[22557] in APO-L
Re: [APO-L] Research Results
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chris Stromberg)
Wed Apr 24 01:14:17 2002
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20020423215615.00a6cec0@cstrombe.pobox.stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 22:02:03 -0700
Reply-To: Chris Stromberg <cstrombe@STANFORD.EDU>
From: Chris Stromberg <cstrombe@STANFORD.EDU>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <32B02CDCFD38D654A9CECD1897C1FFD8@JayBEE.25-52.zzn.com>
JayBEE,
The problem with a resolution that does away with the cross-section of the
campus clause is that it would open us up to all sorts of things that (I
hope) none of us want.
For instance, would you support a group of all whites forming a chapter
that excluded all other ethnicities? If not, why not? Under what
justification? And how is that justification consistent with allowing a
group of all males to form a chapter that excludes women? Both groups
would be exercising their freedom, and they would be adding to the
"diversity" of the National Fraternity.
Before you answer that we are historically and traditionally an all male
Fraternity, keep in mind that APO was started by a group of WHITE
men. There were no other ethnicities allowed. That was dropped some time
in the 50's or 60's (anyone out there know exactly when or how that came
about?) If you look at the pictures from the National Conventions in the
late 40's (of which my Chapter's records have several), the people there
are still all white. This change was made without the same backlash and
controversy that has surrounded the decision to go co-ed, and yet (from my
perspective) the issues are identical.
Chris Stromberg
Zeta Chapter
Stanford University
