomes inactive too long? Can brothers come together and create an
interest
>that duplicates the traditions that they once knew? So if your chapter
goes
>inactive then it has to be replaced by a coed chapter. That is consumption.
>Because of this agreement the answer is no.
>
>(Another Person)
> Obviously, you like all-male chapters to stick around. That's great, as
long
>as
> they are able to they can, per the agreement. But, you'd also like to
create
>
> new ones. I'd say you have freedom of assembly and association, so anyone
>who
> wants to form an all-male service fraternity based on the words of Frank
>Reed
> Horton and other APO founders, then they have every freedom to do so,
just
>not
> to call it Alpha Phi Omega.
>
>
>(Jesse)
>What kind of attitude is this? I can actually hear this voice with their
foot
>on my throat. It is like-don't bring that non-coed mess around me-. Yet
this
>organization started non-coed. So why is it so gruesome today? My idea
>doesn't actually change anything for members within co-ed chapters. So why
>the long face. All male groups are existing in numbers unknown to this
forum.
> If this idea was successful, you just would have more activated chapters.
>That's no so scary. The co-ed chapters are not going to change.
>One member mentioned that the West Coast has small chapters and that
splitting
>up three ways would break there chapters down. This passion is the
passion
>I'm talking about as well. I'm not saying split, because we will all be
under
>Alpha Phi Omega. Actually all I'm really saying is give the all-male
>chapters an organization, let them organize themselves under Alpha Phi
Omega.
>
>
>
> (Another)
> Artificially? It had been generally recognized that a resolution was
> created in 1976 that delineated the circumstances under which chapters
could
>
> remain all-male. In 1998, a resolution that reiterated that of the 1976
> resolution was approved with a 326-58 vote BY THE CHAPTERS THEMSELVES.
> Considering the tone of the debate I was able to stay conscious for, I
> daresay most of the nays were from delegates who wanted to eliminate
> all-male chapters entirely.
>
>Jesse
>No, that would be inhumane. I know there are people that really hate who
we
>are. But that is just it. We are somebody. I know about 15 locations
that
>would like to start up an all-male chapter. Some which has already sent
>money to the National Office. And undergraduates come to me often about
>starting up a chapter, and when I tell them what to do they have an
>understandable hard time with it. I say understandable because some people
>have a hard time speaking to females in general in college. And when they
>already have more than enough guys to create a chapter, it just does not
make
>sense to me to reject good service minded individuals. I know about the
vote.
> And the vote was good. But the situation stands still. All I'm hearing
from
>this discussion is that the people of this organization do not want anybody
>else that are not like themselves. There is a little something wrong with
>that.
>
>
>
> (Another):
> Again, this sounds like "separate but equal". I am a bit curious about
> something Jesse. Are these prospective members on campuses that have had
> chapters previously, or are they "virgin territory"? For those in the
> former case, I would like to know which campuses and what the reason is
that
>
> a chapter no longer exists there. If the latter, again, I'd like to know
> which campuses.
>
>(Jesse)
>These locations are not virgin territory. I would rather not divulge those
>locations in this forum.
>
>(Another)
>Almost a quarter century ago, this fraternity decided to go co-ed. The
> gentleman's agreement is not genocide, but was a compromise between
changing
>
> attitudes, and stagnant ones.
>
>(Jesse)
>If I make you sterile, so that you can not reproduce, I have just killed
your
>clan. This is that [if you are not like me then you should not exist in my
>world} mind thought processes that I keep trying to show exist within some
>that are non-stagnant brothers to me. There is exist another person within
>this organization within co-ed chapters that would rather see their chapter
>all-male. If people are not open to any ideas then you become stagnant as
>well. Also you do not make a way.
>
>(Another)
> No, but at the same time the majority has the right to impose conditions
> under which the minority participates, provided those conditions do not
> discriminate against someone due to their race, gender, national origin,
> etc. If you can explain to me how forcing a prospective chapter to accept
> women as full members is discriminatory, I'd love to hear it.
>
>(Jesse)
>Not discriminatory, but it is just as bad to force men go fetch women for
the
>fraternity. This gender aspect is not real. If you look at how it should
be,
>then it would be like this. A chapter should get suspended for
discriminating.
> It should not turn them down. I know a situation where a petitioning
group
>had one member get their petitioning status revoked. And they do not have
any
>females no more. They have paid the National Office, but because of one
>careless mistake by a now missing member of the innocent survivors, these
men
>are not welcomed into this fraternity. And some have been trying for near
two
>years and will be graduating soon.
>
>(Another)
>Imagine how boring life would be, let alone the fraternity, if we were all
>mindless drones.
>
>(Jesse)
>I have to say that accepting only one form of thinking is pretty close to
>making sure all people have the same thought function is pretty close.
>
>(Another)
>Frank Reed Horton's words are renewed every day by thousands of men and
> women in this nation and around the world. Considering that his vision
was
> one of inclusiveness, I think he would be disappointed in us all if there
> were two APOUSA's.
>
>(Jesse)
>I mean adjust his quotes to be his actually first version of quotes. I
really
>think the opposite. I think Frank would approve. And that's considering
his
>initial vision.
>
>
>(Another)
> This offends me. Alpha Phi Omega National Service Fraternity is very much
> alive and growing. Alpha Phi Omega National Coed Service Fraternity does
> not exist except, in my opinion, in the minds of those who can't tolerate
> the thought of women as members of the fraternity.
>
>(Jesse)
>No offense intended. I thought certain the name had been changed, because
I
>see a lot of coed members using it, Sorry.
>
>
>(Another)
>I believe your intent would disappear into a fog of which group is the
"true"
>Alpha Phi
> Omega, and the brotherhood as a whole would suffer for it.
>
>(Jesse)
>I think this is a bit arrogant. Alpha Phi Omega exist. There are people
>that support the principles all over the world. The Philippines are just
as
>"true" and the Puerto Ricans. The All the executive National Offices would
be
>the same. So it just sounds like the current change is all that you are
>willing to change to. The previous change was monumental. With
>international branches all ready under Alpha Phi Omega the only reason not
to
>create a branch for All-male hear in the states would be for fear of the
>failures of the coed chapters. Now come, on does it look like the 300+
active
>co-ed chapters of Alpha Phi Omega will be slowing down in growth? With the
>advent of organized all-male chapters, we have growth on both ends of the
>spectrum. I guess I can see anything wrong with that because, I exist on
the
>other side spectrum the sterile side.
>
>
>Jesse
>
>
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com.
>
