Phi Tau - old Phi Sig

Posted on 2/21/2008 by Jim Charanis.
Categories: Phi Sigs.

Phi Tau - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I had no idea - 

The Tau chapter of Phi Sigma Kappa has a history of being progressive about its membership. Until 1952, the Phi Sigma Kappa national organization did not have a formal policy regarding membership of ethnic or religious minorities in its written charter or regulations. However, an informal "Gentleman’s Agreement" encouraged local chapters not to admit minorities to membership.[4] This agreement was finally written into the national organization’s bylawsat the 1952 Phi Sigma Kappa national convention. The Bedford Resolution, adopted by a small majority, read: "That the fraternity’s tradition be maintained in the sense that there be no pledging or initiating of Negro men until such time as they are acceptable to all chapters."[4] Phi Sigma Kappa chapters atBoston University and Knox College were both expelled from the national organization in 1953 for pledging African-American students. The Tau Chapter had been quietly opposed to this agreement, and had already admitted several Jewish men into the house. A campus-wide referendum on the desegregation of fraternities in 1954 resulted in a slim majority of Dartmouth students favoring mandatory desegregation of fraternities by 1960. This became a binding policy of the college administration.[5]

The stylized Greek letters ΦΣΚ appear in a wrought iron railing on the southwest corner of the 1928 residence, photographed in 1995.

Many Dartmouth Phi Sigma Kappas held out hope that the national organization might eventually reverse the Bedford Resolution, but were dismayed at the racist attitudes of the leadership. Several national organization leaders and their wives visited Dartmouth for a party celebrating the Tau chapter’s 50th anniversary in May, 1955. National President A.L. Atcheson, District Director Bob Abbe, and District Deputy Sam Sargent all attended. Abbe was reported to have commented to several brothers, including Dick Taft, class of 1956 and then vice-president of the chapter, "Well, it’s this way. We’ve got to watch out for all minority groups; not just the Negroes. In different areas you’ve got to watch out for different things, sometimes it’s Italians, sometimes it’s Jews, sometimes it’s Negroes."[4] Unbeknownst to Abbe, Dick Taft was Jewish. Many in the chapter were outraged and proposals to "go local" or to affiliate with a different national fraternity were debated at the house meeting immediately following the visit, but no consensus was reached at the time with the end of the academic year rapidly approaching.[4]
The movement to secede from the Phi Sigma Kappa national was rejuvenated in the early winter of 1956. Richard Scobie, class of 1956, and then outgoing chapter president, personally resigned his affiliation with the national fraternity in a letter in which he accused Phi Sigma Kappa of "black reactionary ideals." A financial dispute between the national and the Tau chapter had also exacerbated to the point of threatened legal action. A motion to disaffiliate with Phi Sigma Kappa was introduced at the chapter’s weekly house meeting on February 22, 1956. A week later debate continued, and the first vote to disaffiliate failed to gain the two-thirds majoritycalled for in the motion with a result of 41 local, 20 national, and 3 abstaining. A week later on March 7, 1956, the Tau chapter voted again to permanently separate from the national organization, with the ballot this time passing 54 local to 7 national. After briefly considering Phi Sigma Tau, the house decided to name themselves Phi Tau Fraternity. The history of the separation was chronicled by Dick Scobie for his senior thesis.[4]

Sponsored by:

no comments yet.

Poor lazy or lazy poor

Posted on 1/27/2005 by Jim Charanis.
Categories: Phi Sigs, Politics.

My friend Roger made a comment recently on our email list:

For your “lazy poor”, this may be the only way for them to better themselves. Thank you for making my longstanding point about conservatives obvious: they need someone to demonize and someone to keep down, so they can feel better about themselves. This is well stated in the Reagan Creed: if everybody was somebody, there wouldn’t be anybody to be nobody.

If you are somebody, you should be thankful for the opportunities and advantages you’ve had. My question to conservatives: why can’t everybody be somebody in your world?

My response was as follows:

More like the lazy poor that have been made lazy by the “great society” - a Democratic ideal that started the welfare state. You got it wrong:
You say: “this may be the only way for them to better themselves.” That is oppression - in its worst passive form.

Republicans that truly care don’t want to keep the poor down; they want them to have the ability to pull themselves up. The same negative argument can be made for most Democrats - they don’t want to share the opportunities with the poor, they just want to keep them alive and ‘right where they are.’ No different then the original Southern Democrats (many of those have switched to the Republican party and poisoned it) that gave thier slaves a little plot of land to call thier own, and also gave them “thier own” toilets, schools and hospitals. “I love you - here I’m giving this to you” - “but you aren’t like me so please dont’ think you can share in my prosperity.”

Those days are over - keep it real and never think a poor man is less capable. He may need help but

    give a man a fish he will eat for a day, teach him how to fish he will eat for a lifetime.

Full discussion on my forum

Sponsored by:

1 comment.

A rant on politics - from the eta discussion board

Posted on 1/26/2005 by Jim Charanis.
Categories: Phi Sigs, Politics.

You may call me a Republican - but that’s just my philosophical leaning - in practice I am a pragmatist. So…

It is easy to judge today - with hindsight but I still maintain that GW did what he felt was the right thing to do with the information he had. To make subtle comments like “his war” is like my neighbor’s kids saying to Daniel that “Bush created terrorism.” Its inflammatory to make a moot point. The point isn’t whether “he feels free to send people’s sons and daughters to die in his personal war” he want’s it to end as much as anyone, the point is “what should he do?”

What you would have us do - pull out and leave? We did that in Vietnam, and after the slaughter and oppression things may someday workout. Perhaps things would self sort. Kurds would feel represented, Sunnis will try and get a government started and the Sunni’s will come around… yea, right.

The Sunni sect comprises only between 32%-37% of Iraq’s population - that was Sadam’s Ba’ath Party. The majority of Iraq’s population is Shi’a Muslim. Kurds make up about 20% of Iraq’s people.

If we leave now, things could get real bad and then we have a situation like Sudan today or Iran 20 years ago with ethnic cleansing, a medieval feudal government and a large country bent on terrorizing anyone who isn’t a “believer.”

I’m not one to go to war lightly and I wrote the president before the war asking him to consider Powel’s points but leave now, that is a ridiculous suggestion.

The full discussion at my forum

_________________
Thanks,

JimmyC

Sponsored by:

no comments yet.