University of Virginia Library

'Rah Rah' 1968

It's "Rah Rah" time again! The second
annual controversy over fraternity houses'
decorating their premises for a football
weekend is raging now with the speedy
approach of Homecomings. It all started last
year, as everyone remembers, when our
predecessors wrote an editorial, "Rah Rah,"
after Openings Weekend (when there was an
unprecedented array of displays) which
warned us all of the dangers of such
manifestations of "creeping state-Uism." It is
possible that they may have overstated
themselves somewhat in that editorial, but it
is a cinch that those who responded to it so
violently overreacted. And so a new "issue,"
unlikely as it seems, was born.

Our feeling is that the tendency has been
to look at this issue from the wrong angle.
Those who advocate the displays shout, "Why
not - it's to show the team we're behind
them." Those who oppose them worry lest
they be the first step down to a level with,
say; Carolina. We feel that there is much more
to it than that.

If a house honestly wants to demonstrate
its support for the team moreso than it could
just by going to the game and is willing to go
to the trouble to put up one of those
kaleidoscopes, we see nothing wrong with it
(we do feel, however, that more than one a
season would undermine the significance
and/or impact of them). It would certainly
seem, though, that such dramatic displays of
spirit would be reserved for the biggest home
game of the season. We cannot imagine that
anyone is as worked up over the Davidson
game as he would be over the VMI or South
Carolina game.

This brings us to the unhappy part of the
matter. It is quite apparent that the displays
are thus not spontaneous manifestations of
overwhelming spirit; if they were, we would
have seen them last weekend. Past experience
has shown that they appear only when
compensation is offered for them - this
weekend, for example, the prize for the best
display is worth over $300 to the winning
house and second prize is nearly $150. The
idea that "spirit," which is what those who
advocate the displays insist they manifest, has
to be bought so dearly is obviously
impossible, for if they were manifestations of
spirit they would be spontaneous. So they
become a mockery of spirit in their hypocrisy.
We wonder how much they encourage a team
which knows that it's the prizes their builders
are after; we wonder how much they inspire a
team which knows that substantial portions of
those prizes are for a luxury which the players
have sacrificed in their effort to win.

The letter to the fraternities encouraging
them to participate in the "Homecomings
Display Contest" is not even subtle in its
admission of the hypocrisy of the displays. It
asks, "What's the incentive?" Its answer is,
"First, it's personal pride - having your house
look the best. A colorful display in the front
yard will no doubt prove very impressive to
the alumni returning to the Grounds for the
weekend. Homecomings is a rush weekend.
The work and spirit of your brotherhood will
prove an invaluable asset to your rush
program." Then the letter goes into a gala
description of the prizes offered. Stuck at the
tail end of the letter is "Beat the Wildcats!"

If, indeed, that is the incentive for the
displays, we feel that even one a season is too
many. Their hypocrisy does, indeed, make a
mockery of spirit; because of the frame of
mind in which they are currently built it
would have been better for the morale of the
football team, which they supposedly boost,
if they had never been mentioned at the
University.