[24320] in APO-L
Re: [APO-L] Toast Song
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alyssa J. Pasquale)
Tue May 25 17:00:43 2004
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 17:00:21 -0400
Reply-To: "Alyssa J. Pasquale" <pasqua@rpi.edu>
From: "Alyssa J. Pasquale" <pasqua@rpi.edu>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
Why isn't the Toast Song declared not an "official" ritual song??
This way both parties can have their cake and eat it too.
People can sing it still if they want at the end of meetings and rituals.
Then people can sing it however they want, just like they DO NOW and will
continue to do even if the song changes but they won't be "wrong."
And people can still sing it however they want at the end of a convention,
if they so desire to sing it.
Or am I seeing this completely wrong?
AJP
Epsilon Zeta Active
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Stromberg" <Christopher.Stromberg@pomona.edu>
To: <APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, 25 May, 2004 15:49
Subject: Re: [APO-L] Toast Song
> 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
>
