Evening star., 1948-05-20


Minority VS.. Majority Rule in, AAUW
To the Editor of The Star
An article regarding the American Associa-
ton of University Women which appeared in
In this the president of the National Board of
the A.A.U.W. is quoted as saying that the issue
between the Washington branch and the Ma
tional Board is that of racial discrimination.
Possibly she was not correctly quoted in the
interview. For at meeting of the Washington
branch on March 10 she referred to two ques-
tioriS at issue
One Of these was the objectives of the Wash
ington branch as given in its bylaws. These
include social activities and the maintenance
of clubhouse in addition to educational work.
This, according to the president, who said she
was speaking for the National Board is in
conflict with the purpose Of the National Asso-
citation, which is purely educational; therefore
it must be changed The other was that the
branch bylaws provide that its directors may
pass upon the applications for admission to the
branch. This also, according to the national
president, speaking for the board, is in con-
f1ict with the national bylaws; and must be
changed.
1t should be noted that the Washington
branch has been in existence for more than
half a century. It's objectives have remained
the same throughout its history. Until the elec-
ton last year of the present National Board
officers no question regarding these objectives
ever had been raised.
The other provision of the branch bylaws
to which exception was taken, although it was
more recently adopted, represents the estab-
lished practice of the Washington branch and
foil cf nj fhorh hro r. l.
that has not been challenged in the past On
the contrary, it was approved in an official
communication from the general director of
the National Association to the branch.
To members of the Washington branch, the
real issue is neither of those above stated. 1t is
whether majority or minority rule shall pre-
vail whether established practice shall arbi-
trarily be over-ridden by temporary execu-
tives; whether fair and democratic procedures
shall be observed.
Members of the Washington branch attended
the meeting on March 10 above mentioned
with the understanding that it was arranged
to afford opportunity for frank discussion be-
tween themselves and the national president
of the questions on which there was difference
of opinion. They thought it was intended as
an effort to reach solution of their differences
II possible, and so avoid break. Many made
personal sacrifice in order to be present. ex-
pecting that the meeting would be conducted
in this manner and for this purpose. Instead,
the national president made an extended ad-
dress, reviewed all the details of the contro-
versy between the branch and the present Ma
tional Board and delivered an ultimatum from
the board. She then stated that she could take
no part in any discussion of the matter or an
swer any questions at the meeting, although
questions might be sent to her in writing for
later reply.
1t is because of this attitude on the part of
certain officers Of the present National Board
that the branch has taken action In the courts
to safeguard the interests OF its members. It
Is asking that the decision as to its right to
exercise the same autonomy it has exercised
without question for the past so years shall be
made by the highest authority within the
association-the national convention-rather
than by officers Of the National Board enjoying
authority for q two-year term.
ETHEL NJ JOHNSON
Member of Washington Branch, American
Association of University Women