I just so happened to listen to the speaker tape Joe (Joe and Charlie) and he said in his speech that he was not turned away from a meeting, although he was not allowed to participate in the coffee and fellowship before or after.

That's all I know.

I think that was 1962 if I'm remembering what he said right.

I've listen to those tapes several times ... Wow ... I must have missed it ...

I have heard of some groups in some areas having trouble with mixed races ... Indian, Mexican, and other races just not mixing well ... But you know, I've never seen it personally ... and as far as all the groups I've been to over the years, I'd have to say AAers are pretty darn tolerant of each other ... I may be wrong, but it's what I believe to be true ...

In South Africa, during the apartheid days, groups were not allowed to mix racially. The City Hall group in Durban was one in question. The AA members decided to move the venue rather than subject their members to humiliation. One of the members of the group was a US citizen and the government was embarrassed, so they made an exception and granted AA special permission to have racially mixed meetings.
There are cultural differences, but no racial issues eg. in our black community it will be an insult to the host if you refuse a drink, so newcomers have a difficult choice to make. AA has always been inclusive, but it is subject to the laws of the country in which it functions.

Daniel2003 wrote:

---

Hi,

I got into a conversation the other day with a fellow group member at my home group about the history of AA about tradition three. I was wondering if anyone on here could help me out. I realize that AA consisted mainly of white men in the early days, but my question is this: DId AA ever turn away anyone because of race, religion or sex? I say they didnt , this other member says they did...Any ideas?

---

 In the early days of AA, prior to April 1939 when the BB was published) there was great aversion to women in AA. There was only one in the first 100 with extensive sobriety (about a year). And she got drunk just before the book was out.

After the book came out and into the early 1940s, many types were excluded from meetings. Gays, drug addicts, women, blacks, athiests, etc.  Once the groups started to proliferate beyond NYC, Akron and Cleveland, the first thing the new groups did was to establish membership rules. So many rules, and so strict, that according to Bill W., "if all those rules had been in effect everywhere, nobody could have possibly joined A.A. at all..."

Bill said that all these rules were driven by fear. And he said that "Yes, we were intolerant."

Things have changed completely over the years. AA is now one of the most inclusive organizations on the planet. Anyone can come in. And that's what led to Tradtiion 3--"The only requirement for A.A. membership is a desire to stop drinking." 

Check the essay for Tradition 3 in the Twelve Steps and Twelve Traditions book, pages 139-145,  for some examples.

Like Tanin said, the early groups in Ohio and NY where very tolerant and probably most groups where tolerant, but as AA spread some groups started making up their own rules.

I think I remember Bill saying in a quote that there where a number of groups that he would not have qualified to atttend as the Co-founder of the organization.

The Positive??

In 1945 (6 years after the book) a campaign to esatblish the group traditions began. April 1946 the suggested traditions apeared in The Grapevine. In 1947 and all registered AA groups recieved mulitple copies of a 48 page pamplet regarding the traditions, enough so each member could have one.

Sounds like they did a inventory of the organization and took action to correct the problem.......what a concept

WowoW! That is really interesting and eye opening! Thanks John!