[24442] in APO-L
Re: [APO-L] Proposed: Older Undergrads as advisors?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Charles Brace)
Wed Sep 8 21:02:05 2004
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 21:01:59 -0400
Reply-To: Charles Brace <brace347@gmail.com>
From: Charles Brace <brace347@gmail.com>
To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
In-Reply-To: <413F9A43.5040205@udel.edu>
"Such Membership may not be conferred upon undergraduate students,
except such Membership may be conferred upon undgergraduate students
who were otherwise ineligible for Active Membership for the _______
years preceeding the initiation of such undgergraduate students to
Advisory Membership."
all right, the first clause is from the national bylaws (or at least
that's how it read in my outdated copy)...
the second clause is an exception to the first...
advisory membership may be conferred upon undergraduate students only
when they could not have become active for ______ number of years
prior to becoming an advisor....
the language is a bit choppy...but it was the best i could think of at
the time that would be bylaws appropirate...obviouslly, im open to
better wording....
basically, it would prohibit the recent alum from becoming advisors,
but does so without providing an "age" limit...but it permits those
cases where older non trad students could become an advisor despite
the fact that they are undergraduate studetns
now that i think about it...it doesn't really help the
situation...technically, all students when they first arrive are
"ineligible" for active membership
so i think the language needs to be tweaked....but i think you get my idea
--chuck
On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 19:48:19 -0400, Michael Gallagher <famtree@udel.edu> wrote:
> Chuck, I haven't had time to read the slew of emails & respond to them
> all, but I don't understand the language you are suggesting, paricularly
> the second clause (funny for an Active who cited USTC provision 501c3 at
> a CPW RT). Could you clarify?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Michael Gallagher
>
>
>
> Charles Brace wrote:
>
> > i think the whole point of the legislation was to allow older students
> > who are technically undergrads to become advisors...it is meant to
> > permit the "non-traditional" student who was never involved in APO,
> > but has the experience that a chapter could find useful to still
> > become an advisor
> >
> > the lower age restriction is to prohibit those very recent alumni who
> > are going back for a second degree, or for those older actives who
> > have been an undergrad for longer than the traditional 8 semesters to
> > be immediately elevated to the position of an advisor.
> >
> > i think the change makes some sense. think of this scenerio...a staff
> > advisor...who works for the university in a non-faculty position,
> > decides to take advantage of the school's employee benefit of
> > attending classes for free or at a reduced rate....this advisor, by
> > the fact that he/'she is taking undergrad courses towards a bachelor's
> > degree is now considered an undergraduate student....so now, this
> > advisor (maybe long time advisor), must resign from his/her position
> > as advisor because of our national bylaws.
> >
> > or better yet, your scouting or community advisor goes back to school.
> >
> > the point of prohibiting undergraduate students from becoming advisors
> > stems from a traditional view of the college world. the fraternity,
> > as a policy, does not want students who just got out of high school,
> > and who could easily pledge, from getting around the pledging
> > requirement by becmoning an advisor.
> >
> > note, that the rule is NOT that students cannot become advisors.
> > graduate students are permitted to become advisors (even if that grad
> > student is 21 and just graduated with a bachelor's)....also note that
> > grad students are permitted to pledge (however, that may not be the
> > case at every chapter, because of school rules)
> >
> > we say that grad students, although permitted to pledge, may become
> > advisors because (1) they may have experience that the chapter could
> > utilize; (2) they usually don't have the time to commit to being a
> > full time active (yes, being an advisor is no where near the same
> > committment as being an active).
> >
> > an older undgergrad also has the same reasons....they may have
> > families or full time jobs that take up time....they may have world or
> > other applicable experience that could assist the
> > chapter....further....while there are some exceptions, many
> > non-traditional undergraduate students do not want to become actively
> > involved in student organizations, (i'd imagine partly because student
> > org membership is made up of younger, traditional, college students)
> >
> > ultimately, however, any change would do very little....i don't see
> > any chapter going out and "recruiting" advisors from the
> > non-traditional student ogranization. Many advisors are either school
> > staff/faculty, fraternity alumni, or civic leaders (including scout
> > leaders).....this legislation would merely permit those few cases
> > where otherwise eligible adviors decide to go back to school to finish
> > up or obtain a degree to continue to be or become advisors.
> >
> > NOW, THE ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT
> > is that by placing an age....we are (1) determining a base age one has
> > to be in order to be an advisor...(2) saying that only those under
> > this age are permitted to be active brothers.....
> >
> > while none of these statements are completely accurate...i feel that
> > that will be the preception....
> >
> > for example....a younger, say age 25, non traditioanl student, decides
> > to get involved in campus life, and wants to get involved in the
> > fraternity...the chapter, knowing of the age provision, suggests that
> > this student become an advisor...however, that student, wants to
> > become an active member...now, this prospective pledge is basically
> > told that he/she is told old to pledge and that he/she should consider
> > becoming an advisor instead...the fraterntiy may lose a great active
> > brother because of the age provision
> >
> > or, let's say that the student expresses concerns about the time
> > committment in pledgeing (as many prospectives and even pledges
> > currently do who are 18, 19, 20 years old). now, we have a student
> > who wanted to be active, being admitted as an advisor because of time
> > concerns, and who will, in practice, act as an active (and not as an
> > advisor)
> >
> > our fraternity is diverse....we should not be placing age limits on
> > levels of membership.
> >
> > so then, what do we do? if we don't adopt the age provision,
> > university staff who go back to school and others such as that cannot
> > become advisors or are forced to resign.
> >
> > if we do adopt the age provision, we begin to create the preception
> > that we are only a fraternity for the traditioanl
> > student....non-traditional students need not apply.
> >
> > i proprose the following language
> > "Such Membership may not be conferred upon undergraduate students,
> > except such Membership may be conferred upon undgergraduate students
> > who were otherwise ineligible for Active Membership for the _______
> > years preceeding the initiation of such undgergraduate students to
> > Advisory Membership."
> >
> > this avoids the preception of an "age" limit and solves the problems i
> > mentioned abvoe.
> >
> > thanks for reading this entire post....and i hope that i've helped in
> > the discussion....
> >
> > lfs
> > --chuck brace
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 14:49:43 -0400, Brad Barnett <loaapres@apoloaa.org> wrote:
> >
> >>Hey Randy!
> >>
> >>I don't normally reply to the listserv but this has caused my interest to be
> >>perked.
> >>
> >>I think the inherent problem with this is that sometimes older,
> >>undergraduate brothers are not always far enough removed from being an
> >>active to be an effective advisor. The problem lies in the fact, where do
> >>you draw the line? An advisor is there to advise, and the danger is that it
> >>becomes problamatic in a lot of cases for the older undergraduate brother to
> >>remove themselves from chapter affairs. I found that in myself as well. I
> >>also find that true with some new(and hell, some old alumni as well.) It's a
> >>hard thing to remove yourself in that way in something that you've put a lot
> >>into. I think it's just human nature.
> >>
> >>To quickly sum up, I think it would be a huge mistake to make that change.
> >>
> >>Others thoughts?
> >>
> >>Fraternally,
> >>Brad Barnett
> >>Section 92 Chair
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: Alpha Phi Omega Discussion List [mailto:APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU] On
> >>Behalf Of Randy Finder
> >>Sent: Tuesday, September 07, 2004 11:34 PM
> >>To: APO-L@LISTSERV.IUPUI.EDU
> >>Subject: [APO-L] Proposed: Older Undergrads as advisors?
> >>
> >>I mentioned this before, but now with the deadline approaching, I'd like to
> >>hear more opinions.
> >>
> >>The proposed amendment would change the last sentence of Article III,
> >>Section 2, (4) Advisory membership from "Such Membership may not be
> >>conferred upon undergraduate students." to "Such Membership may not be
> >>conferred upon undergraduate students younger than age 23."
> >>
> >>A brother returning to college for a second undergraduate degree or a
> >>student trying for a first degree after having all of her children reach
> >>school age might feel more comfortable as an advisor than as an active
> >>brother.
> >>
> >>Note, this does not remove any choices from the chapters, but does give an
> >>additional possibilitie
> >>
> >>(Note making the proposed change as 23 allows any amendment of this age
> >>upwards to remain in scope. An amendment of that age downward would not be
> >>in scope. I personally think the age should be a little older than that, but
> >>would like to give the most latitude for consideration.)
> >>
> >>Looking for comments, possible support, opinions on why this will destroy
> >>western civilization...
> >>
> >>YiLFS
> >>Randy finder
> >>
> >>--
> >>Leadership, Friendship and Service - Alpha Phi Omega
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ________________________________________________
> > Charles Brace, Esq.
> > Admitted in Pennsylvania
> > brace347@gmail.com
> >
> > Alpha Phi Omega, National Service Fraternity
> > Pi Chi Chapter (Duquesne University) - SPC '97
> > Phi Chapter (Syracuse University) - S '02
> >
> > Region II Leadership Development Chair
> > Achieve Director
>
--
________________________________________________
Charles Brace, Esq.
Admitted in Pennsylvania
brace347@gmail.com
Alpha Phi Omega, National Service Fraternity
Pi Chi Chapter (Duquesne University) - SPC '97
Phi Chapter (Syracuse University) - S '02
Region II Leadership Development Chair
Achieve Director
