[22547] in APO-L
Re: [APO-L] Gentlemens Agreement, Co-ed Re-activation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Jon Stromberg)
Tue Apr 23 20:30:58 2002
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0204231711510.12803-100000@elaine23.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 17:20:49 -0700
Reply-To: Christopher Jon Stromberg <cstrombe@STANFORD.EDU>
From: Christopher Jon Stromberg <cstrombe@STANFORD.EDU>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <APO-L%2002042318354318@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU>
Joel,
I have to disagree with one particular part of your statement.
Becoming a Co-ed fraternity was NOT a decision of the National Board. In
fact, it was a decision of the National Convention in 1976.
To give you a little perspective, I will share some of my own
chapter's history (Zeta Chapter at Stanford University) with you. Keep in
mind, this is a history that we are VERY proud of, and that we still share
with our pledges (I just gave a talk on it last night to our pledges, as a
matter of fact).
Zeta Chapter started initiating females and registering them with
the National Office in 1974. The first one was Beth Hesselmeyer. The way
they did this was to register them with first initial, last name. Our
chapter was one of those leading the push to make APO co-ed. When the
fraternity told our chapter that chapters would be allowed to go co-ed
only if the administration pushed the issue, our brothers went to the
administration and asked them to push the issue.
Our brothers also approached the faculty in our law school and
asked them to start writing briefs for a court case against the National
Fraternity. The National Fraternity started to create a legal defense
fund. If the National Convention in 1976 had not voted to go co-ed, my
chapter would have sued, and these same National Officers that are being
demonized would have fought that suit. They also would have lost, by the
way, as the Title IX implications are quite clear at any college or
university that receives ANY federal funding (including federal financial
aid).
Our National Officers implement the policy of the majority of the
actives. Actually, for a change like this, a 3/4 vote of the National
Convention is now required (and I don't think that requirement was any
different in 1976). They do not persecute chapters on a whim.
To blatantly accuse these people of what you have accused them of
shows great disrespect to these Brothers. Just because they are not on
this list and you don't have to actually face them does not change that
fact. Let's please keep the personal attacks out of this discussion.
These are not nameless, faceless people, but your Brothers. You may
disagree with their policies or how they were implemented, but please,
keep in mind, they are in the end your Brothers.
Chris Stromberg
Zeta Chapter
Stanford University
