![]() | The Cavalier daily October 7, 1971 | ![]() |
Minority Control
At any rate, the point is that as
things stand now, a handful of men
can set a racist policy for any
fraternity, even though the
overwhelming majority of that
fraternity may not be racist.
Condemnation of the system itself
on these ground is justified, though
most of the members themselves
may be innocent of the charge.
Fraternalism is a difficult thing
to assess. How can one really
determine what fraternalism means
to so many different people in so
many different houses? For
simplicity, it is convenient to
assume the broadest, most basic
definition: fraternalism is the spirit
of brotherhood, a concept of
friendship among men who are
working and living together,
hopefully seeking a goal, sometimes
brotherhood itself. This is an old
axiom, and it is purely idealistic.
Yet, believe it or not, many
fraternity men adhere to this
doctrine and they want to feel the
spirit of brotherhood.
In the past, fraternalism and
racism combined to dominate
membership sessions. As more and
more criticism was directed at
fraternities, some houses sought a
more liberal tradition to build
upon. Physical hazing was
eliminated and pledge programs
were enlightened and restructured.
Houses also began to seek outlets in
the community with service
projects, and it was soon possible to
pledge and still get good grades.
The change was gradual; but it was
definite. In the process more
liberal-minded men pledged and the
conservative label was inappropriate
for many houses.
Yet membership sessions remain
the basic institution of any
fraternity. Though the brotherhood
changed, the system of acceptance
did not. The anachronism is evident
at any ball box, as liberalism and
fraternalism come head to head.
Either a man assumes a liberal
standpoint and does not ball
anyone, or he assumes a fraternal
position, and balls men on the basis
of brotherhood. Admittedly, the
fraternal standpoint is exclusive,
but the ideal of brotherhood offers
many opportunities which make
college life more meaningful. The
purist sense of fraternity allows for
no discrimination on any level, but
a certain amount of realism must
remain-everyone will never get
along with everyone.
Consequently, such an argument
is formidable within a fraternity,
although, observers may find it
noxious, the ideal to which it
aspires is admirable in any
circumstance. The problem, today,
is that a bigoted brother can use
the shield of fraternalism to ball
any rushee. He can claim that he
just won't get along with the
particular candidate, and may even
admit that he couldn't be close to a
black fraternity brother. This is
almost checkmate. No fraternity
man can make light of such an
argument, but if fraternity is to
survive, such things must be
resolved. The membership
requirements must be softened: the
ball system must be weakened.
![]() | The Cavalier daily October 7, 1971 | ![]() |