[22527] in APO-L
Re: [APO-L] Research Results
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Grossi)
Mon Apr 22 13:35:13 2002
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0204221701250.19563-100000@penobscot.genuity.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 17:36:17 +0000
Reply-To: John Grossi <jgrossi@GENUITY.NET>
From: John Grossi <jgrossi@GENUITY.NET>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.2.20020422091809.00a630a0@cstrombe.pobox.stanford.edu>
I'd actually hazard to suggest today that our understanding of the 1976
convention is seriously flawed due to the pithy of sources, and the
dubious veracity of some of the loudest of them. In 1976, the Gentleman's
Agreement which we put so much stock and arguement into probably didn't
exist in the well codified form it is in today.
(the next paragraph is my opinion, and worth what you paid for it)
From what I can tell it grew up in the mid80s from a variety of policies
and comments coming together into something whole as a consensus
developed. This consensus we now call the Gentleman's Agreement. A good
sized chunk of the convention probably went home knowning nothing about this,
because persay it wasn't one incident but a variety of incidents and policies
that over time melded into the Gentleman's Agreement as a consensus was
acheived in the Sections and Regions. Enforcement followed consensus, in
some cases lagging the '76 convention by a decade.
At this point though it's pretty much irrelevant, beyond the interesting
historical debate of events nearly 30 years ago. Right now we know how
the organization works, and it's criteria for creating new chapters.
Assigning blame or playing word games doesn't really do very much, except
fill hard disk space somewhere...
If you don't like the chartering process, submit legislation to change
it. Then go out there and get a majority of the undergraduates to support you.
Generally though from what I've seen having been to 5 conventions
(92,94,96,98,00) the undergrads are pretty adverse to large wholesale
changes and prefer incremental changes. So if your change is major in
scope, your battle for passage will be tough, made even harder if you're
an alumni. (actives are far more willing to listen to each other than some
alumni with a preceived chip on his shoulder)
I'd also hazard to suggest that the alumni are going to have differing
opinions and preceptions from the students at the direction we need to
march in for the future. Our job is to advise them of possible pitfalls we
see, but to allow them to make the decisions, even if we disagree, just as
someone allowed us to decide. We are here at their sufferance, we've had
our time, now is their time to hold the organization in trust for the next
generation. I'm willing to trust them to make the right decision, if they
are given the oppurtunity.
-John
Alumni
On Mon, 22 Apr 2002, Chris Stromberg wrote:
> Brothers,
>
> Going back to JayBEE's initial comments, he is certainly correct
> that there has been a lot of mis-understanding in the fraternity surounding
> the 1976 convention and the oft-talked about "Gentlemen's Agreement". I
> would like to add some comments gleaned from watching this discussion for
> many years. Let me preface it by saying that I was not at the 1976
> convention (I was only 6 months old at the time), so if anyone that WAS at
> the convention can offer their insight, I would really appreciate it.
>
> First of all, it does not surprise me that JayBEE found no mention
> of the "Gentlemen's Agreement" in the minutes of the convention. A
> gentlemen's agreement is not written down, and it is not voted on by a
> National Convention. Traditionally, a gentlemen's agreement is a verbal
> agreement sealed by a handshake. Thus, there is no reason to believe that
> a written record would exist of such a thing.
>
> My take, from watching this list for many years now, is that there
> were two parts to the decision at the 1976 convention, one the formal
> changes to the By-laws and Fraternity rules that were passed by the
> convention delegates and the less formal general understanding of how those
> changes would be implemented. It is this less formal general understanding
> that I think people initially referred to as the "Gentlemen's Agreement"
> (obviously, that meaning was lost over time, but, initially, I think that
> was probably what was meant).
>
> The changes made in 1976 could have been interpreted a lot of
> ways, in the same way that laws passed by Congress get interpreted many
> different ways. As I understand it, the "Gentlemen's Agreement" was
> basically the understanding of how those changes would be
> interpreted. This understanding would not have been written, but would
> have been derived primarily from the discussions held on the floor of the
> convention, but also from everything else that was going on at the time.
>
> Now, of course, there are problems with gentlemen's
> agreements. First, they are typically verbal agreements, with no
> documentation to back them up. Thus, they depend not only on the
> individual people's understanding of them, but also on the way that they
> are passed along from one person to another. This is why, later, the
> Fraternity codified the "Gentlemen's Agreement", according to JayBEE, first
> in 1986 by the National Board, and later (in 1998) by the National Convention.
>
> So, one interesting question (at least for me) remains. What was
> the original "Gentlemen's Agreement"? Stated another way: How did the
> Brothers at the 1976 convention understand how the changes that they had
> approved would be implemented?
>
> Certainly, I can only guess at this (having not been there
> myself). I think it is clear that the Chapters understood that it would be
> their decision when and if to ever go Co-ed. This is the one thing that
> everyone seems to agree on. Many also seem to have left with the
> impression that all new chapters and all re-chartered chapters would be
> co-ed. This seems to not have been the unanimous understanding, and I
> can't even say if it was the majority understanding. But that idea was
> there, at least for some of the people at the convention.
>
> Anyway, this is my take on the "Gentlemen's Agreement". If there
> is anyone on the list who actually was at the 1976 convention, I would
> appreciate their comments on this, as the only people who can really answer
> this question are the people that were there.
>
> Chris Stromberg
> Zeta Chapter
>
