[23043] in APO-L
Re: [APO-L] Joel Bryant
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Fuzzy Logic)
Tue Oct 29 13:20:07 2002
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 13:21:54 -0500
Reply-To: Fuzzy Logic <fuzzman@M-NET.ARBORNET.ORG>
From: Fuzzy Logic <fuzzman@M-NET.ARBORNET.ORG>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <84938DA7E2FC3CE42A35AAC79E37042C@JayBEE.25-52.zzn.com>
We are a Fraternity run by actives. That's rather the point, isn't it?
The Fraternity is _supposed_ to be run by the active Brothers, not by
alumni and staff. This is the way we were founded.
Not knowing the details, I couldn't comment on the actions taken against
Joel.
That said, I noticed that one of the follow-ups was regarding A Phi Q, I
begin to wonder whether THAT was part of the situation.
I've said it before, and I still state it. I don't like the concept of A
Phi Q. We are a co-ed, multi-colored, DIVERSE Fraternity. If some people
would like to have an all-male, all-black Fraternity, they should go start
it. They should NOT sully the name of this fine Fraternity with hazing
and other negative things. Call the hazing "bonding" if you would like.
It still doesn't sit well with me.
Brother Fuzzy
--
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
Si hoc legere scis, nimium eruditionis habes.
Vir sapit qui pauca loquitur.
Cras amet qui numquam amavit, quique amavit cras plus amet.
Uno itinere non potest perveniri ad tam grande secretum.
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, JayBEE! wrote:
> You know what, it is simply amazing is that an alumni is being
> scrutinized, when he himself can only be representative of only (a
> fraction of a fraction of a vote) when it comes to voting on issues in
> the fraternity.
>
> An undergraduate represents a fraction of the alotted two delegates. As
> in if there are 10 people in the chapter. His representation is one
> fifth of a vote.
>
> In the case of an alumni member, if he is in an alumni association of 10
> members, he would represent 1 tenth of that association. One fraction.
> But then, if there is 10 associations in his region his representation
> would be one tenth of on tenth.
>
> The point is even with that little of representation, and his life
> membership his allegded actions will always have smaller weight than
> that of an undergraduate. So it naturally if all is equal, there will be
> no middle ground. It will always be in the best interest of the Spirits
> and Standards to committee to believe and support undergraduates. I just
> don't believe that it should ever come with the consequence of
> suspending a single member unless there was physical harm or a grave
> finanicial recourse. Neither of which was evident in this case.
>
> From what I understand there was a visitation from an alumni to a campus
> that he is not from, through the invitation of campus alumni. Through
> conversation, somebody got their feelings hurt and felt like reporting
> it to the national office. And because it was a new group sanctioned by
> the national office, anything they needed they would get including
> taking some form of action against an alumni with life membership.
>
> To say that suspension was result of comparing hearsay, gives you the
> newly developed extent to which a individual can be held accountable.
>
> JayBEE
