The case has drawn national attention in recent weeks after it was revealed that only two of the seven men alleged to have been involved were expelled. Both the university and local authorities have come under criticism for their handling of the case.
TIME spoke to Nick Syrett, author of The Company He Keeps: A History of White College Fraternities and chair and professor of gender and women’s studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, about the case, what makes fraternities different, and why they have proved so hard to rein in.
TIME: You've written a book about white college fraternities. What about this case shocked or surprised you, if anything?
TIME: Is there something unique about fraternities that encourages this kind of behavior?
The other thing is fraternities just have lots of power on campus. Most of them own their own houses, which means they don't have lots of oversight from university officials.
It's hard to say. I think one of the things to know is that all fraternities and sororities are regulated at least to a certain degree. That is, they're recognized student organizations. They have to abide by certain rules that often have to do with things like rushing and pledging—that is how people become members of the organizations in the first place. Social events where fraternities and sororities mix with one another and with unaffiliated members are usually at least registered with university officials.
TIME: How widespread are these issues that you’re talking about among fraternities? Is it limited to a few bad fraternities, or is this kind of just a part of the life?
There are, in fact, chapters that have gone to great lengths to limit binge drinking. Some have eliminated hazing altogether. Hazing is in fact illegal in most states, and all the national fraternities forbid it. But some people do it anyway.
Part of it is historical in that when fraternities were first founded, they were secret organizations and they were illegal on college campuses for about the first 25 years of their existence, from 1825 through the 1850s. So joining at all was breaking the rules and keeping a secret. And now there are secrets that are imparted during the rituals, like the secret of what the meaning of the motto is, and that sort of thing. They're not unique or interesting in any way, but definitely fraternity pledges learn loyalty during the period of pledging because they're often asked to do things that are demeaning. If it's hazing, it's illegal in most states, and they're bonded to one another through the process of pledging and having to be humiliated and sometimes physically harmed in some way. So that creates a bond between the members of that pledge class and then the fraternity to which they are demonstrating their loyalty by being hazed and pledged in the first place, so all of it is pretty classic anthropological ritual, and it does in the end create loyalty.
I think that's right. I don't think sexual assault would go away, but I think that fraternities are organizations that exacerbate and encourage both sexual assault and binge drinking and hazing. I also think, importantly, we would see less organized versions of sexual assault and binge drinking, especially, fewer occasions when a group of men together planned out a sexual assault, which in some sense is what happened at Cornell. I think we would see less of it because there would be less pressure placed upon the men in these organizations to carry out these sorts of things. And granted, it's pressure from within, but it's generally pressure from older brothers upon younger ones.
When universities have attempted to regulate and/or ban fraternities, they get big pushback. There's evidence to show that alumni who were in fraternities are more active in their schools and give more, and so that is a base of alumni that universities don't want to upset because they're generous and they're powerful.
There is a subset of incoming college first year students, men and women, who find these organizations really appealing, and some of it is entirely understandable. That is, at a big school, what fraternities and sororities promise you is an instant group of friends, which is very comforting on a college campus where you know no one. Especially if you're going to a school that's farther away from home, when others from your high school are not going there, so you don't know anyone at all. So fraternities promise that kind of friendship and loyalty, and also for young people, 18-year-olds, many of whom are unsure of themselves, fraternities and sororities say this is the way to be popular. This is the way to make friends, have a good time, and you'll get to go to the good parties and you'll be part of an in-group.
Hence then, the article about after the cornell case should colleges ban fraternities was published today ( ) and is available on Time ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( After the Cornell Case, Should Colleges Ban Fraternities? )
Also on site :