[24317] in APO-L
Re: [APO-L] Toast Song
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Gallagher)
Tue May 25 15:42:11 2004
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 15:42:08 -0400
Reply-To: Michael Gallagher <famtree@UDel.Edu>
From: Michael Gallagher <famtree@UDel.Edu>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
I shouldn't be using rhetorical questions in email. I couldn't find the
exact quote, and that's using the scouting.org site index AND search engine.
What I meant was...The BSA keeping its youth out of politics relating to the
BSA is to shield them from it & avoid influence by adults on youth and the
same applies to APO. If nobody on here sees this, maybe my suspiscion of
having a unique perspective on life is true. As I stated at a Board
Roundtable at a CPW (by extension), the other issue is that "politics of the
day" could mean candidates & parties, which, if any 501c3 engages in these,
loses 501c3 status.
I think I can be fairly safe is stating the following "on the air": I'm
actively trying to get my sister to join APO at CWRU when she goes there
this fall (yes, I have it covered: contacted VPM & Pres before the IPP, both
female). That said, her 18th birthday is in the last week of October.
Given that rush at Case starts on the first day of classes (mid-late
August), no, NOT ALL THOSE WHO PLEDGE ARE ADULTS.
People in various organizations have told me to NOT point out anything
negative to prospects to avoid turning them off, since my chapter is small
(just went from 6-15 in a year). Chapters may desire to shield pledges from
the politics. I have been involved in 4 organizations where politics has
come up: BSA (internal politics), APO (internal), Sons of the American
Revolution & Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War (latter 2 external &
internal). Shielding members from politics occurs. The most recent example
I can think of is I pointed out a potential activity that was not allowed by
APO. When I approached 2 board members at a regional conference about
progress, I got the following response: "It's dealt with. It's DEALT with."
Perhaps privacy laws intervened here, but I make my point of political
shielding.
Finding a balance that exposes enough negative to be realistic but not scare
people away is the challenge.
Michael Gallagher
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jason Risner" <zoomer69@mail.com>
To: <APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 2:58 PM
Subject: Re: [APO-L] Toast Song
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Gallagher [mailto:famtree@UDel.Edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2004 1:00 PM
> To: Jason Risner
> Subject: Re: [APO-L] Toast Song
>
> > The BSA policy regarding the politics surrounding it is to provide an
> > experience pursuant to its purposes (not sure of exact quote) without
> > exposing youth "to the politics of the day"
>
> > How does this relate to APO? My SC believes pledges should not be
> involved
> > in intrachapter conflicts. By his reasoning, one could assume that they
> > should not be aware of or put into other APO conflicts.
>
> Good question. I'm not sure what BSA does is necessarily relevant here. I
> see that policy as an attempt to prevent adult leaders from using the
> children involved as pawns for their own agenda. Alpha Phi Omega is
> different because the people who pledge are adults and can think for
> themselves.
>
> I can understand the desire of chapters to shield pledges from APO
> conflicts - who hasn't seen pledges quit over politics in the chapter? But
> the point of pledging is to train people to become brothers - and that
means
> accepting the fraternity for both the positive and the negative. I think
the
> burden is on the chapter to make sure there is enough positive experiences
> in becoming a brother to overcome any negative aspects.
>
> If a person doesn't like an aspect of the fraternity enough to leave, it's
> just as easy to leave as a brother as it is to leave as a pledge. The
> difference: you've wasted time and energy making that person a brother
> instead of finding a pledge that will accept the fraternity for both the
> good and bad.
>
>
> > How is full understanding of the song possible by those who didn't see
it
> > change? If so, how does one educate oneself on the background?"
>
> Learn your APO history. Make sure your chapter's education program exposes
> the pledges to that history, and shows how that shaped and formed the
> fraternity it is today. At a national level, make education on the history
> and gathering that history a priority. That heritage, in large part,
defines
> who we are and what makes us different than other organizations.
>
> It also provides insight for those who feel change is necessary, to get a
> better understanding of what change is needed and how to accomplish it. To
> paraphrase a famous quote, those who don't understand the mistakes made
> before are bound to repeat them.
>
>
> > A more "offensive" version [of the toast song] drawing dedicated
> brothers...
> > you mean people who overlook/see through it, seeing more in APO? Those
> for
> > a "more inclusive" version may be less dedicated? Why?
>
> Yes - or to put it another way, a song that makes me care and want to be
> more dedicated, despite (or possibly because of) elements that some may
find
> offensive.
>
> "Member" is too generic, too sterile. It doesn't inspire. It doesn't
create
> passion. "Brother" conveys an entirely different meaning to me - that I'm
> part of something special, exclusive. It inspires me to make the
fraternity
> special.
>
> Yet it offends others who choose to see an entirely different meaning,
> regardless of whether or not they understand what the meaning is supposed
to
> be. I feel the wording would be much less of an issue if chapters took the
> time to educate themselves and their brothers (or prospective brothers)
> about the song. But I digress.
>
> Changing the song merely to be PC won't help the fraternity. Changing the
> song in a way that is PC yet is as compelling (or more so) than what we
> currently have will.
>
> - Jason Risner
> Epsilon Lambda alum
>
