[21071] in APO-L
[APO-L] Membership Policies
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Stratton)
Wed Jul 26 16:34:27 2000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.05.10007261529360.14242-100000@indy1>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 15:38:00 -0500
Reply-To: Mark Stratton <stratton@INDY.NET>
From: Mark Stratton <stratton@INDY.NET>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Brothers,
I had largerly hoped to remain out of the substance of this debate, but
the last message from Brother Wallace inspired me to join the discussion.
(To save space, I have not included his original message.)
Brother Wallace indicates his concern that we choose quanity over quality
in our membership policies. To some extent, I share his concern - if we
are only interested in numbers of members as opposed to the quality of
those members, it is true that we will have a difficult road.
I disagree, however, with the assumption that his posting makes - opening
the door to membership, or extending an opportunity for membership, to
men, women, blacks, whites, jews, gentiles, heterosexuals and homosexuals,
in and of itself, does *not* make Alpha Phi Omega a weaker organization.
I would think that the more we work to be inclusive, the deeper our pool
for quality members.
You might have a member of the aforementioned categories who isn't worth a
darn, but it is not appropriate to presume that such is the characteristic
of that entire group of people. There are good and bad people in each
group, and chapters should make every effort to ensure they recruit
quality individuals. But "quality" is not limited to any particular
group, ethnicity, gender, religion, or orientation. And though we may
have been founded on certain principles, those principles, like people and
society, evolve over time.
Extending an opportunity to anyone who might become a productive part of
our organization and society isn't simply a choice; I think it is our
responsibility.
In the words of one of our Founders (I believe): EVERYONE has the
potential to be a leader, to be a friend, and to be of service.
(Either that, or I read it in the pledge manual.)
Suffice to say, extending opportunities to others does not make us a
weaker organizations, and having homosexuals and women certainly doesn't
either. If you want to make that argument, I can't and wouldn't try to
stop you - but you'd have to find a way to prove it, and I'm fairly
certain that you can't and won't be able to. By what standard are we
weaker?
Fraternally,
Mark Stratton
Section 52 Membership & Extension Chair
