[22526] in APO-L
Re: [APO-L] Research Results
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert Dean)
Mon Apr 22 12:55:11 2002
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <570D0F4D.0A888EEA.002124AA@cs.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 12:50:35 -0400
Reply-To: rdean71@CS.COM
From: Robert Dean <rdean71@CS.COM>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
To this discussion, I have but only two points to make:
If we are to look at the rights and responsibilities of Alpha Phi Omega as a National Service Fraternity vs the rights and responsibilities of groups that aren't even members of the Fraternity yet, then it becomes clear. Although Alpha Phi Omega holds an obligation (by resolution of the National Convention) to let the existing all-male-by-choice chapters stay all-male, it bears NO obligation to institute NEW chapters that artificially limit their membership pool.
Second, and this point somewhat interleaves with the first, the reason you have a National Organization is to promote some measure of commonality between groups. I would say that base Membership Requirements is an absolutely essential point that needs to be addressed, so that members can transfer from one chapter to another (among other things). Allowing the proliferation of chapters with exclusive membership policies would undermine that commonality.
LFS,
Robert Dean
JayBEE! <JayBEE@25-52.ZZN.COM> wrote:
>
>
>
>[Irwin]
>There is a no longer a need for discussion of
>this. All current single-gender chapters are
>allowed to maintain their preferred membership
>status in APO.
>
>[JayBEE!]
>Brother Irwin Chui. nbsp;There is no doubting
>this. nbsp;I've stated nothing about the current
>status of single-gender chapters in my post.
>If you read over my comments, you will see that
>I was merely stating the contridiction to
>events in our history. nbsp;As I understand this is
>a medium to which we can share ideas and
>thought to which we might help teach a dn
>educate one another. nbsp;So if I find where I can
>help in this area, I'll make my own
>determination of what I think needs to be
>discussed. nbsp;Thank You.
>
>[Irwin]
>What would be the reasoning of revitalizing a
>single-gender chapter, when we are a diverse
>and cohesive union of independent states in
>America?
>
>[JayBEE]
>There is two parts to address in this comment. nbsp;
>One.) Revitalizing a single gender chapter. nbsp;If
>there was a reason, a desire my undergraduates,
>it is clearly out of freedom of those
>individuals. nbsp;So answering what would be the
>reason, is already academic. Two.) We are not nbsp;
>diverse amp; cohesive. nbsp;This is a true for only
>the prespective on a single individual at the
>visual level, what you see on the surface. nbsp;But
>as you look deeper into our cultures you find
>that outstanding differences in everything we
>do. nbsp;To be cohesive, there would be across the
>board understanding and acceptance. nbsp;To me
>Alpha Phi Omega should be where all comes
>together. nbsp;But when you direct the course of
>individuals to what you prefer, you have more
>of a shaping effect. There's no freedom in that.
>Alpha Phi Omega should be more cohesive and
>accepting in diversity than the United States.
>
>[Irwin]
>Is this what Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther
>King Jr. had in mind regarding freedom and
>independence for persons in the U.S., as stated
>in our Constitution?
>
>[JayBEE!]
>You want to go to the aspect of freedom? nbsp;
>Really? nbsp;You actually said quot;Independence for
>personsquot; nbsp;The more rules, restrictions you have
>the less freedom you have. nbsp;That's got to be
>simple enough. nbsp;When I talk of single gender
>chapters, it is not something that I can take
>part in, so the desire is desire coming from
>people of diverse cultures. nbsp;It is the desires
>of students in school where diversity is still
>misunderstood. nbsp;It is their freedom and their
>independence. nbsp; nbsp;
>
>[Irwin]
>The global community is advancing at such a
>rapid pace in our 21st century with high
>technology as the leadership spearhead. As like
>in our beloved fraternity, what we do and enact
>is reflected upon by the world we reside in.
>
>[JayBEE!]
>Irwin. nbsp;Shouldn't what we do and enact, include
>the freedom of individuals. nbsp;Say no to that. nbsp;
>As I said before the more rules, the less
>freedom. nbsp;I saw a person at a conference with
>their hair colored blue. nbsp;That's freedom. nbsp;I
>remember Some city attempting to outlaw the
>color of hair. nbsp;That's not freedom. nbsp;In Alpha nbsp;
>Phi Omega we create a rule saying that you
>can't brand yourself, and chapters have been
>taken because an member of this fraternity on
>that campus had a brand, when branding is
>something desired by and individual. nbsp;Branding
>is never a forced event. nbsp;But the rule has
>remove the freedom of that individual. nbsp;
>
>
>[Irwin]
>FYI: What you are proposing would be most
>controversial and potentially illegal here in
>the state of California.
>
>[JayBEE!]
>I made no proposals. nbsp;And if you think that I'm
>proposing single gender chapter. nbsp;They are only
>illegal on campuses that are Federally Funded
>and has required that all service organizations
>become coed. nbsp;I can only assume that there is
>nothing but coed service organizations in
>California. nbsp;I think that, you think my
>statements for about the future of Alpha Phi
>Omega, it was talking about the past. nbsp;Check
>the dates.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Humility is must be learned
>(you have to want it to
>acquire it), but Imperialism
>is hereditary, (you have to
>want to remove it from your
>system).
>Get your Free 25/52 E-mail Account at http://25-52.zzn.com
>____________________________________________________________
>Get your own FREE Web and POP E-mail Service in 14 languages at http://www.zzn.com.
>
>
