<p>While not as courageous as what Marx did to raise the equity in enrollment, this should be a roadmap to all the others colleges that are still looking for their spine. Are you listening, Dr Kim, when you had the chance at Dartmouth? That could and should have been your legacy before bolting to your next gig! It is not "that" hard! </p>
<p>Here it is: Amherst bans college fraternities. </p>
<p>I am no fan of traditional Greek organizations, and certainly believe a college is within its rights to prohibit groups from recruitment and advertising on campus and from using campus facilities, but I don’t believe any school has the right to control any social activities of its students that take place entirely off campus, any more than it has a right to control their off-campus religious activities or employment. One’s right to freedom of association doesn’t disappear with an enrollment deposit. This is a ham handed attempt to paper over the school’s past negligence and malfeasance. And it doesn’t address the issue of handling sexual misconduct whatsoever.</p>
<p>That is not exactly a bold or gutsy step for Amherst, given that they are already non-recognized, and probably only about 10% of the male students (there are no sororities). It is not like there will be a lot of backlash from current students or donating alumni, as there would likely be if a school like Dartmouth tried to ban fraternities and sororities.</p>
<p>Er…Amherst hasn’t officially recognize fraternities since 1984. I don’t really know how “courageous” this step would be (or how legal). Can Amherst really outlaw membership in any “social club, society or organization”. That seems a bit wide in scope. </p>
<p>At Dartmouth, where 50% of the students are in the Greek system, banning them means going to war with a significant portion of your alumni base. Good Luck with that… </p>
<p>And who the heck is Marx? Karl Marx (I heard he was big on “equity”)? \m/ </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Dartmouth is even more fraternity and sorority dominated than that, since about two thirds of eligible students join fraternities and sororities. Frosh are not eligible.</p>
<p>^^^
I couldn’t disagree more. The fraternities on Amherst’s campus have been given ample warning and opportunity to clean up their acts. They decided their shenanigans were more important than the school’s reputation and the rights and dignity of their fellow students. This is the “lot” that at their annual “pig roast” printed up a tee shirt with a woman clad in a thong bikini roasting on a spit over a fire. A pig smoking a cigar smirking was part of the depiction. The slogan was “Roasting Fat Ones since 1847.” This goes beyond the pale and Amherst deserves better than this classless, juvenile behavior. The frats were a constant source of conflict on that campus.</p>
<p>There are fraternities existing on other college campuses that manage to keep things classy and under control. Amherst’s frats didn’t fit that description. </p>
<p>^^^
Once again, to be clear, there are no fraternities on campus. That’s one reason Amherst played with the idea of making them official, so they could be monitored and managed. </p>
<p>@Gator88NE - Anthony Marx, past president of Amherst after President Gibbs died in 83. It was actually Gibbs who opened the issue of banning frats; it was Pouncy who finished it. Marx was a President later in 2003 - 2011 to be exact.</p>
<p>I guess the major issue will revolve around what is frat-like. At what point does a group of people liking each other’s company and doing group activities become a frat or sorority? Just seems like an impossible catch-all to control any group behavior. Guess we will see how that is implemented.</p>
<p>O.K. Gator I get that “technically” they are not on campus, but they might as well be. Their location doesn’t change the damage they did to the school’s rep.</p>
<p>Ok, this is interesting.</p>
<p>How can they ban students from participating in an organization that is off-campus?
They also mention that membership in other social clubs is banned.<br>
From wiki: “A number of Jewish community centers and other organizations such as the YMCA have social clubs”</p>
<p>So how does this legally work?</p>
<p>^^ That is the $64000 question. Possibly Amherst is relying on the threat is good enough to inhibit, irrespective of legal grounds or actually enforceability. </p>
<p>Yes, the definition of “fraternity and sorority like organizations” can be hard to make in a clear fashion. But perhaps they will do something like prohibit joining organizations that are selective admission on the basis of anything other than academic achievement.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On the first item, that is why the recent decision by Amherst is such a departure from how Dr. Kim approached the rampant problems created by frats at Dartmouth. As I wrote, it was none other than one of a spineless pushover more interested in his political career than anything else. And yes, one requires a lot of good luck in changing the mind of alumni who look at their own silliness through romantic and nostalgic eyes. Well, until one close to them ends up … dead! </p>
<p>The correct Marx was identified. Here’s a wikipedia quotation:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>For the record, Marx did have to battle the Board on numerous occasions when the alumni noticed that the extended development of lower SES students might come at a price for the legacies. And, we know that the expansion of the school enrollment was a massive investment. </p>
<p>HTH</p>
<p>“So how does this legally work?”</p>
<p>They’re a private school. Legally, they are asserting THEIR right to freedom of association. They can kick students out or discipline them for almost anything they want. Lots of schools require chapel attendance, prohibit off-campus sexual behavior, etc., despite students’ fundamental rights in those areas. The students make a voluntary agreement to obey certain rules when they enroll, and they’re free to dis-enroll and resume those activities whenever they want to. Private colleges differ about whether banning fraternities is a smart move, but they can all do it legally.</p>
<p>The issue of whether Greek houses are actually on campus may be key. At MIT, many houses are not only not on campus, they are over the bridge in Boston. At Dartmouth, many of the houses <em>appear</em> to be on campus. (I’m not sure who owns the land.) I’ve been told that the fraternities generally own the houses, although I’m not sure whether than is true of all of them, since it is my understanding that some have been rebuilt by the College. </p>
<p>My thought about what D should do is allow the Greek societies to continue, but turn all of the houses into coed, unaffiliated residences, possibly with a room set aside as a meeting place for the Greek society. But I’ve been told that this is impossible because D doesn’t own the houses. There must be some way around that, or no school would ever have been able to disband fraternities.</p>
<p>^^ Correct. D does not own the houses, and in several (maybe more than I am aware of) D also does not own the land. </p>
<p>@Hanna , they are private schools, however, as soon as they accepted federal aid (such as Pell grants), they had to start playing by federal rules. That opens them up to federal lawsuits. based on freedom of association. This freedom is usually associated with freedom of speech, and hence not a possible defense for the Greek system. However, it can be the basis of a federal lawsuit for other “social clubs, society or organizations” if it can be proven to interfere with the students freedom of speech (say wanting to join an advocacy group, or a political party). It comes down to how Amherst implements it’s new rule. If they limit it to the fraternities, not much will come of it. If they expand it to include other groups, then I would expect a federal lawsuit. Not that I think Amherst has any plans to target groups other than the greek system, but the wording of the new rule is a bit much. </p>
<p>In the article I read, it said:</p>
<p>Students will be prohibited from on-campus activities “relating to rushing, pledging, initiating or otherwise admitting to or maintaining membership by any student of the College in any fraternity, sorority or other social club, society or organization (however denominated),” the email said.</p>
<p>That’s a pretty broad definition. That sounds like all social clubs, societies and organizations are banned. That goes far beyond just Greek systems. Most colleges we visited bragged about their “over xxxx student organizations to choose from”, but that wording sounds like all organizations are banned. </p>
<p>[This</a> article from 1984](<a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/1984/02/21/us/amherst-students-hold-sit-in.html]This”>AMHERST STUDENTS HOLD SIT-IN - The New York Times) indicates that the Amherst fraternity system was unusual even then.</p>
<ul>
<li>The fraternities were co-ed and non-selective.</li>
<li>About 800 of the 1,500 Amherst students were members; about a third were women.</li>
</ul>
<p>Despite that, they apparently still annoyed the faculty and administration enough to be pushed off campus in 1984, despite the strong student (and probably alumni) support back then.</p>
<p>Trouble apparently did not end. [One</a> of the off-campus fraternities, Psi Upsilon, was banned in 2010.](<a href=“https://web.archive.org/web/20110811104606/http://amherststudent.amherst.edu/current/news/view.php?year=2009-2010&issue=16§ion=news&article=01]One”>The Amherst Student | News | College Bans Psi Upsilon Fraternity)</p>
<p>^^ Yes, they were co-ed. But, not sure what is meant by non-selective though. They had a rush season, and each frat voted and chose their members. Students got rejected, and some students did not get into any. There was no open joining system, if that is what is meant by non-selective.</p>