[20809] in APO-L
Re: Partisan Political Activity
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Liana Olear)
Thu Aug 26 16:08:15 1999
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 15:58:09 -0400
Reply-To: Liana Olear <lolear@CSE.BUFFALO.EDU>
From: Liana Olear <lolear@CSE.BUFFALO.EDU>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <000e01beeff9$4b4104c0$31864eab@penobscot.bbn.com> from John
Grossi at "Aug 26, 99 03:29:20 pm"
> You touch on an interesting part of APO... Risk Management Policy...
>
> let's say There's a student on your campus...
>
> big time involved in APO...
>
> but also big time involved in say "Timothy O'Leary Children" (LSD priest of
> the 60s)
>
> This person is known as "APO Man" even when he's standing by himself...
>
> then he gets busted for LSD possession. Where does the line lie? My
> impression
> is that if you have to ask... your over it. (and I've heard board member
> pushing
> that line) Which is in a way unfair... Joe Schmuck is more constrained
> because
> he's well known as an APO person... but Susan Schmo isn't because unless
> she's
> wearing her letters no one would know she's a brother.
There is another direction in which you have to ask "where does the line
lie". What if the hypothetical Joe is not involved in anything
illegal, but perhaps unpopular? What if he comes out as gay, while living
in a not very tolerant community? Or, in that same community, he turns
out to be of a non-mainstream religion (say, Wiccan)? What if he is an
outspoken member of a pro-life (or a pro-choice) group? What about if
Joe openly admits to having two girlfriends? I could keep going.
All of these have a potential of making Joe a target for some nasty
opinions from people around him. Will those people generalize to
attribute Joe's actions and views to APO? And does _that_ mean that when
Joe decides to be heavily involved with APO, he'd better promptly lose
everything about him that's controvercial or not something that everyone
would approve of?
Where do you draw the line, indeed.
Liana
