Comments on: Further (Historical) Observations on Fraternities and Sororities

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 02:07:23 +0000

in secret? I don’t see any particular reason why these societies shouldn’t be able to be out in the open. I would highly doubt they hold secret meetings at dog pound.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:17:54 +0000

You attempt to differentiate between social organizations and other college-sponsored clubs by suggesting that “social organizations” do not provide an educational purpose like a sports team or singing group. However, similar to sports teams and singing groups, “social organizations” can also have “demonstrable educational purposes” as well. Many fraternities and sororities make it a point to contribute to their local communities by doing community service. Something like volunteering at a soup kitchen or at a dog pound is just as “educational” as partaking in a sports team or singing group.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 02:21:49 +0000

I’m still a little confused as to how the College would have “jurisdiction” (not sure if that’s the correct term) to take action against a group that does not appear to be depending on College recognition, funds, support, etc. for existence. The explanation of the DKE case seems to make sense: it does not unduly restrict someone’s right to association to refuse a group official college affiliation. And, of course, affiliation can exist wihout a physical structure like a house. However, it seems undeniably different – and much more problematic – for the College to attempt to punish (? – not sure if that is the College’s aim… though the commentor above me seems to advocate that – an oddly juvenile attitude that is problematic for a different reason) someone for doing something that has nothing to do with the College, and seems to be legal in every other way. Towards the end of your comment about association, you talk about trying to action against DKE on the grounds that they had used College telephones. While that is solely a technicality, at least a technicality existed there to justify, and restrain, the College’s authority to act. I’m assuming, however, that in a cell phone age, there may legitimately be zero use of College resources at play in this case. In that case, what business is it of the school what (legal) activities student partake in without college aid, and off of college property? If the College’s only interest is the hurt feelings of some of its students, the school would be better served to invest in self-esteem building programs to help those who feel “excluded” develop a more adult mentality about such things.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 03:41:59 +0000

Regardless of what direction the College is going in, the rules today state that no such thing is allowed on campus. Therefore, the parties involved should be penalized in some way or another. The issue at stake is the secrecy of these institutions. No law states that you are not allowed to associate yourself with a specific group and plan parties, etc. But pledging and acting like a built up group on Campus, letting everyone know who you are associated with except for the administration portrays disruptive behavior to the cohesive community and should not be overlooked.