[20813] in APO-L
Re: Partisan Political Activity
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmbuck@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU)
Thu Aug 26 23:11:40 1999
Date: Thu, 26 Aug 1999 23:01:09 -0400
Reply-To: bmbuck@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU
From: bmbuck@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
In-Reply-To: Message from Liana Olear <lolear@CSE.BUFFALO.EDU> of "Thu, 26 Aug
1999 15:58:09 EDT."
<199908261958.PAA25711@armstrong.cse.Buffalo.EDU>
John Grossi saieth the parts beginning with "> > "
Liana Olear saieth the parts beginning with "> "
Buddha Buck saieth the parts beginning with ""
> > 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.
I think these are very different cases.
On the one hand, Joe Schmuck, big APO man on campus, is busted for
illegal drug possession. This reflects poorly on the Fraternity,
because it contradicts the principles that we put forth. I know that I
was attracted to APO in part because it did not have an "Animal House"
reputation that other fraternities did.
On the other, you have a person who, like me, is a member of several
unpopular/nontraditional groupings. I did not hide from my chapter the
fact that I was bisexual, or an ordained Wiccan priest, or pro-choice,
or that I had two significant-others at the same time while active in
the Chapter. That I was accepted by my chapter despite this is one of
the positive aspects of APO that drew me to it. (I did not tell the
chapter that I had met both Tim Leary and Baba Ram Dass, but then
again, it didn't come up until now, either).
I can see a chapter wanting to dissociate themselves from Joe Schmuck.
After all, his actions are contrary to our principles.
On the otherhand, I would hope that a chapter would rally behind Joe
Outcast, because his acceptance is, IMHO, perfectly in line with the
goals and intent of this Fraternity and it's founders.
> 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?
if I were asked to give up my religion, my sexuality, my politics, or
my hair because it made people think poorly of APO -- even though the
part of my I am asked to get rid of is acceptable to APO -- how would
that stand the scruteny of a Risk Management Policy analysis?
>
> Where do you draw the line, indeed.
>
> Liana
--
Buddha Buck bmbuck@zaphid.dhis.edu
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacaphony of the unfettered speech
the First Amendment protects." -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
