[2225] in APO News
debate on national legislation re; coedity vs. all male
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (chashmlt@MIT.EDU)
Tue Nov 12 22:29:34 1996
From: chashmlt@MIT.EDU
To: apo-news@MIT.EDU
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 22:28:31 EST
Recently, two of the most coherent posts to APO-L regarding this issue came to
my attention. Both point out in emotionally uncharged language the issues
actually being addressed by these amendments. I strongly recommned reading
these posts as they may allow you some insight, and a starting point for
consideration on the issues being debated.
YiLFS,
Give-a-Clue-Poo
------- Forwarded Message
[snip]
Reply-To: "Gerald A. Schroeder" <gschroed@CAPACCESS.ORG>
From: "Gerald A. Schroeder" <gschroed@CAPACCESS.ORG>
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
I really don't want to get into the middle, one side or the other, of the
debate about all-male chapters. That is a question for the voting
delegates in Phoenix to decide however they want.
Let me also say that I think, and hope, that my record on open membership
policies and diverse membership is well known and well documented. It
was a priority of my presidency.
That being said, I have always been troubled by the resolutions adopted
in 1976 and the thought that they could now be abrogated. Yes, I agree
with Bill Rugh that the Convention has the authority and right to do so,
but the question still remains whether that is the right thing to do.
Brothers can obviously legitimately and sincerely come down on either
side of that question. But, as Bill said, I think the reason for change
must be compelling (however you define that is up to you as an
individual).
But being a person troubled, but not driven, by the 1976 resolutions, my
concerns were heightened tonight by a post from a Brother who raised a
good and well intentioned point. That was that the "grandfather clause"
may have been necessary in 1976 but now is the time to change it.
I know it wasn't intended, but one reading of this point was that the
"clause" was necessary in 1976 to achieve passage of the proposal to
admit women as full, equal actives and that now it can be changed. My
questions are: (1) *if* that is true (and I suspect it was at the time)
is it fair, the objective now being achieved, that the "quid" for the
"pro" be rescinded from the "quid pro quo"?; (2) *if* the "quid pro quo"
had not been reached in 1976 would the convention, then all-male, have
voted the way it did?; (3) *if* not, would any convention since then,
without a similar understanding, have voted to admit women?; and *if* all
of these things are true, should Alpha Phi Omega now repudiate the very
compromise that allowed women to be admited in the first place?
Please understand that I mean these questions sincerely as one who
genuinely abhors discrimination on any basis but who is torn over a prior
promise/understanding/resolution -- whatever anyone wants to call it --
that allowed us to get "here" in the first place. I guess my "fairness"
issue just won't go away.
Bill's view that the reason for overturning such the 1976 resolution must
be compelling must be viewed, I think, in terms of the post I refer to.
Once again, I express no views on the answer to that question, but it's
one that I think we all must consider seriously. We may have ultimately
ended up at some future date exactly where we are now without any
"understanding" but history can't be rewritten -- we were able to get
there in 1976, and not some later, more uncertain date, because of the
"understanding." Does that, should that, be factored into the decision
that the voting delegates must make? I'm sure many of you will have
opinions and, as one person with the concern, I await your thoughts.
Jerry Schroeder
Immediate Past National President
Alpha Phi Omega
----------
[snip]
Reply-To: Lee Correll <rec700z@MAIL.ODU.EDU>
From: Lee Correll <rec700z@MAIL.ODU.EDU>
Subject: All-male chapters: summary
To: Multiple recipients of list APO-L <APO-L@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
For the past several weeks I've also stayed out of the fray on the
all-male issue, even though my name is at the top of the list of the
movers of R-5 through R-8. I've been tossing around a summary document of
the issues amongst a variety of people, presented below.
Please note that I have done my best to keep this short, stick to the
facts and not use language which evokes emotion one way or the other - no
use of the word "promise" or "discrimination" or "rights." I realize that
the issue is one full of emotion, but it's also very clear that many
individuals don't have the information out there to make decisions which
represent the views of their chapters.
The opinion is already coming out - let's just make sure we all understand
what we're discussing here. This is NOT the BSA issue, NOT the Toast Song
issue, NOT the "Brother/Sister" issue and none of these are related to the
motions proposed (R-5 through R-8).
#1. The issue of all male chapters and their ability to exist as all-male
chapters has not been discussed at a Convention for 20 years. At each
Convention, these chapters have been told by the Chair that any changes in
bylaws do not affect their standing. For instance, at Boston in 1992 when
the so-called "laundry list" of groups we don't discriminate against was
removed, all-male chapters were told that this did not affect the
agreement.
#2. The "Gentlemen's Agreement" in 1976 was not written down to the best
of my knowledge; there seems to be no written record of the agreement. I
have heard individuals say that it passed in the form of a resolution; the
T&T record of the convention actions does not sustain that statement. As
the National Office no longer has offical minutes of that Convention, any
documentation which could be produced would be subject to scrutiny as it
would serve as a precedent which could then be addressed.
#3. That agreement had several tenets: that those chapters which had not
yet admitted women would be allowed to continue to the practice of not
admitting them as full members; that all subsequent chapters would not be
allowed to prevent women from joining the chapter was a later
interpretation. The enforcement on the latter part of this was ignored
for many years (see Randy Finder's note of several days ago) but today is
enforced; new chapters must be coeducational if the institution is
coeducational.
#4. This is the first time that the agreement has come under direct
evaluation since it was made. If one of the proposals (either R-5, the
proposal to nullify the "Gentlemen's Agreement" or R-6, the proposal to
reaffirm the "Gentlemen's Agreement") makes it to the Convention floor,
the Convention would have the ability to consider whether or not it wishes
to continue to allow all-male chapters at coeducational institutions to
prevent women from joining the chapter. While the Convention has always
had this ability, this would be the first time that motions have been made
to directly address this.
#5. Chief among the issues are the questions: "is it wrong to revoke
this agreement with these chapters?", "is it wrong to allow them to
prevent women from joining their chapter?", "if both are wrong: which one
is the 'worse' of the two?"
#6. There are many other issues which come into the picture, the value of
each of which must be weighed. Among them:
- - Effect on the chapters in question - clearly, this will affect the
operation and fraternal relationships within the chapter.
- - Effect on other organizations on the campus - in several cases, APO
coexists with a "sister" organization such as Gamma Sigma Sigma. What
would the effect on those groups be (or is that our concern?)
- - Effect on our relationships with other organizations with which we are
or may be associated - such as the Boy Scouts or Girl Scouts.
- - Effect on the Fraternity as a whole - is our image nationally or
internationally affected by the way we currently operate?
- - Legal ramifications: are we placing the schools where we have these
charters in violation of Title IX? What responsibility do these schools
have with this issue? Has the interpretation changed since the decision
was originally rendered? (Note: I already did the first set of legwork
for you - see the Federal Code, Section 20 (Education) Article 1680
(Discrimination on the basis of sex), which is probably in your school
library. Title IX refers to the Education Amendments et al of 1972 -
which were incorporated into the Federal Code when they passed. Note that
this is just the law - not the interpretation of the law.)
This is the bulk of the items around which discussion should center.
There are other issues, some direct and some tangental which may affect a
chapter's decision one way or the other.
------- End of Forwarded Messages
