From: naraht@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu (Randolph J. Finder)
Newsgroups: soc.college
Subject: Alpha Phi Omega (was Re: Frats)
Date: 5 Nov 92 05:22:23 -0500
Organization: Carnegie Mellon Computer Club

In article <aelman.720946916@Xenon.Stanford.EDU>, aelman@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Adam Elman) writes:
> Erik Warren Selberg <es2q+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> 
>>The basic reason I don't want women in my fraternity is I don't see
>>my house (or the Greek system, or for that matter 90% of college
>>students) as being mature enough to deal with close relationships very
>>well. I doubt very much if these are the same reasons for excluding
>>blacks / Jews / pre-Law people, etc. However, I do see these reasons
>>as being used for justification for some fraternities to exclude gays
>>/ lesbians [incidentally, my house doesn't (we did pledge at least one
>>gay member), but I don't know what kind of reaction we would have if a
>>brother started dating a brother].
> 
>>Erik
> 
> That's exactly the problem.  The fact that people are not "mature
> enough to deal with close relationships very well" is precisely what I
> see as the problem in having single-sex groups.  Let's face it -- a
> single-sex organization hinders this type of maturity from developing.
> Trying to eliminate this psychological problem by associating only
> with your own gender is like slapping a band-aid on a bullet wound.
> Fraternities promote the mentality which considers women basically as
> either little sisters or potential girlfriends, which is exactly the
> problem you state above.
> 
> If women were allowed to join your fraternity, I can imagine that
> there would be problems like that at the beginning.  But in the long
> run, it would be accepted.  The Stanford Band was once a male-only
> organization; now I can't imagine it as anything but coed.  Sure, we
> don't have as strong traditions or as strong a feeling of
> "brotherhood" as a fraternity, but I can't imagine that a fraternity
> couldn't deal with that sort of thing the same way.
> 
> Adam Elman
> aelman@cs.stanford.edu
Since we have reached this point in the discussion. I thought I would
bring up Alpha Phi Omega. We were formed in 1929 as a service fraternity
of former scouts. In 1967 we removed the requirement that brothers had
to be scouts and in 1976 we went Co-ed.

We are a service fraternity and are forbidden from having a house or
joining IFC. We normally have an office like other student organizations.
We do have pledging and ceremonies.

When we went Co-ed, as part of the agreement chapters wre not forced to go
co-ed. However from what I understand about 70% of chapters went co-ed
ASAP(If not sooner ) and today 25 years later approximately 90% of our 350
active chaptersare co-ed. However most of the chapters at historically black
schools are still all-male. All new chapters or reactivations are required to
be co-ed.

Being co-ed does lead to some of the problems mentioned. For instance,
you haven't seen fun until you have been in a chapter where the President
and 1st VP were dating and had a messy breakup. However on the other
side of the coin, I feel that developing brotherhood with brothers
of both sexes has helped me in working with women.

If you have any questions about Alpha Phi Omega, please send me email
I will be happy to explain and/or point to people who can answer the 
questions.

-- 
(naraht@drycas.club.cc.cmu.edu)	  | Leadership,Friendship, and Service
(vri_rjfin@dmis.ha.osd.mil)	  |          Alpha Phi Omega
"The service we render to others  | National (Co-ed) Service Fraternity
 is the rent we pay for our room on earth" - Sir Wilfred Grenfell