3r1

FRATERNITIES AT SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

•

With the development of Simon Fraser University as a society,

a number of issues have arisen within the student body which undoubtedly

concern the academic governing bodyof Simon Fraser University. North

American universities in general have some peculiarities with regards

to student societies and among these is the prevalence of societies

classified as social fraternities and sororities. The University of

British Columbia for instance is "blessed" with a very liberal number

of student fraternities and sororities. it is now quite evident that

there are elements in the student body at Simon Fraser University who

would wish to emulate this type of society. Since the fraternities

and sororities at most universities are implicitly recognized by the

governing body of the university it is obviously a very considerable

importance to Simon Fraser that this subject be given ample thought

before a similar position is taken by the Senate of Simon Fraser Univ-

ersity.

Since the University community as such is a very special

fraternity in itself, one whould enquire whether the formation of social

fraternities among the student body can really add anything that might

be of value and contribute to the general structure of the student

body. If not, what might be some negative effects. In order to

answer such a question it is necessary to assess the usefulness of such

organizations at other campuses. it is indeed interesting to note that

the University of Victoria student body does not have the fraternity..

• sorority system. There are a number of other rather notable examples

•

Canadian universities in which a similar situation exists. Queen's

University, University of Calgary and the University of Saskatchewan

(both campuses) do not have fraternities and sororities. There must be

-2-

good reason why these institutions have not followed the general pattern

as is present in north American universities. It is particularly inter-

esting to note in this connection that Stanford University officials

felt some time ago that the time had approached in which sororities as

such could not be allowed to exist on campus. Considering then the

existence of large numbers of fraternities and sororities in the United

States universities, this action by Stanford University was obviously

a very drastic step taken by a governing body of a university. Un-

doubtedly Stanford officials had some very valid reasons why this was

done.

One of the primary arguments advanced by proponents of frater-

nity and sorority systems as to why such organizations should exist,

with recognition of the university, concerns the rather nebulous con-

cept in

that these organizations foster student participation in various

campus activities and give the students who belong to these organizations

a "feeling of belonging to the university community". If such is the

case, I suggest that this function of sororities and fraternities has

failed miserably on most campuses where these exist. For instance,

during my own attendance on the university campus at Saskatoon, I was

amased at the degree of student participation in various campus activ-

ities. An 807 turnout at the polls when new officers of the student

governing body were elected was not unusual and on occasions this figure

rose to over 907 when contentious issues were debated. It is to be

noted that the University of Saskatchewan has no fraternities and soror-

ities. In striking contrast, during my attendance on the campus of the

University of British Cälumbia it was considered a tremendous turnout

if 257 (more usually it was 15-207) of the student body would come out

to vote in similar "elections". As mentioned previously, the University

-3-

of British Columbia student body is liberally endowed with fraternities

and sororities. The University of Minnesota, which is also blessed

with a liberal number of social fraternities 'could do no better than

University of British Columbia while the writer was in attendance there.

Since these organizations are primarily concerned with so-called social

functions of the student body it seems very questionable that they be

located on a university campus or for that matter, recognized since surely

a university is primarily concerned with academic education of students,

and not the sponsorship of various highly exclusive social clubs. A

further question which one must ask is how desirable are the "social

activities" of these organizations. Here again the answers are mostly

negative. The experiences by councillors at Stanford University with

respect to the psychological impact of the rushing procedures in soror-

ities eventually led them to abolish sororities on campus. It turns

out that admission to sororities is'based primarily on social status

and the effects of not being admitted to a particular sorority because

of financial background or social status, race, religion, etc., had tre-

mendous psychological effects on the female student body. In other words

the sorority system or the fraternity system then is very exclusive in

many aspects. The general history of the fraternity movement taken as

a. whole in the United States and, for that matter, Canada, is certainly

not a very bright story to read. If the University as such recognizes

officially such organizations on campus they then also implicitly recog-

nize some of the discrimination clauses which have existed in the so-

called "Constitutions" of the various fraternities for decades. It is

amazing to learn that many of these discriminatory clauses with respect

to religion, race, social and economic background, etc., have not been

removed from these "constitutions" in spite of the fact that various

-4-

universities have repeatedly requested those fraternal organizations to

do so, certainly they have had ample time to effect this.

Fraternal organizations on campus are a highly knit group. This

carries with itself some imminent dangers with respect to proper and

representative functioning of general societies or governing bodies

within a student body. -If one takes the trouble to analyse the effect

that highly organized fraternities have on student activities it is

invariably found that such officers as president of students council

and other subsidiary offices within a student council are almost always

occupied by specific fraternal members. This in itself is highly un-

desirable since it can easily lead to a direct expression of the phil-

osophy of a fraternal organization as such and not a true expression of

the general student body. A few rather specific examples will further

clarify this contention. It was the experience, for instance, at the

University of Saskatchewan that presentations of student operettas, plays,

etc., were entirely accomplished through auditioning. This procedure was

well advertised in advance and any member of the student body was more

than welcome to audition for the various leading and minor roles. This,

of course, is as it should be. In contrast, at another university

engaging in similar activities, it became very evident that such auditions

were not at all well publicized and the one or two individuals who did

somehow manage to audition for a leading part in an operetta, were never

informed as to the outcome of those auditions. In the final analysis

the complete production was not a production of the student body as

such but was a production of a particular fraternity who happened to

have a strangle-hold on the administration of the musical society. It

is interesting to note that the "outside" auditioners had in fact com-

peted in provincial musical festivals and had walked off with the highest

honors. I might cite another example which serves to illustrate the

glaring misuse that is made. of student organizations which are operated

-5-.

"for the student body as a whole". This example concerns the operation

of an undergraduate athletic committee. The purpose of a particular

function was to select students who would represent the university at

an interuniversity athletic competition. Obviously the proper way of

conducting such an elimination would be to adequately advertise that

trials would be held and the student body would be fully aware of where

and when eliminations would take place. Again in this case provincial

champions who were not associated with any fraternities or sororities

and who were very interested in competing could for some reason or

another not discover when these trials would be held in spite of repeated

enquiries. In due time, of course, these "trials" had been held, known

to no-one but some few select members of a fraternal and sorority organ-

ization, and the representatives were "chosen". This repeated itself

both in the case of "selecting" a representative for the golfing team

and for the badminton team.

It should be amply clear at this time that the functions of a

fraternity are generally not in the best interests of the student body,

or for that matter, the community. One needs only refer to some recent

social developments which have such fraternities in our general geographic

area in a very bad light. The fact that two University of British Columbia

students who were members of one of the most select fraternities were

killed in an automobile accident on University Boulevard and the fact

that both individuals were under the very decided influence of alcohol

and the fact that both individuals were minors points a very condeming

finger at the fraternity concerned. A study of this particular case and

many others brings to the surface very undesirable features. A University

administration as such can hardly wash their hands of such an instance

when such fraternities are given implicit recognition; to try to do so

completely evades the issue at hand.

It is common that fraternity houses

"in some way or manner" are able to obtain liquor licences for the dis-

pensing of alcoholic beverages within the premises.

It is fantastic how

such a licence can be justifiably granted to such organizations when the

majority of inhabitants of these houses are minors.

A University admin-

istration that gives official recognition to such fraternal bodies is

then in effect contributing to the delinquency of minors and is therefore

as guilty as the parties immediately concerned with the serving of intox-

icating beverages to minors.

With specific references to some recent

issues of Simon Fraser University newspaper it contained a number of short

articles concerned with the formation of fraternities association with

Simon Fraser University.

Here again

very clear issue arises in that

these fraternal organizations wish to have a licence to serve alcoholic

beverages in spite of the fact that most of the members would be minors.

It should be reiterated then that formal recognition by the University of

such fraternal organizations carries with it an implicit recognition that

such an organization can and will in fact dispense liquor to minors.

This is most certainly a deplorable practice in existing fraternal societies

and must be avoided.

it is therefore well advised that Simon Fraser

University deal with the question of fraternities and sororities in a

similar manner as did Victoria University, University of Saskatchewan,

Queen's University, etc., and for that matter Stanford University, that

is,

such fraternal organizations will not be given recognition by Simon

Fraser University nor would they be allowed to exist as "influential bodies"

at Simon Fraser University or masquerade as Simon Fraser University fra-

ternities.

This does not of course mean that the students are not free

to independently organize whatever fraternal society they wish to organize,

but if

if they do, they do so entirely on their own and will not receive

the official recognition of Simon Fraser University in any form or manner.

A. M. UNRAU