University of Virginia Library

Self - Evaluation Lacking

Fraternities: Constructive Remarks

By Charley Sands

"Are college fraternities going
the way of the dinosaur?", asks
"Newsweek" magazine in a recent
article. Wayne Cardon, president of
ZBT questions, "Are they still
worthwhile?"

Criticism of the fraternity
system has been rising nationally to
the point where they have been
abolished at some schools and are
dying at others. Most of this
criticism has been destructive so
that it appears time to express some
constructive remarks.

No system yet devised can fulfill
the ideal of brotherhood and the
function of social development as
well as the fraternity. None of its
most vigorous critics has suggested
a viable alternative to the current
system, so they are actually critical
of the features, not nature, of
fraternities.

Nonetheless, these criticisms are
not merely superficial, and it would
benefit fraternity men to seriously
examine them as guidelines to help
improve a system rapidly losing
favor at campuses across the nation.
Some of the arguments may seem
tired or overdone, but their mere
persistence should be a good clue to
their validity.

Fraternity men sometimes state
that the most vociferous critics of
the fraternity organization are
those who have been blackballed.
As is the case with most subjective
assertions, this statement about
equal proportions of truth and
assumption. Both qualities stem
from the fact that fraternities have
traditionally been highly prestigious
organizations that could pick and
choose their members from the
student body. Men that have been
excluded after an intense rush
naturally tend toward bitterness
aimed at the fraternity that
dropped them or, even more likely,
at the entire fraternity system.

However, this assertion also
tends to ignore honest differences
in social values that prevent some
independents from pledging or
dismisses them as merely contrived
destructive attacks by excluded
rushees.

One of these differences is that
many independents feel that they
are forced to join a fraternity.
Members immediately retaliate by
saying that no coercion is involved
because rush is completely
voluntary. However, fraternities at
the University must realize that
they are, for first-year men, the
only social life in Charlottesville.
This is not as some say, the result
of the fraternity's "special talent"
for creating a "lively social
environment". A man desiring more
social contact than that of the
University Union's film series must
become involved with a fraternity.

Study Vs. Party

The Interfraternity Council is
fond of stating that "the
primary concern of Virginia men is
the business of obtaining an
education. If fraternities are to
become a segment of your college
life they will have to take a back
seat to your scholastic success."
(From "Fraternities and Virginia",
a leaflet distributed to first-year
men).

This emphasis on high scholastic
standards is belied by the primary
topic of rush smoker conversation:
the legendary Virginia fraternity
party. The discrepancy between the
IFC statement and the actual
conditions is puzzling, if not
disillusioning to some rushees. It
seems that fraternities are being
hypocritical.

However, a possible answer is
that they honestly want to believe
in the principles they extol; even
though they do not. If the IFC
preaches them so constantly it
probably to ward off a vague fear
that it, as the principle defender, is
no longer pure.

On the other hand, it must be
said that the publicity of the good
times offered by a particular house
is a potent selling point. It is
possible, however remotely, that
the fraternity man is as concerned
with academics, and for the same
reasons, as the IFC professes.
However, if this is true, by greatly
emphasizing the social benefits of
his house, is he not presenting a
distorted image of his organization?

Conformity

Fraternities are criticized
strongly for the conformity they
allegedly impose on their brothers.
Fraternity men respond sharply to
this criticism and say that their
close personal relationships foster
individuality rather than suppress
it. If anything, they say, sterile
dormitory life is the strongest
conforming influence at the
University.

However, these simplistic
answers overlook a basic tendency
of any primarily social group. In
looking for a social organization to
join, people usually congregate with
those of similar values, attitudes,
and interests. There develops,
therefore, an ideal personality
"type" that expresses these
qualities. Unless great care is taken
this personality type naturally
tends to become more precise in its
definition and more restrictive of
all but the established values. Of
course, people who do not quite fit
this pattern will be excluded as
undesirables.

Stereotypes?

Many independents view this
classification according to
personality type as one of the most
dismaying characteristics of
fraternities. The IFC states that
"there is a fraternity for each type
of individual" but many individuals
resent being classified according to
type; many resent being classified
a The most serious charge against
the fraternity challenges the truth
of its most basic commitment, that
of brotherhood. The issue of racial
and religious discrimination is one
of the most sensitive on the
grounds. Fraternity members state