<p>From what I remembered from my college handbook, they can issue sanctions to a student for joining frats/sororities up to and including judicial expulsion*. Don’t know if they ever went to that extreme. However, the fear of such sanctions was one reason why there were “underground fraternities” and its members were very careful to stay well below the radar of college admins and most students who tended to not be kindly disposed to fraternities/sororities when I was there. </p>
<ul>
<li>Expulsion as a sanction was probably a relic from the 19th century when the ban on Greek organizations or any “secret clubs” was first enacted. As far as I can recall from the handbook…that sanction was still on the books, though.</li>
</ul>
<p>While I’m no fan of Greek organizations, I find it a bit troubling that a college would impose sanctions on students for joining off-campus organizations. That just seems contrary to the kind of freedom I expect in an academic setting.</p>
<p>Those rules were enacted in the 19th century by board members who were part of a religious revival that was anti-Mason and suspicious of socially exclusive clubs lacking transparency and notorious for other reasons. </p>
<p>The fact this rule hasn’t been taken down is probably due to the self-selecting nature of most Oberlin students regarding fraternities/sororities. Most tend to be uninterested and even anti-Greek selected Oberlin partially because of the effects of this ban. </p>
<p>Students who are inclined to go Greek or interested in other socially exclusive clubs tend to prefer applying/attending other colleges/universities where their preferences will be honored.</p>
<p>We are talking about Princeton, not Oberlin. Princeton has selective eating clubs with exclusion rates that far exceed the most competitive sorority recruitment on other college campuses.</p>
<p>“menloparkmom, eating clubs are pretty selective, from our experience. kids do or don’t get in based on their socioeconomic status, campus popularity, and for women - looks. In other words, a lot like sororities and fraternities, or those “study clubs” at Harvard”</p>
<p>er, you mean finals clubs?</p>
<p>Unless eating clubs are less important at Princeton then I think, the finals clubs play a smaller role at Harvard and Yale. Finals clubs serve a function of ensuring that there is a place for young men of a certain socioeconomic category to socialize together and make connections, on campuses where that social economic category became a minority in the post WW2 years. </p>
<p>The day in 1979 when Harvard Radcliffe Hillel moved into a former finals club building, was deeply ironic on many levels (though by that time many finals clubs were open to Jews, and the Hillel has since moved again, IIUC)</p>
<p>I think the way around this is not to call your organization a fraternity, but rather to call it a cult which requires indoctrination into the sacred mysteries. No college today would dare to ban involvement in that.</p>
<p>“I’m wondering how a college can ban a student from associating with an organization that is completely independent of the school (unrecognized, no house on campus, etc.) Princeton can certainly bar on-campus recruiting, but the recreational activities students engage in off-campus seem beyond their purview.”</p>
<p>Williams did that in the 1960s, and membership in an off-campus fraternity makes a student subject to automatic expulsion. They have no authority over the frats. They can make rules for students.</p>
<p>Jusrt say you are re-forming a cell of the Weather Underground. Liberal faculty would love that. And people get on Liberty U for limiting student freedom. This sort of thing is just as bad.</p>
<p>“Jusrt say you are re-forming a cell of the Weather Underground”</p>
<p>a cell of the WU thats only open to college students? Or of a religious cult thats only open to college students?</p>
<p>Do these off campus frats open themselves to a wider audience than college students? </p>
<p>Cmon. Froming an offcampus org thats only open to college students, isnt really about freedom of association, its about getting around a ban on oncampus orgs. </p>
<p>I think banning membership in such is within the private college’s right to its FREEDOM. If you dont like it, there are a thousand others.</p>
<p>"Jusrt say you are re-forming a cell of the Weather Underground. Liberal faculty would love that. "</p>
<p>Since the WU fought against liberalism, I doubt that. Perhaps you are confusing liberalism with radicalism? Where did you go to school again?</p>
<p>I think a college (at least a private one) is perfectly entitled to do this. It just surprises me that they would do this. It seems strange to me that they would restrict private, off-campus associations. The article I linked about Williams suggests a “don’t ask-don’t tell” approach to the situation was taken there.</p>
<p>I was just pondering the three elements that Williams thinks suggest a “fraternity.”<br>
They include affiliation with a national organization, exclusive membership, and initiation rites. Wouldn’t that encompass a Roman Catholic Church? I guess maybe membership isn’t exactly exclusive. But I can see how they might have some problem defining St. Anthony’s Hall, which has some characteristics of a fraternity, some of a secret society, and some of a literary society, but is not exactly like typical examples of any of these.</p>
<p>You know, I wonder if some of this isn’t just trying to send class signals. </p>
<p>Call something Delta Psi and it makes you think of toga parties, John Belushi smashing the beer can across his forehead, and making fun of Flounder for being the fat freshman.<br>
Call it St. Anthony’s or Cap and Gown Club and all of a sudden – why, that’s quite refined, it’s just a lovely place for like-minded students to socialize as they prepare to inhabit the grown-up world, and well, of course, they want to select their friends carefully, who doesn’t?</p>
<p>Perhaps Pizzagirl is wondering about Princeton, primarily, which seems to be applying a bit of a double standard with respect to frats and eating clubs. Of course, I’ve read that Princeton is not nuts about the selective eating clubs, either, but they are much more entrenched than the frats.</p>
<p>I was thinking from the college’s standpoint. Certainly it fits Harvard’s and Princeton’s self-image to say that they don’t allow or highly discourage fraternity life - but at the same time, the eating clubs and finals clubs are a significant feature on their campus life and they aren’t getting rid of those things any time soon.</p>
<p>Edit: Yes, Hunt, I’m thinking more about Princeton in this regard, given that the eating clubs are a greater feature at Princeton than the finals clubs appear to be at Harvard. (At least that is my understanding.)</p>
<p>I thought you meant williams, since you mentioned st anthonys.</p>
<p>In the case of princeton one things about the eating clubs is that they are local to Princeton, not national orgs, which makes them distinct from St Anthonys. Not sure if that distinction has any real consequences, but its there (I mention it cause Williams uses national affiliation as a criterion)</p>
<p>As for Princetons motives, I think its clear the admin is not fond of the eating clubs. But they are quite entrenched. Too many big donor alums who would rebel if they banned them, I guess. I dont think the admin and faculty at either princeton or harvard really find the finals/eating clubs fitting their desired self image</p>
<p>"The eating clubs, which provide private, off-campus dining facilities for students, have also been criticized for high prices and exclusivity. Tilghman herself has said the clubs select students too “homogeneously,” and Woodrow Wilson, president of Princeton before becoming U.S. President, proposed in 1907 that the clubs should be eliminated. "</p>
<p>"Liberals love to mingle with radicals. Makes them feel more alive and macho. See liberal groups that used to $$$ support he Black Panthers. "</p>
<p>yeah, yeah radical chic. Leonard bernstein was a person, not a group, he was not exactly mainstream liberal at the time, and that was over 40 years ago. Tom Wolfe has moved on. So should you.</p>