<p>So in the last few paragraphs of this article it appears that at least one group has decided, rather than keep affiliation with nationals and just rush sophomores, to disaffiliate and go underground, thereby sidestepping the ban and now operating without the possibility of sanctions from a larger group. </p>
<p>So now it will just be another group of people that have parties that freshman can attend, but could operate as an underground fraternity. Already an unintended consequence on the ban.</p>
<p>Pushing them underground and disaffiliated is just fine with me if it’s fine with the University - it’s not something they wouldn’t have already considered. Williams did that, and then provided stiff penalties for those who did not comply with the student code, and they pretty quickly disappeared. (There were occasional small revivals, then suppressed through disciplinary procedures. Nothing they couldn’t handle.)</p>
Well, this is part of why I asked how a rule like this defines a fraternity. If you define it too narrowly, then people will just skirt the rule by creating a social group that functions exactly like a fraternity, but technically isn’t one. On the other hand, if it’s defined too broadly, it could impinge on students’ abilities to belong to other organizations that don’t pose the same problems as fraternities.</p>
<p>The idea that Princeton is taking a stand against exclusiveness will have me laughing all day. </p>
<p>However, to be fair, some of the eating clubs at Princeton accept everyone who applies. Our student tour guide at Princeton was very anti-exclusive eating clubs and made sure to let everyone know they would be welcome at his eating club. Nice fellow.</p>
<p>*Williams students may neither join nor participate in fraternities during their time at the College. The College will take disciplinary action against students who are found to be participating in such organizations. </p>
<p>The academic aspirations of the College, and the educational and social needs of our students, would best be served by abolishing fraternities and inaugurating the residential house system. … all Williams students would be fully integrated into the life of the College. </p>
<p>The Trustees wish to reaffirm the policy that Williams students may neither join nor participate in fraternities during their time at the College. *</p>
<p>Interesting. Well put Williams College. Good for you! </p>
<p>Greek is a vestige of an ‘ancient’ college culture and should go the way of beanie hats, on-campus para-military organizations and raccoon coats.</p>
<p>I don’t really care what any given private college decides to do with regard to fraternities, but I do think it is weird and hypocritical for liberal educational institutions to ban their students from participating in legal activities they are interested in.</p>
<p>I agree with Bay on this issue. I am opposed to neither greek organizations nor the fish-or-fowl Princeton clubs, even though I do believe frats and the eating clubs can be rather silly with their exclusionary policies. Princeton’s old reputation before racial integration and co-ed education was “the northern school for southern gentlemen.” History aside, where do they get off telling an adult what LEGAL, off-campus organizations he or she can join?</p>
<p>It’s an easy answer, just one you may not like. The Board of Trustees sets rules by which they think they can best accomplish their institutional mission. For most private institutions (and likely public ones as well), that often extends well beyond the classroom. (Though even inside it - some of what schools might say is cheating is often legal, even if sometimes unethical, behavior in the business world.) That’s “where they get off telling…” And if folks don’t like the Trustees understanding of the mission, and what that entails, they are free to go elsewhere. They can buy something else.</p>
<p>(Don’t fraternal organizations have rules telling adults what legal behaviors they can and cannot engage in?)</p>
<p>I assume you would now also grant this freedom to Catholic Universities when they reflect their institutional mission by not providing birth control - even though it is a position some may not like. And…one can always go elsewhere. To not do so would be quite hypocritical.</p>
<p>Too bad this is not a national and universal policy in the United States. All it takes is for school officials to grow a spine and recognize the cancer that is destroying their institutions. They can go “underground” as much as they please, as long as the schools expel anyone participating in similar organizations. Pretty simple!</p>
<p>It will happen some day, but the body count will make our losses since 9-11 look trivial.</p>
<p>“I assume you would also grant this freedom to Catholic Universities when they reflect their institutional mission by not providing birth control - even though it is a position some may not like. To not do so would be quite hypocritical.”</p>
<p>You are absolutely correct (as regards their students for whom the mission is set.) (Though I am very pleased that so many do choose to provide birth control to their students, and most all of them freely *choose *to provide birth control as part of preventive care to all their employees, which is a separate issue.)</p>
<p>A very athletic house with mostly meatheads, a close brotherhood, and state school mentality. They have a great house with a large front lawn and a good location. They mix well with some top sororities, but may do not like the house much because the brothers seem to be more involved in themselves and drinking then with conversing with the girls. Their pledging is the hardest pledging process on campus. Their last two pledge classes have been very good.</p>
<h1>5 is ATO, whose house apparantely has “a lot of holes from thrown beer cans.”</h1>
<p>With regards to this thread, schools want to protect their brand and reputation as well as tailor the undergraduate experience to the mission of the school (and, in turn, have some control over what types of graduates it produces.) The decision-making process has never been democratic.</p>
<p>I’m not saying frats are like a cult, but would you say a university banning a cult from campus would be advocating free choice and free thought or antagonizing it?</p>
<p>Williams etc would do more for society if they banned I Banks from from recruiting on campus. They act just like frats on steroids. Hazing, drinking, mocking outsiders. And they LOVE Princeton jocks</p>
<p>Someone please explain to me what is different between a fraternity and an eating club. Princeton is punishing joining a fraternity as a freshman with suspension, yet Princeton provides financial aid for juniors and seniors to access eating clubs.</p>