[24318] in APO-L
Re: [APO-L] Toast Song
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Stromberg)
Tue May 25 15:49:42 2004
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 12:49:31 -0700
Reply-To: Christopher Stromberg <Christopher.Stromberg@pomona.edu>
From: Christopher Stromberg <Christopher.Stromberg@pomona.edu>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Brothers,
Okay, as promised, I would like to add my opinion to this debate. First of
all, just a word of background. I was an active for seven years (just
finally finished grad school last year, so I am finally an alum now) at two
different chapters. Both had their own modified versions of the Toast Song
that they sang.
As for this debate, I was on the committee at Minneapolis that discussed
Toast Song changes (as well as ritual changes, wasn't that committee a
barrel of laughs). In addition, I wrote one of the proposed ammendments to
the Toast Song for the Philly convention.
From this background, you might have guessed (I hope) that I support
changing the Toast Song.
Many people have told me that they do not have (or see) an issue with the
Toast Song, and that is fine. More power to them. But the fact of the
matter is, there are a LOT of Brothers out there (see my earlier message
regarding the use of that term) who DO have a problem with it.
Yes, you could just tell those Brothers to buck up, because they knew what
they were getting into, and that they should quit (or never have joined) if
they don't like it. But is that truly a brotherly thing to say.
If you met someone named Michael, and you called them Mike, and they asked
you not to, would you keep calling them Mike? No, out of common courtesy,
you would call them by Michael. The same theory applies (even if your name
is Michael and you prefer to be called Mike).
But, as many have said, these people knew what they were getting into when
they joined, and they made the choice to join. What bothers me more are
those that are bothered by it so that they do NOT join.
I have been a part of 13 pledge semesters at two different schools (one in
the Mid-West, one on the West Coast). I can tell you FOR A FACT that we
have lost potential members to this issue. Some of them would have been
loyal and true Brothers, if we had only not turned them away with the
language that we use. They believed in the same principles that we did, but
they could not get past the language, which they saw as disrespectful to
them.
Yes, we tried explaining the history to them. Yes, we used our own version
of the Toast Song. No, we were NOT willing to give up singing the Toast
Song, as it is a crucial part of our Brotherhood. And so we lost them.
Many of you will respond, "But I have never seen this." And you might be
correct (or you simply might not know why some of your prospective pledges
never came back).
There are distinct cultural difference in this country, many of which
correlate strongly to geographical regions. Issues of gender-biased
language (which is what this is) are, in general, considered much more of an
issue on the West Coast than in other areas (particularly the South).
Wording that my not raise an eyebrow in Georgia can be considered quite
offensive in California.
Do 75% of our Brothers have a problem with the current wording of the Toast
Song (the number needed to pass a change)? Almost certainly not. Do 40% -
50%? That comes closer to the proportion that have voted for the change at
the last three conventions. Are the other 50% - 60% comfortable causing
these others to be uncomfortable, even if they themselves are not offended?
Are these 50% - 60% willing to undermine the recruiting at places where
language is a bigger issue than it is where they are? I would hope not.
I don't know how I can say this any more strongly. The wording of the Toast
Song costs us loyal and true Brothers in this Fraternity. Are you
comfortable with that?
Traditions are a wonderful thing, and I would NEVER suggest that we abandon
our traditions. However, traditions are here to serve us, NOT the other way
around. When traditions become a hamper to our organization, those
traditions need to be modified. Not done away with. Not forgotten. We are
asking for four words to be changed. Is that so much to ask?
Chris Stromberg
