Foundations, Research, and Assessment of Fraternities and Sororities: Retrospective and Future Considerations [1 ed.] 9781975502652

Citation preview

Advance Praise for Foundations, Research, and Assessment of Fraternities and Sororities: Retrospective and Future Considerations

“This text is a must-read for anyone who works in Higher Education. Each chapter provides a well written account of the fraternity and sorority movement addressing the complex foundations of fraternities and sororities. The state of fraternity and sorority life has been, currently is and will probably always be challenged, however, there continues to be a need for such organizations on college campuses. As someone who works with college students on a daily basis and through my professional associations, I have learned so much from this publication and the rich history we all embrace.” —Jennifer Jones-Hall, Association of Fraternity and Sorority Advisors President, 1999, AFA Foundation Chairman, 2000-2002, Dean of Students, Southern Illinois University Carbondale

“This text is a much needed read for leaders in higher education. It blends organizational history and culture with discussions of some of the critical issues facing campuses today. As higher education professionals seek to build leaders and programs that align with institutional values, this text provides thoughtful study and practical assessment of the fraternity and sorority experience.” —Kathryn Cavins-Tull, Texas Christian University Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs

foundations, research, and assessment of Fraternities and sororities

Culture and Society in Higher Education Pietro A. Sasso and Joseph L. DeVitis, Editors Culture and Society in Higher Education is a book series that analyzes the role of higher education as an incubator, transmitter, and transformer of culture. While examining the larger social, economic, and political connections that shape the academy, it seeks to revivify American colleges and universities and to re-explore their core purposes. In so doing, the series reaffirms our social contract and the common public good that should ideally drive the policies and practices of contemporary post-secondary education. Prospective book topics include, but are not limited to, such themes as the purposes of higher education, the worth of college, student learning, new forms of liberal education, race matters, feminist perspectives, LGBTQ issues, inclusion and social justice, student mental health and disabilities, drug-related topics, inclusion and social justice, fraternity and sorority life, student activism, campus religious questions, significant legal challenges, problems of governance, the changing role of faculty, academic freedom and tenure, political correctness and free speech, testing dilemmas, the amenities “arms race,” student entitlement, intercollegiate athletics, technology and social media, and distance instruction.

Books in the Series: Student Activism in the Academy: Its Struggles and Promise (2019) Generally Speaking: The Impact of General Education on Student Learning in the 21st Century (2019) Supporting Fraternities and Sororities in the Contemporary Era: Advancements in Practice (2020) Foundations, Research, and Assessment of Fraternities and Sororities: Retrospective and Future Considerations (2020) Joseph L. DeVitis is a retired professor of educational foundations and higher education. He is a past president of the American Educational Studies Association (AESA), the Council of Learned Societies in Education, and the Society of Professors of Education. He lives with his wife, Linda, in Palm Springs, California. Pietro Sasso is faculty program director of the College Student Personnel Administration at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. He is the recipient of the Dr. Charles Eberly Research Award from AFA and is the ACPA Men and Masculinities Emerging Scholar-In-Residence for 2017 to 2019. He serves on the board of the Center for Fraternity/Sorority Research at Indiana University.

Foundations, Research, and Assessment of Fraternities and Sororities Retrospective and Future Considerations

edited by

Pietro A. Sasso, J. Patrick Biddix and Mónica Lee Miranda

Copyright © 2018 | Myers Education Press, LLC Gorham, Maine Published by Myers Education Press, LLC P.O. Box 424 Gorham, ME 04038

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, recording, and information storage and retrieval, without permission in writing from the publisher. Myers Education Press is an academic publisher specializing in books, e-books and

Copyright © 2018 | Myers Education Press, LLC

Copyright ©Myers 2020 |Education Myers Education Press, LLC Published by Press, LLC P.O. Box 424

Published by04038 Myers Education Press, LLC Gorham, ME P.O. Box 424 Gorham, ME 04038 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including

All rights reserved. No part this bookstorage may beand reprinted or without reproduced in anyinform or by any photocopying, recording, and of information retrieval, permission electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, writing from the publisher. recording, and information storage and retrieval, without permission in writing from the publisher. Myers Education Press is an academic publisher specializing in books, e-books and digital content in the field of education. All of our books are subjected to rigorous Myers Education Press is an academic publisher specializing in abooks, e-books and digipeertal review process produced in compliance withbooks the standards of the Council on content in theand field of education. All of our are subjected to a rigorous peer review Library and Information Resources.

process and produced in compliance with the standards of the Council on Library and Information Resources.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data available from Library of Congress.

13-digit ISBN 978-1-9755-0009-2 (paperback) Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data available from 13-digit ISBN 978-1-9755-0008-5 Library of Congress. (hard cover) 13-digit ISBN 978-1-9755-0010-8 (library networkable e-edition)

13-digit ISBN e-edition) 13-digit ISBN978-1-9755-0011-5 978-1-9755-0264-5 (consumer (paperback) 13-digit ISBN 978-1-9755-0263-8 (hardcover) Printed in the United States of America. 13-digit ISBN 978-1-9755-0265-2 (library networkable e-edition) 13-digit ISBN 978-1-9755-0266-9 (consumer e-edition)

All first editions printed on acid-free paper that meets the American National Standards

Institute Z39-48 standard. Printed in the United States of America. Books Myerson Education purchased at specialNational quantity Standards disAll firstpublished editions by printed acid-freePress papermay thatbemeets the American Institute count rates for groups, workshops, training organizations and classroom usage. Please Z39-48 standard. call our customer service department at 1-800-232-0223 for details.

Books published by Myers Education Press may be purchased at special quantity discount rates for Cover by Sophie Appelorganizations and classroom usage. Please call our customer service groups,design workshops, training department at 1-800-232-0223 for details. Visit us on the web at www.myersedpress.com to browse our complete list of titles.

Cover design by Sophie Appel Visit us on the web at www.myersedpress.com to browse our complete list of titles.

Contents

Preface ix Pietro A. Sasso, J. Patrick Biddix, and Mónica Lee Miranda Foreword: Faculty Reflection on Fraternity/Sorority Life Roger “Mitch” Nasser Jr.

xiii

Part One: Historical Foundations 1. Fraternities and Sororities as a Student Movement Pietro A. Sasso, Roger “Mitch” Nasser Jr., Bilal Badruddin, and Fran Becque 2. History of Asian American Greek-Letter Organizations Bryan Dosono, Bilal Badruddin, and Vigor W. H. Lam

3 25

3. NALFO: A Retrospective y Hacia Adelante 39 Mónica Lee Miranda, Keith D. Garcia, and Juan R. Guardia 4. From Halls to House: The Proliferation of Fraternity Housing Pietro A. Sasso and Thea Zunick

47

Part Two: Legal Issues 5. Protected Speech or Illegal Behavior: Fraternity Activities in a World of Campus Insecurity 69 Dennis E. Gregory 6. Fraternal Law Mitch Kamrass

77

7. Hazing in Fraternities and Sororities Jenny Nirh

89

viii contents

Part Three: Values and Student Development 8. The Position of Fraternity and Sorority Values in College Student Development Ashley Tull, Justine Grace, and Colin Nelson-Pinkston 9. Membership and Values: Dissonance and Opportunities Denise L. Davidson and Mark Bauman 10. Looking Inward: Meaning Making, Spirituality, and the Fraternal Experience Robert Jason Lynch

101 111

121

Part Four: Diversity and Inclusion 11. Cultivating Cultures of Inclusion: A Leadership Development Approach Leonard Taylor Jr. and Shirdonna Lawrence

131

12. The Divine Nine in Contemporary Higher Education: A Critical Race Perspective Shanna E. Smith and Dorian L. McCoy

143

13. Race and Privilege in Fraternity and Sorority Life: Considerations for Practice and Research Crystal E. Garcia and Zachary E. Shirley

155

Part Five: Research 14. The State of Fraternity/Sorority Research 167 James P. Barber, J. Patrick Biddix, Grahaeme A. Hesp, Eric Norman, and Daniel A. Bureau 15. Development and Use of the Fraternity and Sorority Experience Survey 181 Cynthia A. Cogswell, Kevin Fosnacht, Dawn M. Maynen, Steven Veldkamp, and Gary R. Pike 16. Contributing to Learning and Development? Exploring the Impact of Fraternity and Sorority Membership Georgianna L Martin, Brian Garsh, and Michael S. Hevel

193

References 205 Contributors 207

Preface Peter A. Sasso, J. Patrick Biddix, and Mónica Lee Miranda

The history of fraternal organizations has been written many times, both in truth and fiction. Depending on the narrator, the lore of fraternities and sororities may be exaggerated and boasted of or lamented and bemoaned. Yet in spite of, and perhaps because of, this history and reputation, students continue to join. From aggrandized stories about the heydays of fraternity pranks and sorority socials to the more solemn accounts of students forming literary societies or grouping together based on culture, the continued appeal to join tells a powerful story about the human need to be part of a community. Although the mission and vision of fraternal organizations have changed since the early 19th century, the core ideals of social and cultural bonding through belonging in college have kept fraternities and sororities relevant and resilient. Despite the single-sex status many fraternities and sororities maintain, they are neither simply nor monolithically classified. Beyond their collective stereotype as college drinking clubs, most fraternities and sororities have cultural, intellectual, professional, and identity-based foundations they enact in various ways (Anson & Marchesani, 1991; Biddix, Matney, Norman, & Martin, 2014). Simply labeling fraternity/sorority membership as a categorical variable or demographic characteristic is faulty logic that has led to problematic research and reactive practice. The problem with monolithic or heterogenic classification, similar to issues arising from census categories for gender and race/ethnicity, is that, more often than not, research results based on these categorizations are flawed. Egregious examples include

x pr eface

the categorization of binge drinking and hazing, which, by not disaggregating even by gender, vastly overestimate the prevalence of these issues (Biddix, 2016). Rather than act as apologist or advocate, this observation highlights a flaw in the lack of precision in the research upon which much of our “findings” are based. Add to this the polarizing nature of fraternity/sorority research, coupled with (until recently) a reluctance for national organizations or umbrella groups to share or publicize data, and it all points to the inevitable conclusion that we really don’t “know” a lot about fraternities and sororities. This volume, following the same spirit under which Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors operates, aims to address several of these issues. In providing a historical foundations section in Part I, we highlight cultural differences and other factors that impact fraternity/sorority membership and involvement. This focus continues in a set of organized chapters on values and student development (Part III), which suggest differentiated outcomes based on varied missions and values. Between these sections is a contextual update on legal issues that affect membership (Part II). Part IV picks up with an overview of the cultural foundations of membership as well as issues including diversity and inclusion that are both promoted within and impacted by organizations. The book closes with a broad overview of contemporary research in Part V, including studies about how the fraternity and sorority experience is operationalized and evaluated. The final chapter is an updated exploration of the impact of membership on learning and development, which Biddix et al. (2014) highlighted as the most deficient and inconsistent area of research on this population. Several of the foremost and most consistent scholars in the field address these questions. We consider these in the dual lens of retrospection and future consideration to advocate the need for research. Equally important is the need for campus-based and professional organization–driven assessment. Change is often made based on intuition but should be influenced by quality and rigorous methodology. We hope this volume can advance research and assessment efforts, as contextualized by the importance of foundations, to enhance evidence-based practice. Note: This text uses a number of terms interchangeably. Most notably, the collective terms Greek and fraternity/sorority appear throughout this text to denote fraternity/sorority systems or campus communities. There is no consistency within this text as the authors used professional vernacular from several academic disciplines and institutional types. In respect to academic freedom, authenticity of the author voice, and other culturally-based organizations the use of such terms were left in deference to the chapter authors.

pr eface

xi

References Anson, J. L., & Marchesani, R. F. Jr. (Eds.). (1991). Baird’s manual of American college fraternities (20th ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Baird’s Manual Foundation. Biddix, J. P. (2016). Moving beyond alcohol: Other issues associated with fraternity membership with implications for practice and research. Journal of College Student Development, 57(7), 793–801. Biddix, J. P., Matney, M., Norman, E., & Martin, G. (2014). The influence of fraternity and sorority involvement: A critical analysis of research (1996–2013) (ASHE Higher Education Report Series, Vol. 39, No. 6). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Foreword: Faculty Reflection on Fraternity/Sorority Life Roger “Mitch” Nasser Jr.

I would like to reflect on my perspective on fraternity/sorority life as a faculty member. Before I do, I feel it is important to understand me as the author. We all have bias from our experiences and I am no exception. I worked in higher education administration for 16 years prior to becoming a faculty member. In that time, I worked with members of the fraternity/sorority community, whether through direct contact or through another professional staff member. I worked with students during suspected hazing incidents and followed the joys of members impacting the community through service. Although I was frustrated at times, I have always felt the fraternity/sorority life system benefit members, the student community, and university as a whole. We are a society built on assumptions. Although we may wish to avoid this characterization, I believe it to be true. We may base our understanding of a topic or group of people on what we can ascertain quickly on the Internet or from friends and colleagues. We read reports of sexual misconduct and irresponsible drinking related to fraternity/ sorority life. We may allow these reports to create our image or we may ask questions. I would ask the following questions. Perhaps you may find your own answers after reflecting on these points.

xiv for ewor d

Do Students in Fraternity/Sorority Organizations Represent the Overall Student Culture? Students want to feel a part of something when arriving at college. Consider the average student leaving home, perhaps for the first time. This student may need to make new friends, form new connections, and consider social experiences. Fraternity/sorority organizations are, in some ways, ready-made experiences for new students. New students can find a ready-made social group, creating meaning for their new lives. Many critics may suggest fraternity/sorority organizations understand this need to belong and take advantage of the students. I say they provide a support network for the students. The students have the freedom to choose socializing and joining these groups, even if we do not believe new students understand their decisions early in college life. With this assertion, then should we ascribe blame on fraternity/sorority organizations for providing an outlet for students who choose membership? Do fraternity/sorority organizations force students to make decisions they would not otherwise? This question is difficult to answer as we must both examine the perspective of the new student and the mindset of the fraternity/sorority members. Although many faculty and professionals link the issue of hazing to fraternity and sorority life, hazing originated at the onset of higher education. We cannot deny the historical connection. Hazing, although not always referred to in those terms, began as a separation of intelligence. The increased demands on full-time faculty members in early institutions led to the development of tutors. In many ways, these tutors were the first form of adjunct faculty (Rudolph, 1962). Most tutors aspired to become full-time faculty and were willing to sacrifice to do so. These semiprofessionals often taught core classes or served as support for a class of students. However, there’s was not a joyous experience. Tutors were subjected to harassment by students and faculty. Faculty considered them as unequal and undignified, often using their positions of authority to assign tutors meaningless tasks. Students, likewise, mistreated tutors, perhaps taking a cue from faculty mentors. Students jeered and subjugated tutors to violence, to the point of murder (Rudolph, 1962). Although we, as faculty and administrators have matured over the years, do we not continue to “haze” adjunct faculty and nontenured instructors? Student hazing related to fraternity/sorority life dates back to the early 1900s (Nuwer, 1990, 1999). These incidents often included violence against new members as a rite of passage into the organization. This violence was linked to the tradition of membership, but it did not appear to be connected with the values of the organizations. Incidents involved group beatings of pledges, restriction of resources, and sleep deprivation. The passage of the Serviceman’s Readjustment Act (GI Bill) in 1944 provided returning military more access to education (Rudolph, 1962; Westmeyer, 1997). Several of these veterans joined fraternity/sorority organizations and their training background both aided and inhibited the development and direction of these organizations. Their strong teamwork and leadership skills improved educational opportunities and membership

for ewor d

xv

development. However, this new population also brought the idea of following orders and physical activity with them as well. These two factors revived the hazing issue on college campuses. Although the issue of violence had subsided, hazing included forced physical activity and obedience (Nuwer, 1990). However, the idea of hazing and free student choice does not fall only on fraternity organizations, but the institution overall. Recent studies suggest hazing rituals become part of a tradition for a specific chapter. These traditions may differ from chapter to chapter. For example, the chapter of Alpha Beta Gamma at “College A” may have a tradition which involves new members consuming a keg of alcohol over a set time period, whereas a neighboring chapter at college B has no such tradition. Why the discrepancy? The studies suggest student behavior is a learned experience (Kuh & Arnold, 1993). In other words, if a student experienced a hazing incident as a part of his or her experience, that student is more likely to repeat the hazing behavior when in a position to do so. These studies argue the way to impact hazing is to address the learned behavior (Sweet, 1999). Educational interventions may assist this process of changing behaviors. Once again, we cannot ignore the connection of fraternity/sorority life to hazing, but it would be irresponsible to ignore underlying factors. Why are we quick to question the value of fraternity/sorority organizations? One reason might be our own failures. What are we doing as faculty and staff to intercede with students? Perhaps a simple conversation could impact a student’s behavior. If we consider possible causes for poor student choices and hazing, should we not also consider our own responsibility? What if we compare this intervention to other areas of student life? If you are a judicial officer, do you question students about their behavior? Perhaps you ask them questions to determine the cause of the behavior in order for them to avoid similar behavior in the future. If you are an academic advisor, do you probe reasons for a student’s choice of major? If students struggle academically, do you ask questions as means to resolve the issue? I believe we can use the same strategies to challenge students who are members of fraternity/sorority organizations.

What About the Connection of Fraternity Life to Drinking Behavior? Perhaps we should not assume simply because a student is a member of a fraternity/ sorority community that the student is more likely to drink to excess. Alcohol consumption has been linked to college students as a whole since the inception of higher education in the United States (Baer, Kivlahan, Blume, McKnight, & Marlatt, 2001; Capone, Wood, Borsari, & Laird, 2007; Wechsler, Davenport, Dowdall, Moeykens, & Castillo, 1994). In addition, research has suggested student use and abuse of alcohol may be connected to residential experiences, year in school, exposure to peers, and alcohol experimentation in high school (Alva, 1998; Capone et al., 2007; Fuertes & Hoffman,

xvi for ewor d

2016). Even if we choose to link alcohol use to fraternal involvement, there is no evidence this use and abuse is tied to organizational rules, expectations, or policies. First, studies suggest students living in fraternity/sorority-affiliated housing consume alcohol at a higher level than non-fraternity/sorority students (Wechsler, Kuh, & Davenport, 2009). We must examine the factor of living in common as a separator in this discussion. Could the increased use of alcohol by affiliated students in these studies be more related to living together than membership in a fraternity/sorority? I believe there is room for argument here as living in common increases contact among students. Perhaps the frequency of contact is more related to alcohol use than membership in a fraternity/sorority organization. Second, research has indicated alcohol consumption is impacted by peer influence or critical thinking ability (Trolian, An, & Pascarella, 2016; Wechsler et al., 1994). Could increased drinking be the result of peer interaction and not specific membership in fraternity/sorority organizations? Studies have suggested students who are members of athletic teams and musical performing groups have a higher rate of drinking than students not involved in those activities (Leichliter, Meilman, Presley, & Cashin, 1998). Could the higher level of drinking in fraternity/sorority organizations, specifically fraternities, be explained as a subset of membership in any organization? Let us be clear that drinking has been, and will continue to be a problem in higher education, but can membership in an organization be cited as a cause? Finally, some research which has indicated an increased level of drinking among fraternity and sorority students also suggested a higher level of consumption among first-year and sophomore students as opposed to juniors and seniors (Fuertes & Hoffman, 2016). I make a similar argument here. Could the higher drinking levels of first- and second-year students be attributed to their year in college more so than membership in organizations? This argument gains traction when you consider many students begin alcohol use prior to arriving at college (Alva, 1998; Capone et al., 2007). Is it realistic to blame fraternities and sororities for alcohol use and abuse if many students begin using alcohol before becoming members of fraternity/sorority organizations?

Why Include Discussion of Fraternity/Sorority Life in the Curriculum? As a faculty member, I have tremendous leeway in curriculum design and topic selection. I consider examples when designing practical activities. I also face challenges in what to include, as I could deter learning. I chose to include discussion of fraternity/ sorority life in my curriculum. I have many reasons for including fraternity/sorority life in my curriculum as a faculty member. I would like to focus on the top three. First, members of the fraternity/sorority community display leadership skills, which can be analyzed for class discussion. Creating assignments, analyzing coordinating groups,

for ewor d

xvii

making decisions on membership, and challenging tradition provide a strong foundation for MA and doctoral students to process decision-making. I include both positive and negative decisions in my courses. Second, student affairs practitioners are tasked with addressing the needs of students within multiple contexts. Fraternal organizations aid in two important areas in higher education: student development and student engagement. Student engagement finds its roots in involvement theory (Astin, 1984). This theory suggests students who put energy into an activity are likely to receive a benefit equal to the energy expended, provided the event includes challenge. Research has indicated fraternities can provide such challenge to students, impacting their personal development (DeBard, Lake, & Binder, 2006; Pike, 2003; Routon & Walker, 2016; Wilder, Hoyt, Surbeck, Wilder, & Carney, 1989). Students, regardless of background and identity, will respond to an administration that guides them in these experiences (Pace, 1990) Graduate students who understand the impact of fraternity/sorority life activities on the student population are better equipped to harness the positive value of such activities. Finally, my students must graduate with an understanding of inclusion. Fraternities and sororities can connect students to one another. Although research has not linked membership to cultural understanding (Martin, Parker, Pascarella, & Blechschmidt, 2015; Routom & Walker, 2016) and many organizations are formed based on racial, ethnic, or religious lines, there is no reason to discount the ability of these groups to connect across divides. These groups have become more open overall and could bridge the gap between majority and minority populations. Students of color continue to be marginalized on college campuses. Fraternity/sorority life could be a solution to this discord among students.

Conclusion Should we encourage involvement in fraternity/sorority life? If we are faculty, should we discuss these issues in our classrooms? I feel the answer to both these questions is yes. Although fraternities and sororities face challenges, these challenges may be related to individual members rather than the groups as a whole. In addition, fraternity/sorority organizations continue to offer students engagement and identity. I recognize the tragic events linked to these groups, but feel the majority of these organizations adhere to higher standards. Including fraternity/sorority life in course discussions allows students to examine multiple issues of development, decision-making, and ethics. My students are taught to challenge assumptions and seek solutions to problems. Connecting these organizations to topics such as student development, legal foundations, and history also provides students with intervention strategies. After all, we have a responsibility to impact practice . . . all of us.

xviii for ewor d

References Alva, S. A. (1998). Self-reported alcohol use of college fraternity and sorority members. Journal of College Student Development, 39(1), 3–10. Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297–308. Baer, J. S., Kivlahan, D. R., Blume, A. W., McKnight, P., & Marlatt, G. A. (2001). Brief intervention for heavy-drinking college students: 4-year follow-up and natural history. American Journal of Public Health, 91(8), 1310–1316. Capone, C., Wood, M. D., Borsari, B., & Laird, R. D. (2007). Fraternity and sorority involvement, social influences, and alcohol use among college students: A prospective examination. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 21(3), 316–327. DeBard, R., Lake, T., & Binder, R. S. (2006). Greeks and grades: The first-year experience. NASPA Journal, 43(1), 1–7. Fuertes, J. N., & Hoffman, A. (2016). Alcohol consumption and abuse among college students: Alarming rates among the best and the brightest. College Student Journal, 50(2), 236–240. Kuh, G. D., & Arnold, J. C. (1993). Liquid bonding: A cultural analysis of the role of alcohol in fraternity pledgeship. Journal of College Student Development, 34, 327–334. Leichliter, J. S., Meilman, P. W., Presley, C. A., & Cashin, J. R. (1998). Alcohol use and related consequences among student with varying levels of involvement in college athletics. Journal of American College Health, 46(6), 257–262. Martin, G. L., Parker, G., Pascarella, E. T., & Blechschmidt, S. (2015). Do fraternities and sororities inhibit intercultural competence? Journal of College Student Development, 56(1), 66–72. Nuwer, H. (1990). Broken pledges: The deadly rite of hazing. Atlanta, GA: Longstreet Press. Nuwer, H. (1999). Wrongs of passage: Fraternities, sororities, hazing, and binge drinking. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Pace, C. R. (1990). The undergraduates: A report of their activities and college experiences in the 1980s. Los Angeles, CA: Center for the Study of Evaluation, UCLA Graduate School of Education. Pike, G. R. (2003). Membership in a fraternity or sorority, student engagement, and educational outcomes at AAU public research universities. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3), 369–382. Routon, P. W., & Walker, J. K. (2016). Attitude changes and self-perceived skill gains from collegiate Greek organizational membership. Social Science Quarterly, 97(3), 807–822. Rudolph, F. (1962). The American college and university, a history. New York, NY: Knopf. Sweet, S. (1999). Understanding fraternity hazing: Insights from symbolic interactionist theory. Journal of College Student Development, 40(4), 355–364. Trolian, T. L., An, B. P., & Pascarella, E. T. (2016). Are there cognitive consequences of binge drinking in college? Journal of College Student Development, 57(8), 1009–1026. Wechsler, H., Davenport, A., Dowdall, G. W., Moeykens, B., & Castillo, S. (1994). Health and behavioral consequences of binge drinking in college. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272, 1672–1677. Wechsler, H., Kuh, G., & Davenport, A. E. (2009). Fraternities, sororities and binge drinking: Results from a national study of American colleges. NASPA Journal, 46(3), 395–416. Westmeyer, P. (1997). An analytical history of American higher education (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: C. C. Thomas.

for ewor d

xix

Wilder, D. H., Hoyt, A. E., Surbeck, B. S., Wilder, J. C., & Carney, P. I. (1989). Greek affiliation and attitude change in college students. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27, 510–519.

Part One: historical Foundations

chapter 1

Fraternities and Sororities as a Student Movement Pietro A. Sasso, Roger “Mitch” Nasser Jr., Bilal Badruddin, and Fran Becque

College students have always shown a more or less marked tendency to form themselves into societies. Whether founded upon a national, literary, or social basis, these organizations seem to have been coeval with the colleges themselves. —W. R. Baird, Baird’s Manual of American College Fraternities (1912, p. 1)

Introduction The development of fraternity/sorority life in the United States mirrors the history of higher education in the country in a variety of ways. The movement of faculty from instructors to researchers provided opportunities for students to form social groups and literary societies. The development of student affairs as a profession created partnerships between the university and Greek organizations and opportunities for student support. Fraternities, just like their host institutions, were impacted by national events and policies, particularly around the expansion of chapters and membership.

4

histor ical foundations

Foundational Institutional Context Research suggests Harvard was the first institution of higher education in the United States (Rudolph, 1962; Thelin, 2017). Early colleges were small and private in nature. Many included only one staff member, who served as faculty and morality guide. This combination of responsibilities fell in line as most institutions were religiously affiliated at the time (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997). Many parents expected this combination of education and behavior observation, also known as in loco parentis (Rudolph, 1962; Westmeyer, 1997). This parental involvement has shifted in current days as parents no longer expect the institution to act as parents for students. Rather, families expect greater involvement in their student’s educational experience (Cullaty, 2011). The single staff member maintained a strong sense of authority over the students, which was unchecked and unquestioned. Perhaps the student population at the time was the reason for this respect for authority. College was a means to create an ideal citizen in the country, within a sense of entitlement for the wealthy (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997; Thelin, 2017). As enrollment grew at early institutions, so did the need for expanded staff. More faculty were needed for additional courses. However, the faculty maintained responsibility for student behavior as well. This expansion led to a larger population of faculty guiding the educational and personal experiences of students (Brubacher & Rudy, 1997; Rudolph, 1962; Westmeyer, 1997). Faculty maintained a control over students, but a shift in authority was coming soon. Three key moments in history created a shift from faculty authority to student authority. First, part-time instructors were needed as enrollment continued to increase at colleges. Institutions no longer had the funds to continue hiring full-time faculty. Perhaps this issue related to the newness of the college idea. The first adjuncts were hired. Originally known as teaching aides, these professionals were mistreated by faculty and students. In fact, some teaching aides were seriously injured or even killed. The failure of the teaching aide movement caused faculty to add additional courses to their teaching loads (Rudolph, 1962). The competition for resources created the need for an institutional leader, which led to the first college presidents. Although presidents originally were members of the college affiliation, institutions eventually shifted away from this notion, preferring leaders who represented general interests as a means to attract more students (Morgan, 1933). College presidents led from a business mind, concern for the bottom line, and desire to please the board of trustees. This mindset caused a reduction of faculty authority. The limited resources and increased competition for students gradually pushed institutions away from religious affiliation and more toward recruiting a more general population (Handlin & Handlin, 1974). New populations created additional curricular needs and a more specialized faculty. Despite these improvements, higher education continued to struggle for resources. This need led to the rise in faculty research. Faculty research led to additional funds and also increased institutional prestige. Although

fr ater nities and soror ities as a student movement

5

conducting research energized faculty, it reduced their contact with the student population (Rudolph, 1962; Westmeyer, 1997). The reduced contact led to a decreased value for instruction, which created a student movement for activities. The initial groups on college campuses were literary societies (Baird, 1912). These groups, while providing socialization, were focused on educational pursuits and debate, often challenging the curriculum. These groups were accepted by institutions due to their connection with academics, a belief they would not sustain, or a combination of the two (Rudolph, 1962). Historians have suggested faculty members may have contributed to the rise in these organizations. Some faculty members may have seen the creation of these student groups as examples of student activism and sought to support the groups (Altbach, 1989; Kezar, 2010). However, the rise of student groups was less related to protest and more toward a sense of boredom with the college experience.

Fraternity/Sorority Life as a Student Movement Secret societies were a precursor to Greek life. The first society was founded at the College of William and Mary around 1776 (Baird, 1912). Membership was highly selective and met in confidential locations. These groups were focused on literature and were supported by faculty members. Baird (1912) stated, “Their exercises consisted of debates, the reading and discussion of papers on literary subjects, and the like. They were encouraged by the faculties, the students joined them as a matter of course and their work was mainly educational” (p. 5). Colleges typically had a minimum of two societies, which engaged in educational debate regularly. These societies led to the formation of fraternities, beginning with Kappa Alpha Society in 1827. This became further exemplified with the Black Greek-letter Organizations (BGLOs), which through social activism have worked to improve the quality of life for African Americans (Harris and Mitchell, 2008). Although the first eight BGLOs “had been born during the turbulent turn of the century . . . not too far past the midcentury point, the need to organize fraternally arose again” (Harris and Mitchell, 2008). Iota Phi Theta Fraternity was founded during the civil rights movement, a sign that members were committed to social change.

History of Fraternities American college fraternities are unique among the educational systems of the world. Although similar groups exist in Germany, Italy, and England, their existence is purely founded on the perpetuation of specific socioeconomic cohorts of students (Bailey, 1949). The emphasis of such European fraternal organizations completely identifies with elitist fervor as they typically hold very selective membership intake practices (Anson

6

histor ical foundations

& Marchesani, 1991). American collegiate fraternities focus on egalitarianism and the social development of their members. Although European schools have clubs and societies, no other arrangements are readily comparable to the American fraternity system (Anson & Marchesani, 1991). The genesis of American college fraternities was forged from the desire of the general student body (Bailey, 1949). The evolution of the men’s collegiate social fraternity began as a social outlet as part of the extracurriculum. During the 19th century, many colleges had forbidden the existence of fraternities. Prior to 1880 and in a few cases afterward, the fraternities evaded antifraternity rules and operated chapters sub rosa. Although many institutions of higher education have chosen to eliminate fraternities and sororities or question their relevance, Greek organizations have had a major historical impact on the early development of the American system of higher education (Anson & Marchesani, 1991). The educational curriculum during the 18th and 19th centuries was rigid, structured, and dogmatic (Horowitz, 1987). Recitation of text and oral examination of the classics was commonplace. This system of drill and instruction was believed to be foundational in the preparation of gentlemen scholars and clergymen who predominantly dominated the student demographic. Due to the high levels of academic rigor and restrictiveness of the collegiate environment at the time, students craved an extracurriculum; they yearned for outside social activity to complement their academic pursuits (Caple, 1998). Thus, students founded early and loosely affiliated groups that met privately in dorm rooms and debated the topics of the day (Bailey, 1949). Students sought to create organizations of like-minded individuals, particularly in matters of common interest such as for the discussion of banned texts. These few clubs were primarily formed as literary and debate societies and they offered the only outside-the-classroom experience to which students had access (Horowitz, 1987). These clubs began to flourish at this time (Bailey, 1949). With the influence of the classicist curriculum, many students sought inspiration from Greek texts that they had read and debated. These societies became the first early college fraternities as they adopted Greek letters and ideals which symbolized specific academic and intellectual ideals. The early fraternities were formed to fill a need in the lives of students by facilitating friendships and recreation and as a basis to provide an outlet for free expression at a time when the college environment provided none (Caple, 1998). The first true modern conception of a Greek-letter society grew out of an antecedent organization known as the Flat Hat Club, which had existed at the College of William and Mary since about 1750 (Bailey, 1949). The Flat Hat Club was a group of men devoted to the printing and distribution of an underground literary newspaper called The Flat Hat. Early writings of The Flat Hat were satirical compositions on student culture and essays concerning various literary opinions and expressions (Horowitz, 1987). Phi Beta Kappa was founded by five students at the College of William and Mary in the Apollo Room of the Raleigh Tavern on the night of December 5, 1776 (Bailey,

fr ater nities and soror ities as a student movement

7

1949). The Greek-letter society and its founders soon determined to extend its values to other institutions and within 11 years had established chapters at Yale, Harvard, and Dartmouth. This growth was, however, short-lived. Due to military conscription actions during the Revolutionary War, the parent or alpha chapter of Phi Beta Kappa became dormant in 1781. The fraternity did not expand further for many years. In 1831, influenced by a nationwide faculty agitation against secret societies, the Harvard chapter voluntarily disclosed its secrets (Horowitz, 1987). Thereafter, the entire organization became an honorary society in which membership was conferred solely for distinguished scholarship (Bailey, 1949). Its Greek-letter designation of phi, beta, and kappa stood for “love of learning is the guide of life” (Anson & Marchesani, 1991). Following this change of policy, Phi Beta Kappa emphasized the honorary nature of its membership and no longer considered itself in competition with social fraternities (Bailey, 1949). Phi Beta Kappa today is more widely distributed on college campuses across the United States than any other Greek-letter society and remains purely honorary in character (Anson & Marchesani, 1991). Yet this fraternity of 1776–1831 was the progenitor of our whole class of college fraternities and its numerous descendants bear all of its essential features (Horowitz, 1987). The Phi Beta Kappa of the late 18th century had all the earmarks of our present-day social fraternities: the charm and mystique of the secrecy, an esoteric ritual, oath of fidelity, a grip, a motto, a badge for external display, high ideals of morality, as well as ideals of high scholastic achievement and fellowship (Horowitz, 1987). Its founding as the first Greek-letter society provided the foundation for today’s proliferation of the college fraternity (Bailey, 1949). This was true for women’s fraternities as well (Caple, 1998). As young women were gradually admitted to colleges across the United States after the Civil War ended, women craved the same type of outside-the-classroom fraternal experience that men were creating through Greek-lettered organizations (Caple, 1998). Thus, women established their own fraternities that were solely for the purpose of advancing women forward within institutions of higher education. As fraternities and sororities formed, campus housing during the early era of campus life left a growing number of students living in boarding houses rather than in dormitories because of a shortage in the availability of on-campus housing. By the middle of the 19th century, a change occurred on the American campus that caused fraternities to acquire a secondary characteristic: the fraternity house (Dartmouth College, 1936). More students had greater personal wealth than in earlier periods and could afford to board in fraternity houses. The earliest example of a fraternity house was at the University of Michigan, where Chi Psi built a 20-by-14-foot log cabin in 1846. Although not used for living, it was the site of meetings where its membership spent a considerable amount of their outside time. This marks the first instance of the fraternity as a social living group and the end to the fraternity as a social outlet (Bailey, 1949).

8

histor ical foundations

Even though students could now better afford housing, due to economic factors and the rapid growth of attendees, a number of colleges were financially ill-equipped to maintain housing for their students (Dartmouth College, 1936). Consequently, campuses were ringed with private boarding houses where students secured their own lodging and meals (Dartmouth College, 1936). For fraternities and sororities, owning and maintaining property required the cooperation of the alumni, many of whom in the past had simply graduated and disappeared (Hering, 1931). Eventually, alumni(ae) became involved with the management of the chapters because undergraduates were unable to maintain their living spaces properly (Dartmouth College, 1936). This indirectly benefited the colleges by keeping alumni interested and engaged in the affairs of their alma mater. Likewise, chapter ownership of these houses relieved many colleges and universities of the financial burden of building dormitories. For the college or university, fraternities had the practical benefit of housing people when an expanding college or university could not cope, and many institutions at the time relied on fraternities this way (Hering, 1931). This willingness on the part of sororities and fraternities to assume responsibility for housing gradually led to arrangements on the part of the institutions, such as “leased land” agreements, whereby the institution owned the land and the fraternity constructed the building (Hering, 1931). These complicated arrangements caused many social tensions between fraternities and their host institutions (Dartmouth College, 1936). This evolution of Greek chapter houses is exemplified by the author of an 1895 American University Magazine article on Dartmouth fraternities: The idea of chapter houses as it came from other colleges was discussed by many of the chapters, and the prevalent belief was that a chapter house would tend to isolate its occupants from the rest of the college, or worse still, might create factions in college affairs. The Dartmouth man has always looked with abhorrence upon anything savoring of an aristocracy. Gradually there has come a change in the attitude of the students toward this question, not that they have weakened in principle, but it appears that the chapter house does not destroy the unity of the College. (Dartmouth College, 1936, p. 56)

This move mirrored a national change in meaning. Fraternities had previously been shifting to an outlook that valued socializing more than secrecy and the fellowship of literary debate. The new emphasis was on social opportunities and associations one could have in college. Faculty member Ashton Willard observed this change in 1897, noting that “the students who belong to these organizations have close social relationships with each other, and find it agreeable to be quartered under the same roof ” (p. 45). Willard commented on the architectural component of this shift to chapter houses. The “house” concept is evident with nonhoused chapters as well. Chapters substituted

fr ater nities and soror ities as a student movement

9

the word house for the word chapter, as in “What house do you belong to?” This expression is common today even where there are no housed chapters (Horowitz, 1987). This paradigm shift of the Greek organization as a group that has a close fraternal bond through esoteric laws to a social living group that ate and lived together marks the beginning of the modern era of collegiate Greek life (Horowitz, 1987). This historical evolution by fraternities has transitioned them into a form radically different from their ancestors. In the contemporary context fraternities are social fellowship groups assembled by values, rites of passage, and rituals that remain abstruse from the rest of campus. They provide social opportunities, leadership training, and philanthropic efforts for their members. Although there may be significant elements of fraternities that remain esoteric, what has been visible to the remainder of society at large as well as other undergraduate students are the results of alcohol-infused hazing incidents and consistent public displays of alcohol use (Kuh & Arnold, 1993; Wechsler, Kuh, & Davenport, 1996). Members of the Greek system are more likely to engage in excessive drinking (Baer, 1994). Higher levels of alcohol use are seen among members of fraternities and sororities as opposed to nonmembers (Goodwin, 1989). Greek alcohol abuse also includes related negative effects of alcohol misuse. Previous research indicates that many related problems exist within the cultures of fraternities and sororities on American college campuses associated with alcohol (Pascarella, Edison, & Whitt, 1996; Wechsler et al., 1996).

History of Alcohol Use Alcohol and its tertiary effects have influenced institutional policies in postsecondary education around the globe for more than 800 years (Cowley, 1934; Stewart, 1962). In the United States, alcohol use by undergraduate university students has been present on college campuses since the era of the colonial college. Early colonial institutions such as Harvard, Yale, and William and Mary copied their English progenitors and served alcoholic libations to faculty and students between meals in the eating clubs and the dining halls (Warner, 1970). During this period, students as well as faculty and administrators were free to consume alcohol with little restriction, as saloons and bars peppered the outskirts of the colonial campus. However, this dramatically changed during the twentieth century (Warner, 1970). The temperance movement coupled with prohibitionist sentiment of the second decade of the 20th century dried up the taps. Student groups supported this as they protested against “demon rum.” Students self-regulated and formed militias against violation of the Eighteenth Amendment, which banned the sale and distribution of alcohol, thereby legally banning alcohol in the United States. This was famously done at Cornell, Harvard, Michigan, and the University of California, Berkeley. With this

10

histor ical foundations

student support and militant fervor against alcohol, alcohol became rare at college campuses and access was limited. With surreptitious trafficking of beer and liquor just as commonplace by entrepreneurial college students as it was in the larger society, drinking after football games and at fraternity parties did not cease. However, this period would conclude with the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (Warner, 1970). In 1933, the prohibition era ended as did the precursor era of the evening pint with dinner. It is also important to consider the in loco parentis philosophy of student oversight by administrators and faculty during this time. Students nonetheless began to consume alcohol in large quantities, specifically at sporting events and fraternity houses in the 1930s and into the 1940s (Warner, 1970). Despite understanding the stiff penalties and consequences for alcohol misuse, students continued their penchant for alcohol. Although the in loco parentis role of colleges, the university acting in place of a parent, was prevalent at the beginning of the 20th century, it began to diminish after World War II (Wechsler, Seibring, Liu, & Ahl, 2004). Students responded to this increased freedom with greater alcohol consumption. One of the earliest studies on college student alcohol use surveyed traditional undergraduate students in the late 1940s and early 1950s and provides validity to this phenomenon and its impact on alcohol (Straus & Bacon, 1953). It was discovered that 74% of students admitted to having consumed alcohol at some point in their lives. This conclusion was drawn from a sample of 15,747 students at 27 participating institutions. This role of the university acting in place of a parent all but disappeared at most colleges by the late 1960s. The decline and eventual evaporation of in loco parentis occurred simultaneously with the lowering of the minimum drinking age to 18. Beginning in the 1970s the pendulum swung in favor of increasing the minimum drinking age. As the more experimental attitudes of the 1960s faded, the states were concerned with the role of alcohol in motor vehicle fatalities (Wechsler et al., 2004). Later studies by Weschler and McFadden (1979), Gonzales (1986), and Johnson, O’Malley, and Bachman (1986) demonstrated the increasing trend of alcohol use by college students during the 1970s and 1980s. This increase in alcohol consumption was also coupled with an increase in motor vehicle accidents reportedly related to alcohol misuse (Wechsler et al., 2004). The response to this included new legislation and mandates by the federal government. It has only been in the last 25 years that colleges and universities have been forced to cope with the issue of alcohol misuse on college and university campuses across the country. The federal government enacted the Federal Uniform Drinking Age Act of 1984 (23 U.S.C. § 158), mandating a change in the minimum drinking age from 18 to 21 (Chaloupka & Wechsler, 1996). With the passage of this act, each state or commonwealth was required to increase its minimum legal drinking age for the sale, distribution, or consumption of all alcoholic beverages (Chaloupka & Wechsler, 1996). The penalty for noncompliance was a decrease in allocations for federal highway funding. However,

fr ater nities and soror ities as a student movement

11

colleges and universities were not required to engage in compulsory enforcement or to develop policies until five years later. In 1989, amendments to the federal Drug-Free Schools and Campuses Act (20 U.S.C. § 1011i) mandated that colleges develop policies to prevent the illegal use of drugs and alcohol on campus as well as enforce the minimum drinking age which had previously been increased to 21 (Wechsler et al., 2004). Beginning in the mid-1990s, binge drinking became a subject of national attention, following a number of highly publicized student deaths and subsequent litigations (Wechsler et al., 2004). To address this challenge, most colleges and universities reassessed their approaches to student alcohol use (Reisberg, 1998). Institutions developed more explicit guidelines and policies to address these persistent problems (Wechsler et al., 2004). Moreover, this historical relationship of alcohol and the university reflects a pendulum. It begins on the left in serving students libations and immediately moves to the right with prohibition. The pendulum now rests in the middle, where regulation and expectations of programmatic enforcement and education are preset. This binary relationship of love and hate with alcohol as “demon rum” has generated much interest in the form of research solely dedicated to the study of the use of alcohol by undergraduate college students. The changes in legislation have facilitated the study of college student alcohol use and research has produced large data sets to track, monitor, and examine. Within this approach and these changes in alcohol consumption laws, many have cited college fraternities as the root cause or as a prime example of alcohol misuse by traditional undergraduate students on American college campuses (Kuh, Pacarella, & Wechsler, 1996). College student life has intertwined with alcohol since the inception of higher education (Baer, Kivlahan, Blume, McKnight, & Marlatt, 2001; Capone, Wood, Borsari, & Laird, 2007; Wechsler, Davenport, Dowdall, Moeykens, & Castillo, 1994). Although much of the research dates within the past 35 years, some scholars suggest alcohol behavior has been synonymous with student life since the inception of higher education. Several studies suggest alcohol use among sorority women and fraternity men is greater than the average student population (Alva, 1998; Goodwin, 1992; Pace & McGrath, 2002; Tampke, 1990). Although the amount of literature suggesting the connection is strong, it must examine secondary factors to understand the true impact of Greek affiliation on student alcohol use. First, studies suggest students living in Greek-affiliated housing consume alcohol at a higher level than non-Greek students (Wechsler, Kuh, & Davenport, 2009). Could the increased use of alcohol by affiliated students in these studies be more related to living together than membership in a fraternity/sorority? There is room for argument here to suggest that living in common increases contact among students, which can increase opportunities for alcohol consumption. Perhaps the frequency of contact is more related to alcohol use than membership in a Greek organization.

12

histor ical foundations

Second, research has indicated alcohol consumption is impacted by peer influence or critical thinking ability (Trolian, An, & Pascarella, 2016; Wechsler et al., 1994). Could increased drinking be the result of peer interaction and not specific membership in a Greek organization? Studies have suggested students who are members of athletic teams and musical performing groups have a higher rate of drinking than students not engaged in those activities (Leichliter, Meilman, Presley, & Cashin, 1998). Could the higher level of drinking in Greek organizations, specifically fraternities, be explained as a subset of membership in any organization? Let’s be clear that drinking has been a problem in higher education, but can membership in an organization be cited as a cause? Finally, some research which has indicated an increased level of drinking among fraternity and sorority students also suggested a higher level of consumption among first-year and sophomore students as opposed to juniors and seniors (Fuertes & Hoffman, 2016). A similar argument can be made here. Could the higher drinking levels of first- and second-year students be attributed to their year in college more so than membership in organizations? This argument gains traction when you consider many students begin alcohol use prior to arriving at college (Alva, 1998; Capone et al., 2007). Is it realistic to blame fraternities and sororities for alcohol use and abuse if many students begin using alcohol before becoming members of Greek organizations?

History of Sororities When Harvard College was chartered in 1636, it enrolled only men. It would be another 200 years before women entered higher education (Rudolph, 1962). Throughout the 1800s, the manner in which women were educated differed throughout the country. Coordinate and affiliated women’s institutions, including Radcliffe College, Pembroke College, and Barnard College, were established on the East Coast as a way for the Ivy League institutions to educate women. These women’s colleges differed from the southern female academies and seminaries. Church-affiliated institutions dotted the rural landscape of what was in the mid-1800s considered the West, but is today called the Midwest. The Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862 opened the door wider for women to attend state-funded institutions (Solomon, 1985). Life was not easy for those early women students and their male counterparts were sometimes at odds with the females’ academic achievements (Oliphant, 1965). In 1870 there were 582 institutions of higher education in the United States; 29% were coeducational and 12% were female only. More than half—59%—were male only (Solomon, 1985). Of the more than 3,000,000 18-to-21-year-old women in the United States in 1870, only 11,000 of them were enrolled in any form of higher education (Turk, 2004). Establishing sororities was a way for women to support one another in their academic pursuits and to provide women with a congenial group with which to study and live (Martin, 1907).

fr ater nities and soror ities as a student movement

13

Of the 26 National Panhellenic Conference (NPC) member organizations, 15 share a founding institution with at least one other group. Some of these have catchy names: Monmouth Duo (Pi Beta Phi and Kappa Kappa Gamma); Syracuse Triad (Alpha Phi, Gamma Phi Beta, and Alpha Gamma Delta); Farmville Four (Kappa Delta, Sigma Sigma Sigma, Zeta Tau Alpha, and Alpha Sigma Alpha), and Macon Magnolias (Alpha Delta Pi and Phi Mu), whereas two other pairs do not. Kappa Alpha Theta and Alpha Chi Omega were established at DePauw University and Alpha Omicron Pi and Alpha Epsilon Phi share Barnard College as a founding place (Anson & Marchesani, 1991). Although all 26 NPC groups are known colloquially as sororities, more than half are officially women’s fraternities. In 1882, the word sorority was suggested by Syracuse University professor Frank Smalley on the occasion of the founding of Gamma Phi Beta’s second chapter at the University of Michigan (Simonson, 1963). These women’s organizations had their beginnings in the post–Civil War years, when the men’s fraternities were springing back to life after the dormancy of the war years, and more men’s fraternities were being formed. It should be noted that Alpha Delta Pi and Phi Mu trace their heritage to the 1850s, as the Adelphean Society and the Philomathean Society, respectively, but neither expanded beyond Wesleyan College until the early 1900s, after the founding of NPC (Anson & Marchesani, 1991). The first women’s fraternity to extend beyond the founding campus was I.C. Sorosis—today known by its original Greek motto, Pi Beta Phi. The youngest of the NPC groups, Sigma Delta Tau and Delta Phi Epsilon, were founded in 1917. These oldest and youngest NPC groups were presented with different challenges and the early histories of organizations founded 50 years apart must be examined independently, for the world of higher education had changed greatly in those five decades. For instance, there were few Catholic, Jewish, or African American women enrolled in colleges in 1867, especially the church-affiliated institutions, where several of the early NPC organizations were founded. The younger NPC member organizations include those that were established for Jewish women when they were excluded from the established groups (Sanua, 2003). A Catholic priest helped found Theta Phi Alpha to provide them with the opportunity to experience sorority life when Catholic women were not invited to join elsewhere (Anson & Marchesani, 1991). Additionally, the four National Pan-Hellenic Council (NPHC) sororities were founded between 1908 and 1922. The first three, Alpha Kappa Alpha, Delta Sigma Theta, and Zeta Phi Beta, were founded at Howard University, and Sigma Gamma Rho, the youngest, came to life at Butler University (Anson & Marchesani, 1991). The NPHC sororities will be discussed in chapter 12. In April 1867, 12 Monmouth College female students in an Illinois prairie town organized I.C. Sorosis, which they modeled upon the men’s fraternities at the college (Robson, 1968). The organization’s Greek motto, Pi Beta Phi, officially became its name in 1888, although some chapters began using it earlier in order to compete with the other Greek-letter organizations. A second chapter was chartered in 1868 and a third in 1869

14

histor ical foundations

(Helmick, 1915). Thus, Pi Beta Phi is recognized as the first women’s fraternity based on the men’s fraternity model and is first in the NPC rotation, the manner in which officers serve as NPC chairmen. Kappa Alpha Theta, the first Greek-letter organization for women, was founded in January 1870 at Indiana Asbury University (now DePauw University) in Greencastle, Indiana (Dodge, 1930). Kappa Alpha Theta founder Bettie Locke (Hamilton), the first woman to enroll in the institution, later said of her time there: “We were all refined, good girls from good families, and we realized somehow that we weren’t going to college just for ourselves, but for all the girls who would follow after us—if we could just win out” (quoted in Manhart, 1962, p. 82). Later that year, in October, Kappa Kappa Gamma made its debut at Monmouth College (Burton-Roth & Whiting-Westermann, 1932). In 1873, Delta Gamma was founded at the Lewis School for Girls in Oxford, Mississippi (Delta Gamma Fraternity, 1966). It was brought north by George Banta, a Phi Delta Theta who was entrusted with establishing Delta Gamma chapters in suitable institutions. The first chapter he established was at Franklin College, in Franklin, Indiana, where he was a student (Stevenson, Carvill, & Shepard, 1973). Between 1867 and 1881, Pi Beta Phi, Kappa Alpha Theta, Kappa Kappa Gamma, and Delta Gamma were the only NPC groups extending beyond the founding campus. These four set the stage for the modern fraternity system (Martin, 1907). The establishment of the fraternity magazine helped spread the ideals of the women’s fraternity as well as telling its history and highlighting the accomplishments of its members and alumnae. The first women’s fraternity magazine, The Golden Key, now The Key of Kappa Kappa Gamma, was authorized by the organization’s 1881 convention and the first issue was published in May 1882 (Burton-Roth & Whiting-Westermann, 1932). The Anchora, Delta Gamma’s magazine, made its debut in 1884, followed by The Arrow of Pi Beta Phi and Kappa Alpha Theta in 1885 (Martin, 1907). The Alpha Phi Quarterly was first published in 1888. The Northwestern University chapter was in charge of the project and the purpose of the magazine was to report “the entire workings of the Society, the growth of each chapter, as well as the whereabouts of absent sisters to whom we have pledged undying fidelity” (Thomson, 1943, p. 54). The organizations also helped members who did not live in town find suitable housing. Often houses would be rented and a member’s relative would be enlisted to act as chaperone to coordinate the household duties, as well as meal planning and preparation. The Alpha Phi chapter at Syracuse University was the first sorority to build and own its own home when it dedicated 207 University Place in 1886 (Thomson, 1943). Kappa Kappa Gamma invited Pi Beta Phi, Kappa Alpha Theta, Kappa Kappa Gamma, Delta Gamma, Alpha Phi, Gamma Phi Beta, and Delta Delta Delta to meet in Boston in 1891 to discuss the establishment of ground rules for recruiting members. Much was discussed, but little was accomplished (Burton-Roth & Whiting-Westermann, 1932). In 1902, there were several institutions with at least five of the seven sororities which had been invited to the 1891 meeting: the University of California-Berkeley, Boston

fr ater nities and soror ities as a student movement

15

University, Women’s College of Baltimore (Goucher College), University of Michigan, University of Minnesota, University of Nebraska, Northwestern University, Stanford University, Syracuse University, and the University of Wisconsin. Additionally, Cornell University, DePauw University, Indiana University, Ohio State University, and Simpson College had four chapters of these sororities (Anson & Marchesani, 1991). Alpha Phi invited the same organizations as well as Alpha Chi Omega and Chi Omega to a meeting in Chicago in May 1902. The latter two sororities were unable to send representatives, so the original seven met again and this time they were successful in starting the process of working together for the greater good. Subsequent meetings took place and other national sororities joined the group. In the early years, the organization’s name changed a bit, and the body deliberated on whether it was a congress or a conference. The last change in NPC membership occurred in 1971 when Iota Alpha Pi, a traditionally Jewish sorority, dissolved. In the early years of NPC, a distinction was made between collegiate institutions and normal schools (teacher training institutions). In 1915, the Association of Pedagogical Sororities, later known as the Association of Education Sororities (AES), was founded as an umbrella organization for the sororities at normal schools (Martin, 1923). Before World War II when these institutions were distinct and separate, NPC bylaws forced the closure of any chapters at normal schools, including the founding chapters of Kappa Delta and Zeta Tau Alpha (Leonard, 1958). NPC accepted the six AES groups into associate membership status in 1947, with the intention of the AES groups becoming full-fledged NPC members, which they did in 1951 (Stinson, 1956). By 1960, three AES groups had merged with NPC organizations. Today, only Sigma Sigma Sigma, Alpha Sigma Alpha, and Alpha Sigma Tau remain as nonmembers of NPC.

History of Discrimination in Fraternities and Sororities and the Formation of Culturally Based Greek-Letter Organizations Much like America generally, early colleges catered education to elite, White male students. It was years until this actively changed; however, Thomas Jefferson’s founding of the University of Virginia in 1818 was a step in removing socioeconomic class from attendance requirements. He believed education should be available to all citizens and the mode of study adaptable to students. Unfortunately, faculty at Yale pushed back on this idea with the Yale Report in 1828. The faculty reasserted the importance of the classics and citizen education. Although they may have attempted to preserve the idea of education in their minds, their efforts delayed student access in the United States (Rudolph, 1962). Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson’s vision of having an institution for all students was flawed with disregard to the state of the nation regarding race.

16

histor ical foundations

Higher education continued to diversify with the assistance of legislation for minority populations (Ambler, 1993; Thelin, 2017; Westmeyer 1997). The federal government sought to address the issue of access with the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890. Although the first act expanded public education throughout the country, states applied funding in an exclusionary manner, continuing to restrict education from minorities. States expanded access in terms of adding locations and perhaps addressing socioeconomic differences, but the racial divide persisted. The government attempted to address this issue with the second Morrill Act, indicating states must provide equal access for minority students in order to receive funds. Unfortunately, states were able to argue providing separate but equal institutions met the burden of this requirement. Although the continued separation of populations negated substantial progress in terms of access, it did provide the foundations for historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs). These institutions, which truly provided education to all, along with established fraternity organizations, led to the creation of African American fraternal organizations, also called Black Greek-Letter organizations (BGLOs). BGLOs supported new connections between students. These connections created shared experiences for students, which impacted retention rates (Erwin, Jones, Kilian, & Woodie, 2004; McClure, 2006). Students were more likely to return to campus due to feelings of engagement. The involvement in BGLOs impacted the classroom as well. Students were more dedicated to their studies and succeeded to a greater degree with a system of support. This success appeared linked to involvement and engagement theories developed decades later (Astin, 1993; Kuh, 2001). Cornell University, like few other Ivy League universities, admitted Black students. During this time, these students actively had to fight isolation on campus and in the community. When the founders of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity entered Cornell University in 1905, they were seven of eleven African Americans who arrived that year. In all, there were sixteen black males at the university (Bradley, 2008). To this effect, the Black students at Cornell did not live in the residence halls, but rather took residence with the community of Black residents of Ithaca, where they found support. Henry Arthur Callis and George Biddle Kelley worked in two fraternity houses as waiters, and it was this experience that made them believe that their literary society with other Black students at Cornell could use Greek letters for their name, and even become a fraternity. C.C. Poindexter who was an upperclassman student and leader of the literary society was opposed to the idea of forming a fraternity; however, on December 4, 1906, when C.C. Poindexter resigned from the literary society, the membership voted for the society to become Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity (Bradley, 2008). By the end of 1907, the fraternity had grown by chartering its second chapter, the Beta chapter, to Howard University. It was at Howard that the movement of BGLOs blossomed. The HBCUs were the birthplace of Alpha Kappa Alpha in 1908, Omega Psi Phi in 1911, Delta Sigma Theta in 1913, Phi Beta Sigma in 1914, and Zeta Phi Beta in 1920.

fr ater nities and soror ities as a student movement

17

These organizations and other Black Greek-letter groups created a national governing council, the National Pan-Hellenic Council (NPHC). Contrary to the North-American Interfraternity Conference (NIC), the NPHC coordinates with both fraternities and sororities. The formation of these groups is directly linked to the ideas of exclusion in early higher education systems and the continued discrimination toward Black students on college campuses. These students observed current fraternity structure and sought similar connections. These groups served several functions which enhance the impact of Greek life. BGLOs have contributed to the voice of social issues, specifically regarding inclusion (Gasman, 2011). The formation and growth of these organizations coincided with key historical events. The creation of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) by W.E.B. DuBois in 1909 provided a response to violent racial incidents across the country. However, many ignore the importance this group had for higher education. Dubois’s efforts led to an increase in African American faculty members and the growth of rights legislation (Sullivan, 2009). NPHC organizations would appear to have been important partners in the effort to recruit a diverse population for these roles. These fraternal groups supported inclusive efforts and recommended members take appropriate stands against injustice on campuses (Hughey & Hernandez, 2013). These students were viewed as campus leaders due to this effort. Although the NAACP brought conversations of racial disparities to the forefront, and perhaps created opportunities for BGLOs to operate openly, the country remained divided. Fraternities were still able to discriminate and use race as a reason to deny membership. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 provided additional support by addressing the separate but equal standard present throughout the United States (Thelin, 2017; Westmeyer, 1997). The act held organizations, including colleges and universities, accountable for exclusionary tactics toward individuals based on race or sex. The legislation paved the way for later equality statutes later in history. Perhaps more importantly, it provided additional leadership and voice to BGLOs. These groups could now impact social change beyond the borders of their own campuses. They were able to communicate more freely and recruit openly. Although racial incidents continued to occur on college campuses, more protections were in place for students to gather, promote inclusion, and support one another. The increase in diverse populations created a need for additional professionals with expertise in developing issues. Higher education administrators were needed to connect to the students and create understanding among faculty and administration (Chavez, Guido-DiBrito, & Mallory, 2003; Magolda, 2003). Multicultural affairs offices and affinity spaces provided an opportunity to educate the student body, faculty, and community. These professionals also supported fraternal organizations. Unfortunately, many of these professionals were looked at as experts in all areas of diversity, when they themselves might still be learning methods of supporting students (Hurtado & Dey, 1997; Longerbeam, Sedlacek, Balon, & Alimo, 2005).

18

histor ical foundations

Although the college and university campuses were becoming increasingly more diverse, the fraternal community was not reflective of that. The rapid growth in Black Greek-letter organizations is not parallel to [the growth in] Latinx Greek-letter organizations or Asian American Greek-letter organizations (Badruddin, 2017). Now defunct, Alpha Zeta Fraternity was an organization that catered to Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking students at Cornell University (Fajardo, 2015). And although numerous other organizations with a Latinx interest were formed, none succeeded to sustainability until Phi Iota Alpha Fraternity. Phi Iota Alpha was an organization that had political interest—more specifically, to liberate Puerto Rico from the United States. When members of the fraternity did not agree with its political view, they split from Phi Iota Alpha to start their own organization, and both organizations eventually went defunct. The Latinx Greek movement did not gain momentum until the mid-1970s in New Jersey, when Lambda Theta Phi Fraternity and Lambda Theta Alpha Sorority were founded at Kean College; both organizations advocated for the Spanish-speaking student population to gain access to translators. The idea of Latinx student advocacy through fraternal organizations, starting at Kean, spread and in the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s more students began to organize on campuses. New organizations were founded and at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, the defunct organization Phi Iota Alpha would see a rebirth. Similarities can be seen in the Asian fraternity movement, with organizations forming at the turn of the century and eventually ceasing operations or morphing into different types of organizations. It was not until Pi Alpha Phi Fraternity in 1929 and Sigma Omicron Pi Sorority in 1930 that organizations provided the fraternal experience to the Asian collegiate community; however, both specifically catered to Chinese students. As the Asian population in America grew along with racism against the community, new organizations also formed. These organizations endured the Depression, World War II, and internment. The Asian diaspora is vast, with hundreds of languages, compared to Latinx organizations, which can relate in a unified language and create ritual and traditions in Spanish; the Asian fraternal community is forced to utilize English as a common language. For this reason we find Asian fraternities and sororities identifying with a particular culture or region. The story of Asian fraternities and sororities is further nuanced by the formation of South Asian Greek-letter organizations in 1992, with Delta Phi Beta, and with momentum building in 1998, with Delta Epsilon Psi (Badruddin, 2017). The formation of the Asian Greek Alliance, now known as the National APIDA (Asian Pacific Islander Desi American) Panhellenic Association, is the first push to unify fraternal organizations that are a part of the Asian diaspora.

fr ater nities and soror ities as a student movement

19

History of Umbrella Organizations Although the federal oversight role in American higher education stepped up with the report requirements of the Morrill Act and other land-grant legislation, higher education also adhered strongly to a tradition of internal or institutional regulation, a strong custom and practice of the medieval university (Thelin, 2017). In American higher education, voluntary peer association and review emerged as a primary vehicle for promoting quality and conformity to mutually beneficial standards of business, thereby staving off negative consequences such as institutional or government regulation. In terms of college student life, major reforms to student life occurred as voluntary associations emerged to help regulate the excesses of sororities, intercollegiate athletics, and fraternities—for example, giving rise to the organizations known today as the NPC, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the NIC, and the NPHC (Thelin, 2017; Wells Dolan & Thelin, 2002). More councils formed from the need to support Latinx, APIDA, and multicultural organizations.

Future Considerations The growth of student diversity in higher education due to policies and legalities expanded the reach of Greek life in the United States. New organizations formed with a new focus on student identity as founding principles. Other student identities, including sexual and gender identity, first-generation students, and students with disabilities, further challenge fraternity inclusion. These groups provided fraternities opportunities to become viable to multiple populations and perhaps break ties with a mindset that excludes individuals and identities.

Conclusion The development of Greek life in the United States is closely tied to the history of higher education in the country. The shift in power from faculty to students created an opening to organize fraternal groups. These groups fought through many challenges to grow and expand their reach. The creation of the NIC provided linkage between fraternities into shared purpose. Although the group did not exude any control over individual chapters, its existence increased accountability and aided in policy development. Federal policies provided improved access for marginalized populations. New fraternal organizations supported discussion of social issues and inclusion. The formation of the NPHC provided avenues for these groups to exercise a collective voice. These organizations also provided connections for students, which increased student retention.

20

histor ical foundations

These groups continue their active connection to social issues today, both on campus and nationwide. A stereotype of IFC fraternities and NPC sororities is that they are synonymous with alcohol consumption and hazing incidents on college campuses (Nuwer, 1990; 1999). Although research suggested a connection between these student issues and fraternities, it is vital to consider other historical factors. Alcohol use and abuse has been a part of higher education since its inception. Many factors contribute to use such as year in school, residence, and organizational membership. Hazing predates the formation of fraternities and evidence suggests began with faculty members (Nuwer, 1990, 1999; Sweet, 1999). In addition, hazing practices may be learned behaviors as opposed to chapter mandates (Sweet, 1999). We, as faculty and staff, must intervene and guide student development away from such practices. Although we cannot ignore the links between these issues and Greek life, we must also be mindful of other impacting factors. Finally, we have discussed student engagement and legal implications connected to fraternities. These issues are vital for administrators as they consider student expectations, federal mandates, and increased competition. Fraternities provide an engagement experience not only to members, but the community as a whole. These organizations can connect diverse student groups, assuming they have appropriate leadership and direction. The key legal implication regarding campus fraternities is liability. Both private and public institutions can avoid litigation by acting on known information to prevent dangerous incidents. Colleges may also cite legal precedent once charges are filed. We cannot ignore the historical links between Greek life and higher education in the United States. This chapter provides only a snapshot of important connections. We must continue to examine how the past, present, and future of higher education will impact fraternities on campus and vice versa. How can we support each other’s mission? We must find a common ground, as elimination of Greek life is not a feasible option. Removal of chapters, or fraternity life entirely, could have a detrimental impact on our college system.

References Altbach, P. G. (1989). Perspectives on student political activism. Comparative Education, 25(1), 97–110. Alva, S. A. (1998). Self-reported alcohol use of college fraternity and sorority members. Journal of College Student Development, 39(1), 3–10. Ambler, D. A. (1993). Developing internal management structures. In M. J. Barr (Ed.), The handbook of student affairs administration (pp. 107–120). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Anson, J., & Marchesani, R. F. Jr. (Eds.). (1991). Baird’s manual of American college fraternities (20th ed.). Indianapolis, IN: Baird’s Manual Foundation. Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297–308.

fr ater nities and soror ities as a student movement

21

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Badruddin, B. (2017). Lions, tigers, and South Asian Greeks: Oh, my! The opportunity for more research! Texas Education Review, 5(2), 17-20. Baer, J. S. (1994). Effects of college residence on perceived norms for alcohol consumption: An examination of the first year in college. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 5(1), 43–50. Baer, J. S., Kivlahan, D. R., Blume, A. W., McKnight, P., & Marlatt, G. A. (2001). Brief intervention for heavy-drinking college students: 4-year follow-up and natural history. American Journal of Public Health, 91(8), 1310–1316. Baily, H. J. (1949). Baird’s manual of American college fraternities (15th ed.). Menasha, WI: George Banta Publishing. Baird, W. R. (1912). Baird’s manual of American college fraternities (8th ed.). New York, NY: College Fraternity Publishing. Bradley, S. (2008). The first and finest: The founders of Alpha Phi Alpha fraternity. In G. Parks (Ed.), Black Greek-letter organizations in the twenty-first century: Our fight has just begun (pp. 19–40). Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky. Brubacher, J. S., & Rudy, W. (1997). Higher education in transition: A history of American colleges and universities (4th ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. Burton-Roth, F., & Whiting-Westermann, M. C. (1932). History of Kappa Kappa Gamma Fraternity: 1870–1930. Columbus, OH: Kappa Kappa Gamma. Caple, R. B. (1998). To mark the beginning: A social history of college student affairs. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Capone, C., Wood, M. D., Borsari, B., & Laird, R. D. (2007). Fraternity and sorority involvement, social influences, and alcohol use among college students: A prospective examination. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 21(3), 316–327. Chaloupka F. J., & Wechsler H. (1996). Binge drinking in college: The impact of price, availability, and alcohol control policies. Contemporary Economic Policy, 112-124. Chavez, A. F., Guido-DiBrito, F., & Mallory, S. L. (2003). Learning to value the “other”: A framework of individual diversity development. Journal of College Student Development, 44(4), 453–469. Cowley, W. H. (1934). The history of student residential housing. School and Society, 40, 705-764. Cullaty, B. (2011). The role of parental involvement in the autonomy development of traditional-age college students. Journal of College Student Development, 52(4), 425–439. Dartmouth College (1936). Survey of the social life in Dartmouth College: Fraternities. Dartmouth, NH: Dartmouth College Publications. Delta Gamma Fraternity. (1966). A history of Delta Gamma since 1873. n.p.: Author. Dodge, E. R. (1930). Sixty years in Kappa Alpha Theta. Menasha, WI: George Banta. Donaldson, J. O. (1967). A century of friendship in Pi Beta Phi 1867–1967. St. Louis, MO: Pi Beta Phi Fraternity. Erwin E., Jones, C., Kilian, T., & Woodie, L. (2004). Understanding satisfaction: The effect of black greek-letter organization membership on african american college students at a predominantly white institution. Journal of Indiana University Student Personnel Association, 1(1), 67–83. Fajardo, O. (2015). A brief history of international Latin American student fraternities: A movement that lasted 86 years (1889–1975). Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 14(1), 69–81. doi:10.1177/1538192714548928

22

histor ical foundations

Fuertes, J. N., & Hoffman, A. (2016). Alcohol consumption and abuse among college students: Alarming rates among the best and the brightest. College Student Journal, 50(2), 236–240. Gasman, M. (2011). Passive activism: African American fraternities and sororities and the push for civil rights. In M. W. Hughey & G. S. Parks (Eds.), Black Greek letter organizations 2.0: New directions in the study of African American fraternities and sororities (pp. 27–48). Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi. Gonzales, G. (1986). Trends in alcohol knowledge and drinking patterns among college students: 1981-1985. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27, 496-499. Goodwin, L. (1989). Explaining alcohol consumption and related experiences among fraternity and sorority members. Journal of College Student Development, 30(2), 448-458. Goodwin, L. (1992). Alcohol and drug use in fraternities and sororities. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 40(1), 39–41. Handlin, O., & Handlin, M. (1974). The American college and American culture: Socialization as a function of higher education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Harris, J. & Mitchell, V. C. (2008). A narrative critique of black greek letter organizations and social action. In G. S. Parks Black Greek-letter organizations in the 21st century: Our fight has just begun, Edited by: (pp. 143–168). Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky. Helmick, E. A. C. (1915). The history of Pi Beta Phi Fraternity. Boston, MA: David D. Nickerson and Company. Hering, O. (1931). Designing and building the chapter house. Menasha, WI: George Banta Publishing. Horowitz, H. L. (1987). Campus life: Undergraduate cultures from the end of the eighteenth century to the present. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Hughey, M. W., & Hernandez, M. (2013). Black, Greek, and read all over: Newspaper coverage of African-American fraternities and sororities, 1980–2009. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(2), 298–319. Hurtado, S., & Dey, H. L. (1997). Achieving the goals of multiculturalism and diversity. In M. W. Peterson, D. D. Dill, L. A. Mets, & Associates (Eds.), Planning and management for a changing environment: A handbook on redesigning postsecondary institutions (pp. 405–431). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Johnston, L. D., O'Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G. (1986). Drug use among high school students, college students, and other young adults: National trends through 1985. Rockville, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse. Kezar, A. (2010). Faculty and staff partnering with student activists: Unexplored terrains of interaction and development. Journal of College Student Development, 51(5), 451–480. Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning: Inside the national survey of student engagement. Change, 33(3), 10–17, 66. Kuh, G. D., & Arnold, J. C. (1993). Liquid bonding: A cultural analysis of the role of alcohol in fraternity pledgeship. Journal of College Student Development, 34, 327–334. Leichliter, J. S., Meilman, P. W., Presley, C. A., & Cashin, J. R. (1998). Alcohol use and related consequences among students with varying levels of involvement in college athletics. Journal of American College Health, 46(6), 257–262. Leonard, L. (1958). National Panhellenic Conference: An historical record. St. Paul, MN: Leland Publishers. Longerbeam, S. D., Sedlacek, W. E., Balon, D. G., & Alimo, C. (2005). The multicultural myth: A study of multicultural program organizations at three public research universities. Journal of College Student Development, 46(1), 88–98.

fr ater nities and soror ities as a student movement

23

Magolda, M. B. B. (2003). Identity and learning: Student affairs’ role in transforming higher education. Journal of College Student Development, 44(2), 231–247. Manhart, G. B. (1962). DePauw through the years (Vol. 1). Greencastle, IN: DePauw University. Martin, I. S. (1907). The sorority handbook. Boston, MA: Author. Martin, I. S. (1923). The sorority handbook (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Author. McClure, S. M. (2006). Voluntary association membership: Black Greek men on a predominantly white campus. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(6), 1036–1057. Morgan, J. H. (1933). Dickenson College: The history of one hundred and fifty years 1783–1933. Carlisle, PA: Dickenson College. Nuwer, H. (1990). Broken pledges: The deadly rite of hazing. Atlanta, GA: Longstreet Press. Nuwer, H. (1999). Wrongs of passage: Fraternities, sororities, hazing, and binge drinking. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Oliphant, J. O. (1965). The rise of Bucknell University. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Pace, D., & McGrath, P. B. (2002). A comparison of drinking behaviors of students in Greek organizations and students active in a campus volunteer organization. NASPA Journal, 39, 217–232. Pascarella, E. T., Edison, M. I., & Whitt, E. J. (1996). Cognitive effects of Greek affiliation during the first year of college. NASPA Journal, 33(3), 242-259. Reisberg, L. (1998, December 4). When a student drinks illegally, should colleges call mom and dad? [Electronic version]. Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A39-A41. Robson, J. (Ed.). (1968). Baird’s manual of American college fraternities (18th ed.). Menasha, WI: The Collegiate Press. Rudolph, F. (1962). The American college and university, a history. New York, NY: Knopf. Sanua, M. R. (2003). Going Greek: Jewish college fraternities in the United States, 1895–1945. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press. Simonson, P. M. (1963). The history of Gamma Phi Beta, November 11, 1874–November 11, 1962. n.p.: Gamma Phi Beta. Solomon, B. M. (1985). In the company of educated women. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Stevenson, F. L., Carvill, B., & Shepard, M. A. D. (1973, Winter). A history of Delta Gamma since 1873. n.p.: Delta Gamma Fraternity. Stewart, C. (1962). The place of higher education in a changing society. In N. Sanford (Ed.) The American college (p. 910). New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Stinson, S. (1956). The years remembered of Sigma Sigma Sigma: The first 55 years 1898–1955. Menasha, WI: George Banta Company. Straus, R., & Bacon, S. (1953). Drinking in college. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Sullivan, P. (2009). Lift every voice: The NAACP and the making of the civil rights movement. New York, NY: The New Press. Sweet, S. (1999). Understanding fraternity hazing: Insights from symbolic interactionist theory. Journal of College Student Development, 40(4), 355–364. Tampke, D. R. (1990). Alcohol behavior, risk perception, and fraternity and sorority membership. NASPA Journal, 28, 71–77. Thelin, J. R. (2017). American higher education. New York, NY: Routledge. Thomson, R. S. (1943). History of Alpha Phi Fraternity: From the founding in 1872 through the year 1902. Norwood, MA: Alpha Phi Fraternity. Trolian, T. L, An, B. P., & Pascarella, E. T. (2016). Are there cognitive consequences of binge drinking in college? Journal of College Student Development, 57(8), 1009–1026.

24

histor ical foundations

Turk, D. B. (2004). Bound by a mighty vow: Sisterhood and women’s fraternities, 1870–1920. New York, NY: New York University Press. Warner, H. (1970). Alcohol trends in college life: Historical perspectives. In G. Maddox (Ed.), The domesticated drug: Drinking among collegians. New Haven, CT: College and University Press. Wechsler, H., Davenport, A., Dowdall, G. W., Moeykens, B., & Castillo, S. (1994). Health and behavioral consequences of binge drinking in college. Journal of the American Medical Association, 272, 1672–1677. Wechsler, H., Kuh, G., & Davenport, A. (1996). Fraternities, sororities and binge drinking: Results from a national study of American colleges. NASPA Journal, 33(4), 260–279. Wechsler, H., Kuh, G., & Davenport, A. E. (2009). Fraternities, sororities and binge drinking: Results from a national study of American colleges. NASPA Journal, 46(3), 395–416. Wechsler, H., & McFadden, M. (1979). Drinking among college students in New England: Extent, social correlates and consequences of alcohol use. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 49, 969–996 Wechsler, H., Seibring, M., Liu, I. C., Ahl, M. (2004). Colleges respond to student binge drinking: Reducing student demand or limiting access. Journal of American College Health, 52(4), 159–168. Wells Dolan, A., & Thelin, J. R. (2012). Southern higher education history: A synthesis and new directions for research. In J. C. Smart & M. B. Paulsen (Eds.) Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research (pp. 409–451). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer. Westmeyer, P. (1997). An analytical history of American higher education (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: C. C. Thomas.

chapter 2

History of Asian American Greek-Letter Organizations Bryan Dosono, Bilal Badruddin, and Vigor W. H. Lam

The First Wave: Navigating a New Frontier, Remembering the Homeland The first wave of Asian American Greek-Letter Organizations (AAGLOs) emerged in the early 1900s, with membership advancing a singular ethnic focus (predominantly Chinese) on the East Coast. Showing fierce loyalty to their native country, Chinese men in the early 1900s sought to use their American education to improve and modernize the economic conditions of their motherland (Davis, 2000). They carried over aspects of collectivist culture and Confucian philosophy in developing their system of kinship relations with other Chinese students through the framework of existing American fraternal organizations (Wan, 2003). Flip Flap Fraternity, formed in 1910 at Trinity College, was the first Chinese fraternity to exist at an American institution (Wan, 2003). The Chinese name of the fraternity is “Lan Chi” (蘭集). Lan (蘭) is the Chinese character for the orchid, which symbolizes purity and carries the meaning of joy. Chi (集) means to assemble and to succeed. Taken together, these two symbols connote a brotherhood of good friends (gold and orchids) and allude to the Chinese saying “When like hearts and minds meet, then friendship is as pure and true as Golden Orchids” (Wan, 2003). Rho Psi Fraternity, the first AAGLO to adopt Greek letters into its name, formed in 1916 at Cornell University (Rho Psi Annals, 1944). Now functioning as a coed organization, its Chinese name, Su Yu She, translates to the “Society for Respecting Friends.”

26

histor ical foundations

Both Flip Flap and Rho Psi focused on the advancement of their Chinese membership amid the social backdrop of their predominantly White institutions. Moreover, these organizations owned physical lodges in Asia and were intensely nationalistic. The following excerpt from the annals of Rho Psi Fraternity encapsulates the unyielding sense of Chinese nationalism that permeated the membership philosophy of early Chinese fraternities in America: To most of us, our future is in China, a new China with a raised standard of living. We must help in whatever part we can best participate. We must provide not only new ways of living, such as health and sanitation, but also new ways of thinking. We must not be consumptive but productive. We should put our best and not the worst foot forward. We must not always defend but attack together as a team. For only thus can we win the final victory—for our country and for Rho Psi.

The first wave of Chinese fraternities were created before the end of the First World War and functioned to build ties among Chinese-born members who would eventually return home to their motherland. However, shared themes of collectivism, innovation, and community engagement still resonate in modern-day AAGLOs.

The Second Wave: Enduring Exclusion, Isolating Internment The second wave of AAGLOs formed at the onset of the Great Depression up to the Second World War. Due to the discriminatory racial conditions of the period, Chinese and Japanese students were compelled to create their own fraternal organizations so that students of similar backgrounds could feel a sense of belonging in a nation that ostracized them. Pi Alpha Phi Fraternity was one of the first AAGLOs established on the West Coast, forming at the University of California, Berkeley, in 1929 for Chinese American men. In the same year, Chi Alpha Delta Sorority formed at the University of California, Los Angeles, and began as a sisterhood of Japanese American women. Sigma Omicron Pi Sorority was established at San Francisco State University shortly afterward in 1930 by Chinese American women. The original founding members of these organizations were not allowed to join the traditionally White fraternities and sororities on their campuses (Chen, 2009). Chinese students at the University of Michigan created their own support networks in the form of Alpha Lambda Fraternity in 1931 and Sigma Sigma Phi Sorority in 1935, bringing AAGLOs to the Midwest. Seeking to break free of the typical roles of restaurant and laundry work assigned to Chinese families at the time, Alpha Lambda incorporated professional development activities for their members who could not belong to American professional organizations due to their race (Moy, 1978).

History of Asian a mer ican gr eek-letter organizations

27

Fraternity enrollment across all universities experienced a major decline during the drafting period for World War II. Membership in AAGLOs experienced a hiatus during the Second World War as anti-Asian sentiments and perpetual foreigner tropes in America reached an all-time high during the period of Japanese internment. For instance, Gakusei Kai Fraternity, founded in 1920 at the University of Southern California, comprising Japanese student membership, underwent a period of forced inactivity during World War II when members were forcibly relocated to internment camps. Chi Alpha Delta suffered a similar fate and reorganized in 1946 after the conclusion of World War II (Brinton, 2010). In response to the growing anti-Japanese sentiment on American college campuses, Japanese women formed their own spaces of solidarity through the creation of two additional Japanese sororities: Sigma Phi Omega at the University of Southern California in 1949 and Theta Kappa Phi at the University of California, Los Angeles, in 1950. Across the Pacific Ocean, Korean students at the University of Hawaii at Manoa formed Phi Kappa Pi Fraternity in 1947 and Beta Beta Gamma Sorority in 1948. The latter of the two now exists as a cosmopolitan foundation of alumnae members, signaling a turn away from ethnic-specific fraternal organizations and toward the creation of AAGLOs that embrace the Pan-Asian movement.

The Third Wave: Remixing Racial Formations, Activating an Asian America The surge of race-based activism in the 1960s shaped the way Americans constructed minority identities and catalyzed the creation of pan-ethnic coalitions for diverse, yet related, ethnic groups. Born out of the American civil rights movement of the 1960s, the term Asian American was first used to unite a wide array of Asian nationalities, such as Chinese, Filipinos, and Japanese, under a common political umbrella (Espiritu, 1992), as these groups faced different, yet similar, discriminatory challenges. With Asian American activism gaining traction across university campuses, the creation of new AAGLOs shifted away from establishing organizations based on a particular ethnicity (e.g., Chinese or Japanese) and instead organized their efforts toward becoming an extension of the Pan-Asian movement. Beginning in the late 1980s, a burgeoning Asian American student population, the rise in multiculturalism, and the advancement of technology combined to usher in a thriving Asian fraternal movement. Along the West Coast, a coalition of six local fraternities and ten local sororities formed the Southern California Asian Greek Council. Two of the largest AAGLOs, Lambda Phi Epsilon Fraternity founded in 1981 at the University of California, Los Angeles, and alpha Kappa Delta Phi Sorority founded in 1990 at the University of California, Berkeley, rapidly chartered chapters beyond their home state within their first decade, forming footholds in flagship universities located in Texas, New York, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.

28

histor ical foundations

In the mid-1990s, the northeast region of the United States became the breeding ground for a slew of new AAGLOs that would grow past their humble beginnings in upstate New York. Sigma Psi Zeta Sorority and Nu Alpha Phi Fraternity were both founded at the State University of New York at Albany in 1994. Pi Delta Psi Fraternity and Kappa Phi Lambda Sorority were founded at the campus of the State University of New York at Binghamton in 1994 and 1995, respectively. With the development of the Internet in the 1990s, information became even more accessible for these new groups to communicate with Asian American students who shared their vision and intent to expand.

The Fourth Wave: Driving Desi Diffusion Deriving from the Sanskrit word meaning “one from our country/land,” the term Desi describes people and products derived from the South Asian subcontinent. The need for Desi fraternal organizations, which gained noticeable traction for expansion in the late 1990s, was largely due to the lack of Desi representation in AAGLOs of the period. “Pan-Asian [organizations are] often dominated by Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and sometimes Vietnamese students. South Asian, Pacific Islander, and other communities, who are usually lumped into the Asian American category [do] not feel Asian American, so they often [do] not connect with this community” (Accapadi, 2005). In 1992 the formation of Delta Phi Beta at the University of California, Berkeley, signified the start of Desi-interest fraternities and sororities. A few years later, Iota Nu Delta and Sigma Beta Rho were formed in 1994 at the State University of New York, Binghamton, and in 1996 at the University of Pennsylvania, respectively. However, it was not until 1998 that the South Asian Greek movement surged in growth. Beginning in 1998, there was increased representation and formation of South Asian Greek-letter organizations with Delta Epsilon Psi Fraternity, Alpha Iota Omicron Fraternity, Kappa Phi Gamma Sorority, Chi Psi Beta Fraternity, Delta Phi Omega Sorority, and Sigma Sigma Rho Sorority (Badruddin, 2017). This momentum continued into 1999 with the creation of Beta Kappa Gamma Fraternity, Beta Chi Theta Fraternity, and Delta Kappa Delta Sorority. The majority of these organizations were founded in regional and cultural epicenters. A few were founded in the northeast region of the United States, but six were founded in the state of Texas. At the turn of the century, a few more Desi fraternal organizations were founded, as there continues to be a need for space to celebrate Desi culture. There has been an increasing push in AAGLO research to include, elevate, and disaggregate categorical race data as a way to bring awareness to the Desi community. In 2016, with the addition of four South Asian–interest member organizations, the National Asian Pacific Islander Desi American Panhellenic Association (NAPA) furthered its advocacy for Desi fraternal groups. During the 2016 NAPA Annual Meeting, the 18 member organizations unanimously decided to change the APIA acronym within the organization’s name to APIDA (Badruddin, 2017). The term APIDA was coined by

History of Asian a mer ican gr eek-letter organizations

29

scholar-practitioner Mamta Accapadi as a way to recognize the Desi members of the community (Accapadi, 2005). As of 2018, there exist 109 recorded AAGLOs, totaling over 750 separate chapters across college campuses in the United States and Canada. Table 2.1 presents an updated directory of AAGLOs sorted by type (fraternity, sorority, coed), place of origin, original ethnic focus, founding year, and running total of charters granted as of 2018. The maturation and political consciousness of AAGLOs led to the development of a collective alliance that came to be known as NAPA. Currently operating with the strength of its 18 member organizations, NAPA is the youngest umbrella association to form among culturally based Greek-letter organizations, but it continues to play a key role in shaping the institutional relevance and rising legacy of AAGLO fraternities and sororities in higher education. Table 2.1 Directory of AAGLOs Organization Type

Origin Ethnic Place of Origin Year Focus Chapters

Alpha Delta Kappa Sorority Alpha Epsilon Omega Fraternity Alpha Gamma Alpha Sorority Alpha Iota Omicron Fraternity alpha Kappa Delta Phi Sorority Alpha Kappa Omega Fraternity Alpha Kappa Omicron Sorority Alpha Lambda Fraternity Alpha Phi Gamma Sorority Alpha Psi Rho Fraternity Alpha Sigma Lambda Fraternity Alpha Sigma Rho Sorority Alpha Xi Omega Fraternity Beta Beta Gamma Sorority Beta Chi Theta Fraternity Beta Delta Alpha Fraternity Beta Kappa Gamma Fraternity Beta Omega Phi Fraternity Beta Pi Phi Fraternity Beta Tao Omega Fraternity Beta Upsilon Delta Fraternity Chi Alpha Delta Sorority Chi Delta Sigma Sorority Chi Delta Theta Sorority Chi Psi Beta Fraternity Chi Rho Omicron Fraternity Chi Sigma Alpha Sorority Chi Sigma Phi Sorority Chi Theta Psi Fraternity Delta Chi Lambda Sorority Delta Chi Psi Fraternity Delta Epsilon Psi Fraternity

University of Southern California California State University, Northridge University of California, Los Angeles University of Michigan University of California, Berkeley California State University, East Bay San Francisco State University University of Michigan California State Polytechnic University, Pomona San Diego State University California State Polytechnic University, Pomona University of Georgia University of California, Berkeley University of Hawaii at Manoa University of California, Los Angeles University of California, Los Angeles University of Texas at Austin California State University, Los Angeles Temple University Texas A&M University University of California, Riverside University of California, Los Angeles Washington State University University of California, Santa Barbara Texas A&M University California State University, Fresno University of Washington California State University, Fullerton University of Washington University of Arizona Temple University University of Texas at Austin

1977 2000 2002 1998 1990 1996 1997 1931

Pan-Asian Armenian Armenian South Asian Pan-Asian Filipino Filipina Chinese

1 7 1 7 55 2 3 1

1994 Pan-Asian 2000 Pan-Asian

16 4

1993 1997 1997 1948 1999 2014 1999 1965 2005 1994 1998 1928 2007 1989 1998 1995 2002 2000 2017 2000 2004 1998

1 7 1 1 27 1 5 3 1 1 2 1 1 7 1 8 2 2 1 3 1 31

Pan-Asian Pan-Asian Pan-Asian Korean South Asian Arab South Asian Pan-Asian Pan-Asian Pan-Asian Pan-Asian Japanese Pan-Asian Pan-Asian South Asian Filipino Pan-Asian Pan-Asian Filipino Pan-Asian Pan-Asian South Asian

30

histor ical foundations

Organization Type

Origin Ethnic Place of Origin Year Focus Chapters

Delta Epsilon Sigma Iota Coed Delta Gamma Tau Fraternity Delta Kappa Delta Sorority Delta Lambda Chi Sorority Delta Phi Beta Coed Delta Phi Kappa Sorority Delta Phi Lambda Sorority Delta Phi Omega Sorority Delta Psi Sigma Sorority Delta Sigma Iota Fraternity Delta Sigma Psi Sorority Delta Theta Psi Sorority Epsilon Alpha Sigma Sorority Flip Flap Fraternity Gakusei Kai Fraternity Gamma Beta Fraternity Gamma Epsilon Omega Fraternity Iota Nu Delta Fraternity Kappa Beta Zeta Fraternity Kappa Gamma Delta Sorority Kappa Lambda Delta Sorority Kappa Phi Alpha Sorority Kappa Phi Gamma Sorority Kappa Phi Lambda Sorority Kappa Pi Beta Fraternity Kappa Psi Epsilon Sorority Kappa Zeta Phi Sorority Lambda Alpha Phi Fraternity Lambda Delta Psi Sorority Lambda Phi Epsilon Fraternity Lambda Psi Rho Fraternity Lambda Theta Delta Fraternity Mu Delta Theta Fraternity Nu Alpha Phi Fraternity Omega Chi Lambda Fraternity Omega Gamma Pi Fraternity Omega Phi Gamma Fraternity Omega Phi Omega Fraternity Omega Psi Delta Sorority Omega Sigma Tau Fraternity Omega Tau Zeta Sorority Omega Xi Delta Fraternity Phi Alpha Omicron Sorority Phi Delta Alpha Sorority Phi Delta Sigma Fraternity Phi Kappa Pi Fraternity Phi Zeta Tau Sorority Pi Alpha Phi Fraternity Pi Delta Psi Fraternity

State University of New York at Buffalo State University of New York at Buffalo Texas A&M University University of California, Irvine University of California, Berkeley University of Southern California University of Georgia University of Houston New York Metropolitan Area Pennsylvania State University San Diego State University University of Michigan University of California, Los Angeles Columbia University University of Southern California University of Texas at Austin University of Southern California State University of New York at Binghamton University of California, Irvine Indiana University Bloomington Texas Christian University Baruch College University of Texas at Austin State University of New York at Binghamton Northern Illinois University California State University, Long Beach California State University, Los Angeles Indiana University Bloomington University of Oklahoma University of California, Los Angeles University of Nevada, Reno University of California, Irvine California State University, Long Beach State University of New York at Albany California State University, Chico University of Michigan University of Texas at Austin University of Washington University of Massachusetts Amherst University of California, Los Angeles Ohio State University California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo California State University, Fresno University of Oklahoma University of Maryland, College Park University of Hawaii at Manoa University of California, Irvine University of California, Berkeley State University of New York at Binghamton

1997 1992 1999 2002 1992 1960 1998 1998 2001 2000 1998 2002 2012 1910 1920 2000 1963

South Asian Pan-Asian South Asian Pan-Asian South Asian Pan-Asian Pan-Asian South Asian Pan-Asian South Asian Pan-Asian South Asian Arab Chinese Japanese Pan-Asian Pan-Asian

1 1 15 2 3 1 19 49 3 8 1 1 5 2 1 6 1

1994 2011 1997 2005 1997 1998

South Asian Pan-Asian Pan-Asian Pan-Asian Pan-Asian South Asian

28 1 1 1 1 16

1995 2000 1996 1960 1999 2009 1981 2006 1983 2008 1994 1997 2007 1995 1993 2006 1966 2000

Pan-Asian Pan-Asian Filipina Pan-Asian Pan-Asian Pan-Asian Pan-Asian Pan-Asian Pan-Asian Filipino Pan-Asian Hmong South Asian Pan-Asian Filipino South Asian Japanese Pan-Asian

32 3 5 3 1 4 67 1 1 2 8 1 1 5 3 1 1 1

1994 2011 2002 2007 1947 1983 1926

Pan-Asian Pan-Asian Pan-Asian Pan-Asian Korean Pan-Asian Chinese

1 1 1 1 1 1 26

1994 Pan-Asian

31

History of Asian a mer ican gr eek-letter organizations

31

Organization Type

Origin Ethnic Place of Origin Year Focus Chapters

Pi Nu Iota Pi Nu Psi Pi Theta Kappa Psi Chi Omega Psi Omega Sigma Rho Delta Chi Rho Psi Sigma Alpha Phi Sigma Beta Rho Sigma Kappa Chi Sigma Kappa Rho Sigma Lambda Kappa Sigma Omicron Pi Sigma Phi Omega Sigma Pi Sigma Psi Sigma Psi Zeta Sigma Sigma Phi Sigma Sigma Rho Tau Kappa Omega Theta Delta Beta Theta Kappa Phi Theta Lambda Beta Xi Chi Sigma Xi Kappa Zeta Chi Epsilon Zeta Epsilon Tau Zeta Kappa Epsilon Zeta Phi Rho

University of Washington City of San Diego California State University, Northridge University California, San Diego New York Metropolitan Area University of California, Riverside Cornell University San Jose State University University of Pennsylvania University of California, Santa Barbara University of California, Davis Parsons School of Design San Francisco State University University of Southern California University of California, Los Angeles State University of New York at Albany University of Michigan St. John’s University University of Oklahoma University of California, Irvine University of California, Los Angeles University of Illinois at Chicago University of the Pacific University of Georgia San Francisco State University University of Southern California University of Washington California State University, Long Beach

Sorority Sorority Sorority Fraternity Co-Ed Sorority Fraternity Sorority Fraternity Sorority Fraternity Sorority Sorority Sorority Sorority Sorority Sorority Sorority Fraternity Fraternity Sorority Fraternity Fraternity Fraternity Fraternity Fraternity Fraternity Fraternity

2005 2016 1988 1992 1997 1991 1916 1995 1996 1993 2000 1999 1930 1949 2009 1994 1935 1998 2002 1990 1950 2010 2003 1997 1991 1971 2007 1995

Filipina Filipina Pan-Asian Pan-Asian Pan-Asian Pan-Asian Chinese Pan-Asian South Asian Pan-Asian Korean Pan-Asian Chinese Japanese Persian Pan-Asian Chinese South Asian Pan-Asian Filipino Japanese Pan-Asian Pan-Asian Pan-Asian Pan-Asian Pan-Asian Pan-Asian Filipino

1 1 1 5 4 7 3 1 54 1 1 1 13 10 1 34 1 22 1 5 1 1 1 4 5 1 1 10

Present-Day AAGLOs Asian Americans are increasingly turning to online communities to make sense of their intersectional identities (Dosono & Semaan, 2018). Racial identity cements the foundation of AAGLOs—much of their current work centers on equity and justice as a result of significant direct relationship between discrimination and own-group activism (Tran & Curtin, 2017). Advocacy efforts led by AAGLOs require members of the community to understand the role education plays in serving the needs of the community to mobilize and create change.

Organizing Around Race and Social Justice Activism Anti-Asian sentiment has been observed via racist attacks on Asian American college students. In the 2000–2001 academic year, the University of California, Davis, experienced a series of anti-Asian incidents, which ended with a protest of over 300 individuals rallying in front of the administration building. The incidents began when members of

32

histor ical foundations

a predominantly White fraternity used their power to intimidate Asian sorority women who were making a display of their Greek letters at the Yolo Causeway levee—a traditional activity for all students. That same month, members of Lambda Phi Epsilon and Sigma Kappa Rho, two historically Asian-interest fraternities, were assaulted and had their apartments raided by members of Kappa Sigma, a traditionally White fraternity. During both attacks, racial slurs were directed toward Asian students. This incident made headlines, prompting the University of Michigan Student Assembly to sign a resolution of solidarity with Asian American students at UC Davis. NAPA organizations have also taken stances on social issues affecting those outside the Asian Pacific Islander Desi American (APIDA) community. A 2014 incident between Pi Kappa Alpha Fraternity and Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority was laced with anti-Black racism and sexism. Sarah McManus, a member of Kappa Phi Lambda Sorority, wrote in a statement published in their campus newspaper: As an Asian-interest organization, some may argue that we cannot empathize with a historically black sorority because we have not faced the same injustices. We believe that racial and gender injustice affects everyone. As minorities, we must work together and advocate for each other. If we do not, no one will. As Asian American Greeks, we will not be inhibited by the fear of a backlash. Believing that we should stay quiet and not cause controversy, or hide behind other people’s statements, perpetuates the model minority myth—and we refuse that myth. We have voices and demand to be heard, and as Asian American women we demand JUSTICE, CIVILITY, and TOLERANCE from our peers, the administration, and ourselves.

This concept of standing in solidarity and advocating for marginalized identities is a form of activism that AAGLOs continue to practice and enact.

Embracing Stigmatized Identities In recent years, AAGLOs have promoted inclusion of individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans*, and gender nonconforming (LGB/TGNC) within the fraternity and sorority community. In 2015, NAPA, as a part of their LGBTQ initiatives, led the charge of elevating the voices of queer NAPA fraternity and sorority members by spearheading a national #OutAndGreek campaign as a way to support and advocate for the needs of the queer NAPA community. During the campaign, participants who identify as LGB/TGNC shared their stories around coming out and their lived experiences as an out member. Across a two-part webinar series, LGB/TGNC-identified members in AAGLOs discussed practices and resources that supported them as members. This work is particularly important because all identities are performative, in the sense that we live in a world of social constructions, hybrid identities that are informed by critical

History of Asian a mer ican gr eek-letter organizations

33

perspectives challenge oppressive and totalizing constructions of race, gender, class, sexuality, and nationhood (Otalvaro-Hormillosa, 1999). The intersection of marginalized identities is amplified in heteronormative spaces, and heterosexism in fraternities and sororities appears to make the coming-out process for any LGBTQ person an ongoing challenge (Welter, 2012). With the help of NAPA, individual organizations have also made great strides in providing space for queer individuals, some even going so far as to draft a trans-inclusion policy. As of 2017, Delta Phi Lambda Sorority, Delta Kappa Delta Sorority, and Delta Epsilon Psi Fraternity have all created such policies. By being at the forefront of creating policies which intentionally include transgender individuals, these organizations are challenging the cisgender norm of fraternal organizations. Mental health has been another particular area of advocacy for AAGLOs. It is often the view that Asian Americans are model minorities who experience little hindrance to their success (Kim, Kendall, & Cheon, 2017); however, this is a gross oversimplification. Asian American young adults state that parental pressure to succeed, difficulty in balancing two different cultures, family obligations based on strong family values, and discrimination or social isolation are major sources of stress that affect mental health (Kwok, 2013). To spark dialogue among AAGLO members, NAPA partnered with the National Asian American Pacific Islander Mental Health Association (NAAPIMHA) to bring mental health education and awareness to APIDA students on college campuses. The partnership took a cultural approach to addressing mental health challenges, which mitigated cultural and language barriers APIDA students faced when accessing treatment. It also allowed collegiate NAPA chapters to gain access to educational programming to promote mental well-being and reduce the stigma of seeking help.

The Future of AAGLOs We next discuss the rise of the Asian American demographic, the relevance of AAGLOs in the larger fraternity and sorority movement within higher education, and provide recommendations for campus-based professionals, advisors, alumni, and community partners.

Rising Asian American and Asian International Demographics According to the Pew Research Center, the U.S. Asian population grew 72% between 2000 and 2015 from 11.9 million to 20.4 million—the fastest growth rate of any major racial or ethnic group (López, Ruiz, & Patten, 2017). A record 20 million Asian Americans trace their roots to more than 20 countries in East and Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent, all with unique histories, cultures, and languages. According to World

34

histor ical foundations

Education Services, 32% and 16% of international students in the United States are from China and India, respectively. In attending American universities, Asian international students are seeking campus communities in which they feel a sense of belonging. AAGLOs have come to recruit and integrate international students into their chapters and organizations due to the similar cultural nuances of being Asian, Asian American, and/or Asian Canadian (Yoon, 2016). International students from Asian countries may find the transition into American college culture challenging and may experience further confusion in joining historically White fraternities and sororities due to their racial identity and lack of understanding of American culture. AAGLOs can serve as an institutional bridge between familiar and foreign worlds, so it makes sense for them to join these organizations.

Acknowledging Marginalization of the Asian Diaspora As the membership of AAGLOs is predominantly of East Asian (e.g., Chinese, Japanese, Korean) and South Asian (Indian and Pakistani) descent, those of Southeast Asian ancestry are less studied, including Khmer (Cambodian), Lao, and Hmong heritages. Moreover, although NAPA has adopted the APIDA term (Asian Pacific Islander Desi American), Pacific Islander membership and identity is virtually invisible within the AAGLO community. Pacific Islanders are even excluded by their lack of representation within the AAGLO acronym. Higher education literature evolved from using terms such as Asian Pacific Islander (API), Asian American Pacific Islander (AAPI), Asian Pacific Islander American (APIA), or a variation of the terms, but further marginalized the Pacific Islander identity and/or misrepresented the community itself. Although the Muslim faith is a religious identity, many of the Muslim-affiliated fraternities and sororities have members of Middle Eastern and/or South Asian descent. In NAPA’s longitudinal study of AAGLOs, Muslim-affiliated organizations were not listed, as their missions and values are not inherently surrounding Asian and/or Desi identity but are instead more based on the Muslim faith (Lam, 2017). Although opportunities abound to study and understand the history of historically religious organizations with predominantly Asian-identified membership, such organizations are outside the scope of this chapter.

Situating Relevance in Higher Education AAGLOs are some of the youngest organizations to be founded within the context of the larger fraternal movement. The founding fathers and mothers of the third and fourth wave of AAGLOs are just beginning to become leading executives in their respective industries and starting families of their own. Furthermore, inter/national headquarters volunteers are younger professionals compared to the senior administrators within the

History of Asian a mer ican gr eek-letter organizations

35

larger fraternal and higher education community, and thus not taken as seriously due to a lack of tenure in the field. NAPA has made strides to create a voice for the AAGLO community and advocate for AAGLOs across the fraternal landscape and higher education. Like other multicultural umbrella councils, including the National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations (NALFO), National Pan-Hellenic Council (NPHC), and National Multicultural Greek Council (NMGC), NAPA was founded to bring a collective of similar values-based organizations together for coalition building, advocacy, and organizing. In the past decade of NAPA’s existence, AAGLO presence has permeated into higher education associations, including the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors (AFA) and the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA). Volunteers and board members of NAPA attend the AFA Annual Meeting and host an annual business meeting composed of AAGLO leaders. Within NASPA, AAGLO presence includes volunteer board members attending NASPA Fraternity and Sorority Knowledge Community (FSKC) biannual interfraternal summits. In 2017, AAGLO research has also been presented at the American College Personnel Association (ACPA) International Convention (Lam, 2017).

Recommendations Identify AAGLO Alumni to Mentor as Scholars and Higher Education Practitioners With model minority expectations rampant among the APIDA community, students raised with traditional Eastern parenting styles are less likely to break the mold and work in nontraditional careers, including the arts and education (Lee, 2015). Because there is a lack of AAGLO alumni as practitioners in the field of higher education, there are even fewer practitioners that are also scholars and/or work as campus-based professionals in fraternity and sorority life (FSL).

Call for Ongoing AAGLO Research The scant literature on AAGLOs paints an incomplete landscape of the challenges and potential solutions for tangential issues affecting the APIDA community. In 2016, NAPA partnered with the Fraternity and Sorority Experience Survey (FSES) to conduct a longitudinal study on the experiences of members in NAPA organizations. Although this has been one of the first studies conducted by an AAGLO community, results have not been fully analyzed. Within the AAGLO and NAPA communities, there have been

36

histor ical foundations

conversations about working to publish a collection of chapters that relate to the AAGLO community. Topics may include the importance of addressing toxic masculinity in AAGLO fraternities and developing the infrastructure of local AAGLOs.

Improve Advising Resources for AAGLOs Many AAGLO advisors are Asian faculty or staff that do not have much experience with FSL programming. FSL offices can provide training to these individuals, especially with issues of liability and risk management. This may include having the most senior or experienced staff member advising the council that AAGLOs serve. Additionally, advisors and other staff can make an AAGLO feel validated by learning its history, mission, and values.

Foster Strategic Collaborations for Growth of AAGLOs College and universities beginning to review current institutional policies on establishing fraternities and sororities on campus should reassess if such policies are inclusive of AAGLOs. Moreover, when organizing fraternity and sorority leadership institutes that involve the attendance of all Greek councils, including trained staff from the diversity, inclusion, and equity offices will facilitate conversations around cultural competency.

Conclusion In this chapter, we provided both the sociohistorical and contemporary context of AAGLOs and their impact across North America since their inception in the early 20th century. We discussed the origins of AAGLOs fraternities and sororities as entities formed out of necessity and exclusion within predominantly White institutions. We then explored their rapid expansion across various geographic regions in America from the 1980s to the 2000s and their eventual formation of a national coalition. We illustrated the current landscape of AAGLO involvement within higher education and forecasted the relevance of AAGLOs due to increasing immigration patterns and the continued marginalization of APIDA folks. AAGLOs, then, are an emerging and preserving institution for future generations of APIDA students.

History of Asian a mer ican gr eek-letter organizations

37

References Accapadi, M. (2005). Affirmations of identity: The story of a South Asian American sorority (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The University of Texas, Austin, TX. Badruddin, B. (2017). Lions, tigers, and South Asian Greeks: Oh, my! The opportunity for more research! Texas Education Review, 5(2), 17-20. Brinton, M. C. (2010). From frat to fraternity: An evolutionary model for 21st century Greek-letter organizations. Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd/770/ Chen, E. W.-C. (2009). Asian Americans in sororities and fraternities: In search of a home and place. In C. L. Torbenson & G. S. Parks (Eds.) Brothers and sisters: Diversity in college fraternities and sororities (pp. 83–103). Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. Davis, A. (2000). Fraternity and fratricide in late imperial China. The American Historical Review, 105(5), 1630–1640. Dosono, B., & Semaan, B. (2018). Identity work as deliberation: AAPI political discourse in the 2016 US presidential election. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (p. 633). ACM. Espiritu, Y. L. (1992). Asian American panethnicity: Bridging identities and institutions. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Kim, P. Y., Kendall, D. L., & Cheon, H.-S. (2017). Racial microaggressions, cultural mistrust, and mental health outcomes among Asian American college students. The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 87(6), 663–670. Kwok, J. (2013). Factors that influence the diagnoses of Asian Americans in mental health: An exploration. Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, 49(4), 288–292. Lam, V. (2017). A story untold: Asian American Greek letter organizations. Retrieved from http://www.myacpa.org/acpa17-columbus-presentation-documents Lee, S. J. (2015). Unraveling the “model minority” stereotype: Listening to Asian American youth. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. López, G., Ruiz, N. G., & Patten, E. (2017). Key facts about Asian Americans, a diverse and growing population. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/08/ key-facts-about-asian-americans/ Moy, S. L. (1978). The Chinese in Chicago: The first one hundred years 1870-1970. Moy, Susan Lee. 1978. MA thesis, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Otalvaro-Hormillosa, S. (1999). The homeless diaspora of queer Asian Americans. Social Justice, 26(3), 103–122. Rho Psi Annals. (1944). Ithaca, NY: Author. Tran, J., & Curtin, N. (2017). Not your model minority: Own-group activism among Asian Americans. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 23(4), 499–507. Wan, E. I. (2003). History of F.F. Fraternity: Evolution of the first Chinese fraternity in the United States (1910–2002). (n.p.): Author. Welter, E. (2012). College Greek life: Perceptions and lived experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, and queer (LGBTQ ) students. Journal of the Indiana Academy of the Social Sciences, 15(1), 9. Yoon, A. (2016). Judge the appeal of Greek life for international students. Retrieved from https:// www.usnews.com/education/blogs/international-student-counsel/2016/01/28/judgethe-appeal-of-greek-life-for-international-students

Chapter 3

NALFO: A Retrospective y Hacia Adelante



Mónica Lee Miranda, Keith D. Garcia, and Juan R. Guardia

Nuestra Historia (Our History) The story of the National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations (NALFO) is one created by multiple storytellers over the course of its history. It was the collective passions of committed members of the Latinx fraternal community who came together to create a national umbrella association to promote the advancement of Latinx fraternities and sororities. These members recognized a need, a need to leave egos and pride aside and figure out what and who they wanted to be. What was their collective purpose? Were they going to be organizations that would recognize the power in numbers or subscribe to the survival of the fittest mentality and not care about what the other was doing and how it did, or could, impact their individual organization. Rolling up their sleeves, setting aside personal or organizational agendas, and hashing it out for the collective good, they recognized their power in numbers. Hours upon hours of conversation followed—debate, challenge, passion, purpose, dedicated in thought and deed to each other, and to the creation of NALFO. What started as a local initiative on the State University of New York at Albany campus, by Phi Iota Alpha Fraternity and Omega Phi Beta Sorority, when they spearheaded the creation of the first Latino Greek Council in 1991, shortly thereafter was translated

40

histor ical foundations

into the national movement to bring together the Latinx fraternity/sorority community with the creation of the National Latino Greek Council, also known as the Concilio Nacional de Hermandades Latinas (CNHL) (Miranda & de Figueroa, 2000; Muñoz & Guardia, 2009). With the rise of the Internet, information was more accessible and communication between two distinct groups creating national connections for Latinx fraternal organizations was possible. This prompted a gathering in Austin, Texas, in August of 1996, bringing together two major regional collaborative efforts on opposite coasts of the United States that had been occurring since the early 1990s, the Western Region Latino Greek Alliance and the Concilio Nacional de Hermandades Latinas. This was the first national gathering of Latinx fraternities/sororities in the country. It was this meeting that served as the initial foundation to what is now known as NALFO. NALFO’s official creation in March of 1998 was the culmination of many years of meetings of national representatives of both of the aforementioned groups, in various parts of the country. For a short period of time NALFO and CNHL coexisted but in January of 2001 CNHL was officially dissolved and 21 organizations continued to advance NALFO. The unity of Latinx fraternal organizations is critical to the longevity and sustainability of each and every one of the NALFO member organizations. NALFO’s purpose is to • unite and empower Latinx organizations and their communities through advocacy, cultural awareness, and organizational development while fostering positive interfraternal relationships and collaborating on issues of mutual interest; • create an umbrella organization that unifies the Latinx fraternities and sororities and advocates on behalf of and with the general public and the administration; and • develop a set of shared standards that reinforce the credibility of each of the member organizations (Miranda & de Figueroa, 2000). The greatest challenges faced by NALFO in the early days were those any startup faces: resources, clarity of mission, commitment from all parties, and the need to ensure and establish trust. A strength of NALFO, however, has always been that with each challenge, the commitment and dedication of the membership became stronger, with emboldened passion, which affirmed that the approach NALFO was taking was the right one. NALFO epitomized the idea that Latinx fraternity/sorority life was bigger than just one organization. There were more than just Latinx fraternities/sororities to influence; there was a greater movement. NALFO was a turning point, a realization for the North-American Interfraternity Conference, the National Panhellenic Conference, and the National Pan-Hellenic Council that there was another association serving the needs of the “emerging” groups, as they were known many years ago. NALFO was a

NALFO: A RETROSPECTIVE Y HACIA ADELANTE

41

community the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors (AFA) was committed to, beginning with Charlie Warner, the 2000 AFA president, who made a special presidential appointment of the then inaugural NALFO vice chair, Monica Lee Miranda, as a liaison to AFA from NALFO, because all other umbrella associations had liaisons during his tenure. NALFO now hosts one business meeting a year in conjunction with the AFA Annual Meeting and has a standing NALFO Update program as part of the regular offerings from all umbrella associations during the Annual Meeting. Like other organizations, NALFO has created several policies and initiatives that have assisted in the development of the association as well as its member organizations. In the next section, the history of initiatives and policies is shared, followed by a description of the future direction of NALFO and the Latinx fraternal movement.

Initiatives and Policies The hallmark of NALFO has always consisted of its member Latinx fraternities and sororities entitled to their own respective rules and regulations, yet coming together for programming and resource development. In essence, it has always been a nonregulatory council. However, in 2007, the member organizations and the NALFO board decided the importance of Latinx students’ academic success needed to be at the forefront of the rationale for attending higher education: earning an undergraduate degree. As such, at the NALFO business meeting that year, NALFO passed legislation in which member organizations would not induct any first term/quarter/semester college/university first-year student effective January 2008. This would allow interested students the opportunity to successfully complete their first academic term/quarter/semester and acclimate to the college/university setting. In addition, at that same meeting, legislation also passed in which NALFO member organizations would require its undergraduate applicants to have a 2.5 cumulative grade point average in order to be eligible to apply for any NALFO organization they might choose. Although some member organizations were not in favor of such changes, the majority strongly believed that aspirants’ academics should be their first priority. Eight years later, at the 2017 NALFO meeting during the AFA Annual Meeting in Atlanta, Georgia, the current NALFO executive board voted to remove this legislation. How this change will affect current NALFO organizations remains to be seen. Although NALFO organizations worked well at the national level, at the undergraduate level there was often competition when it came to expansion at colleges and universities across the country. On many campuses, several NALFO organizations would not vote for other NALFO organizations to expand, due to animosity at the undergraduate level. NALFO recognized this was an issue and in 2009 new legislation was passed that aimed at resolving the issue of open expansion. It stated:

42

histor ical foundations

Open expansion is defined as: Should the campus be open for expansion and the member organization meets university and council requirements, no NALFO member organization is prohibited from selecting undergraduates for the purpose of establishing a chapter on a campus. The local council, NALFO council, and/or local NALFO organizations may not deter expansion by withholding membership of a NALFO group from any council. (NALFO, 2009a)

In essence, no NALFO member organization may vote “No” to another NALFO member organization who meets campus requirements in order to expand to the campus. This legislation assisted many NALFO organizations in expanding to new campuses across the country, and in some cases, increased the enrollment of Latinx and other students wanting to join NALFO’s Latinx fraternities and sororities. In 2009, NALFO declared that hazing would not be tolerated by any member organization. Many of NALFO’s interfraternal partner organizations already had passed antihazing statements, including the National Panhellenic Conference, the North-American Interfraternity Conference, and the National Pan-Hellenic Council. The NALFO board and members approved the following statement: The National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations, Inc. (NALFO) does not encourage, condone, or tolerate hazing in any form. The activity of hazing is not in keeping with the principles and traditions of our organizations and can reflect negatively on NALFO as well as on the member organizations. (NALFO, 2009b)

It is important to note that if a hazing allegation is reported to NALFO, it is not in NALFO’s purview to penalize or impose sanctions on an individual organization’s member(s) or chapter(s). Reports are redirected to the organization referenced in the hazing allegation. Two additional significant highlights occurred in NALFO history. In 2011, then chair Juan R. Guardia announced a new initiative, the NALFO Day of Service—a chosen day in which all NALFO member organizations would participate in community service. His idea came to fruition when the first NALFO Day of Service took place in November 2012. Member organizations volunteered within communities and agencies across the country. The event continues annually. Second, in 2013 NALFO celebrated its 15th anniversary in Queens, New York. During NALFO’s quinceañera (fifteenth birthday celebration), the highlights and accomplishments of NALFO’s past and present were celebrated in front of an audience of over 300 NALFO members, colleagues, and friends. As NALFO continues to evolve, its leadership has focused on realizing a central tenet of its existence—collaboration. The future of NALFO will be defined by its ability to broaden collaboration among member organizations, strengthen relationships with

NALFO: A RETROSPECTIVE Y HACIA ADELANTE

43

campus-based professionals, and cultivate mutually beneficial partnerships. All of these actions are in service of the visions, missions, and purposes of member organizations as well as the membership engaged in those works.

Hacia Adelante (Moving Forward) NALFO has professed a commitment to “positive interfraternal relations” since its inception; however, it has had a history of a lack of trust among member organizations and protectionist practices (NALFO Constitution, 2012a). The backdrop for this history is a highly competitive fraternal landscape and the relative youth of member organizations and their leadership. As member organizations within NALFO have reached various points of maturation and with the youngest member organization having celebrated its 25th anniversary in 2017, there is a significant shift in the mode of operation. Organizations continue to develop and protectionist practices continue to be challenged in favor of sharing best practices for the sake of communal advancement. Within NALFO today exists an extensive base of knowledge and experiences. Capacity development for the national leaders of member organizations has been at the forefront of dialogue within the council. NALFO member organizations (Table 3.1) have committed to developing each other’s capacity through resource sharing. Rather than individual organizations pursuing the professional services of the various experts within the fraternity/sorority industry, they are pooling resources. Members of NALFO’s Board of Directors have coordinated dialogues among national leaders around subjects such as alumni engagement and risk management. This level of collaboration and resource pooling allows NALFO to work toward shared standards and expectations of member organizations. As NALFO continues to develop, its focus on developing the capacities of national leaders will continue to be an important part of its work. An area of significant development and focus is collaboration with campus-based professionals. As NALFO member organizations continue to extend their presence to campuses across the country, there is a need to strengthen relationships with colleagues engaging undergraduate members on a daily basis. These relationships create opportunities for NALFO member organizations to further develop their capacities as membership associations with a significant presence in the postsecondary environment. This work began, as previously stated, by engaging with AFA and the colocation of NALFO’s business meeting with the Annual Meeting (NALFO Constitution, 2012b). The next step in that work was the endowment of the NALFO Unity Fund with the AFA Foundation dedicated to enhancing the capacities of campus-based professionals in their work with NALFO organizations (NALFO, 2016). The most recent effort is the creation of the NALFO Advisors Consortium (NAC). NAC’s work is focused on three areas meant to enhance the capacity of NALFO and its member organizations:

44

histor ical foundations

leadership, communications, and policy development (Garcia, K.D., personal communication, August 15, 2017). NAC is composed of individuals from across the United States who have or have had roles on campus and who provide a critical lens/expertise to NALFO’s work. Table 3.1 2016 Enrollments Latino Fraternities

Year Founded

University

Phi Iota Alpha Lambda Sigma Upsilon Lambda Upsilon Lambda Lambda Alpha Upsilon Gamma Zeta Alpha

1931 1979 1982 1985 1987

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ Cornell University, Ithaca, NY University of Buffalo, Buffalo, NY Chico State University, Chico, CA

Latina Sororities

Year Founded

University

Chi Upsilon Sigma Lambda Theta Nu Kappa Delta Chi Sigma Lambda Upsilon Lambda Pi Chi Omega Phi Beta Alpha Pi Sigma Sigma Iota Alpha Gamma Phi Omega Lambda Pi Upsilon

1980 1986 1987 1987 1988 1989 1990 1990 1991 1992

Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ California State University, Chico, CA Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX Binghamton University, Binghamton, NY Cornell University, Ithaca, NY University of Albany-SUNY, Albany, NY San Diego State University, San Diego, CA Stony Brook University, SUNY, Stony Brook, NY Indiana University, Bloomington, IN State University of New York at Geneseo, Geneseo, NY

Coed

Year Founded

University

Alpha Psi Lambda

1985

Ohio State University, Columbus, OH

NALFO’s collaborative work extends beyond its member organizations. Historically, NALFO has worked with external organizations to support the mission-driven work of their members. NALFO partnerships have included efforts with City Year to increase the participation of Persons of Color in work directly affecting Communities of Color. NALFO and Voto Latino have collaborated to push for voter registration across the Latinx electorate by facilitating campaigns locally engaging undergraduate and alumni membership. These partnerships provide opportunities for NALFO to better understand and refine its broader engagement efforts. NALFO has worked collaboratively with AFA in mutually beneficial ways inclusive of capacity development for campus-based professionals and national leaders of member organizations. This work has also led to collaborative relationships with other national umbrella organizations inclusive of the National Multicultural Greek Council, National APIDA Panhellenic Association, National Pan-Hellenic Council, National Panhellenic Conference, and North-American Interfraternity Conference. Recently, NALFO entered into a partnership with the Northeast Greek Leadership Association focused on

nalfo: a r etrospective Y HACIA ADELANTE

45

providing regional support to undergraduates and advisors (NALFO, 2018). NALFO would like to pursue similar relationships with other regional conferences intent on providing value to all member organizations with predominant presence in other parts of the United States.

The NALFO Familia (Family) Individual member histories are NALFO histories. Successes of member organizations, and members, are NALFO’s successes. NALFO is positioned to be a major influence in the greater fraternal movement. When NALFO was created the initial founding group of organizations and representatives had a few end goals in mind—to unify Latinx fraternities and sororities and be the premier umbrella association to serve the needs of our community working toward the advancement of all Latinx fraternity/ sorority members. The concept of familia (family) has been entrenched in NALFO’s Figure 3.1. logowork and that the meaning it. core values and has beenThe exemplifiNALFO ed with the has been behind done since its establishment and the work that will continue to be done hacia adelante (moving forward).

Symbol Crescent Symbol

Torch Colors Gold Crescent Red Torch Green Blue Colors Tagline

Meaning The coming together of various entities, an eclipse Meaning Vision of hope and enlightenment Adopted from the flags of Latin America Opportunity: The “potential” possess astogether one NALFOof various entities, an Thewecoming Hermandad: The blood and passion we share within NALFO of tohope andthrive enlightenment Growth: Investing in ourVision communities help them Clarity: The agents of change to “better” our people Adopted from the flags of Latin America Unity, community, and familia (family)

eclipse

Gold Opportunity: The “potential” we possess as one Figure 3.1 The NALFO logo andNALFO the meaning behind it. Hermandad: The blood and passion we share within Red NALFO Growth: Investing in our communities to help them Green References thrive Clarity: The agents changeattoNALFO “better”Quinceañera our people Blue M. L. (2013, May 18). Keynote Miranda, Address. Speechof presented Unity, Anniversary Banquet in Queens, NY.community, and familia (family) Tagline

46

histor ical foundations

Miranda, M. L., & de Figueroa, M. M. (2000). Adelante hacia el futuro (Forward to the future) Latino/Latina Greeks: Past, present and future. Perspectives, 6–8. Muñoz, S. M., & Guardia, J. R. (2009). Nuestra historia y futuro (Our history and future): Latino/a fraternities and sororities. In G. S. Parks & C. Torbenson (Eds.), Brothers and sisters: Diversity within college fraternities and sororities (pp. 104–132). Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson Press. NALFO. (2009a, December 5). Section 1.04: Definitions. Presentation at NALFO Business Meeting, Jacksonville, FL. Retrieved from http://nalfo.org/wp-content/ uploads/2009_12_ JacksonvilleBM.pdf NALFO (2009b, December 5). Presentation at NALFO Business Meeting, Jacksonville, FL. Retrieved from http://nalfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2009_12_ JacksonvilleBM.pdf NALFO. (2016, November 11). NALFO & AFAF announce creation of unity endowment [Press Release]. Retrieved from http://nalfo.org/blog/nalfo-continues-to-makestrides/ NALFO. (2018, January 12). The Northeast Greek Leadership Association and National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations, Inc. announce partnership [Press Release]. Retrieved from http://nalfo.org/blog/nglaandnalfo-anonounce-partnership/ NALFO Constitution. (2012a). National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations Constitution, Article III, Section 3.01. Retrieved from http://nalfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012_02_nalfo_ constitution.pdf NALFO Constitution. (2012b). National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations Constitution, Article VIII, Section 8.02. Retrieved from http://nalfo.org/wp-content/ uploads/2012_02_nalfo_constitution.pdf

Chapter 4

From Halls to House: The Proliferation of Fraternity Housing Pietro A. Sasso and Thea Zunick

The dissolving of fraternity/sorority communities at Alfred University, Colby College, Williams College, Bowdoin College, and most recently at Swarthmore College within the last 30 years, along with the successful implementation of mandated integrative coeducation of others such as at Harvard University and Middlebury College and even the nevertheless failed attempt at Trinity College have all challenged higher education institutions to reconceptualize their campus residential communities of fraternity and sorority chapters. This has proved exceedingly difficult as this chapter will demonstrate because fraternity/sorority residential communities are a student experience tradition rooted in the ethos of American higher education, continuing to prove enduring and challenging. During the 19th century, various colleges forbade the existence of fraternities or sororities. Prior to 1880 and in a few cases afterward, the fraternities evaded antifraternity rules and operated sub-rosa chapters. Although some institutions of higher education have chosen to eliminate fraternities and sororities or question their relevancy, one cannot deny the historical impact of the fraternity/sorority community on the early, developing American system of higher education. This chapter will discuss the historical evolution of fraternity/sorority residential communities by focusing on the impact of the residential living experience and its associated and facilitated sense of belonging. This evolution from social outlets to social living groups will be illustrated on two college campuses. This chapter will conclude

48

histor ical foundations

with examples of practices that continue the tradition of fraternity/sorority residential communities influenced by Dartmouth and Union Colleges, which provided the model for our contemporary fraternity/sorority residential systems.

The Fraternity as a Social Outlet Fraternities and sororities were created with the original purpose to debate and discuss current events and literature outside of the classroom and away from the eyes of faculty supervision (Syrett, 2009). These groups quickly became one of the most popular ways for students to become engaged in the campus community and inevitably led to the formation of deeper relationships, with members depending on each other for more than simply intellectually stimulating conversation. The evolution of these groups which spawned the beginning of the growth of social Greek-letter societies began in November 1825 with the founding of Kappa Alpha Society at Union College (Syrett, 2009). This was the first fraternity to survive and maintain the character of a social fraternity. It was founded to fill a void left behind when its members’ military company at Union College was dissolved. Other students followed suit shortly thereafter with the founding of Sigma Phi and Delta Phi in 1827 on the same campus (Torbenson & Parks, 2009). American fraternities were created as social organizations, and they retain this characteristic to the present day. However, by the middle of the 19th century, a change occurred on the American campus that caused fraternities to acquire a secondary characteristic: the fraternity house. Due to many factors and circumstances, most of them economic, a number of institutions were unable to maintain housing for their students. Consequently, campuses were ringed with boarding houses where students secured their own lodging and meals. In 1846, at the University of Michigan Chi Psi built a 20-by-14-foot log cabin in which to hold its meetings. This marks the first instance of the fraternity as social living group and the end to the fraternity as simply social outlet (Baily, 1949). Almost half of men by 1840 joined these social groups for the purpose of the “extracurriculum,” at both Union and Dartmouth (Dartmouth, 1936). However, this created much antifraternity sentiment. Whereas at Union College they reveled in support, at Dartmouth they did not. The administration of Dartmouth did not favor secret societies. In 1846 the trustees banned any elections to secret societies after 1849 (Dartmouth, 1936). Thus, Dartmouth president Nathan Lord in 1847 established and furthered the edict and banned freshmen and sophomores from joining fraternities. President Lord opposed the societies and praised a general antisociety sentiment in his report of 1847, noting that the two lower classes (freshmen and sophomores) seemed predominantly opposed. A Dartmouth freshman in 1846 described the societies as “the cause of division, envy, and malice. About one-half the men in college belong to them, these are the most talented”

from halls to house

49

(p. 32). However, Dartmouth did not enforce its 1840s ban on fraternities. Furthermore, by the mid-1850s the societies’ public standing had improved. Four more fraternities began in the 1850s. Zeta Psi was a short-lived one, lasting from 1853 to 1863; Delta Kappa Epsilon was chartered July 14, 1853 (Dartmouth, 1936). The Chandler School was its scientific extension, serving students studying what was deemed the “physical sciences,” leading to a bachelor of science degree. The Chandler students created two societies that later became college fraternities: Phi Zeta Mu in November 1857 and Sigma Delta Pi in the fall of 1858. By 1855 more than 60% of students, mostly upperclassmen, were in fraternities. At Union much was the same as it was at Dartmouth as the proliferation of fraternities continued. Psi Upsilon was founded in 1833, Chi Psi formed in 1841, and Theta Delta Chi was organized in 1847 (Baily, 1949). Psi Upsilon had originally formed in 1819 as the Delphian Society. Five freshmen and two sophomores transitioned the Delphian Society into a Greek-letter social fraternity. Chi Psi was formed by 10 students entirely on the basis of a social foundation for the betterment of brotherhood. Theta Delta Chi formed itself as an offshoot of Chi Psi as some of its members believed in a more conservative association of men (Huffcutt, 1899). Each of these social groups were formed to cater to a different niche of men. By 1857 Union had 10 fraternities which each catered to different types of men. The proliferation of fraternities at both Union and Dartmouth and their increase in number and size created the demand for meeting space. Dorm rooms at Union became a crowded meeting space for 15 to 20 men. Thus, at Union they began to rent boarding house rooms for their meetings in the local town of Schenectady. At Dartmouth, groups were small and usually met in some student’s room, in a vacant classroom, or even in some secluded spot in the woods (Huffcutt, 1899). At Dartmouth seclusion and secrecy grew under the persecution of the administration, and the fraternities’ situation led to high demand for private meeting space (Dartmouth, 1936). By this time many chapters had grown too large to meet in student rooms and had started renting halls as well. Moreover, demand for a housed fraternity community emerged in the early days of “the university,” when students were not guaranteed four years of on-campus housing. The prototype of the modern fraternity house was a log cabin built by the University of Michigan chapter of Chi Psi in 1846 in the woods near Ann Arbor, as a place where a meeting could be held peacefully and secretly (Baily, 1949). Delta Kappa Epsilon’s 1853 occupation of a cabin at Kenyon College in Gambier, Ohio, is the second oldest freestanding fraternity hall in the country (Baily, 1949).

The Fraternity Social Living Groups The first known instance of fraternity ownership of real estate came when Kappa Alpha Society purchased a lot and house at Williams College in 1864 (Baily, 1949). As sizes of chapters increased, fraternities began to rent halls and houses, a few even buying

50

histor ical foundations

them outright. Other fraternities then copied this archetype for communal housing. Though buildings required more resources than a rented hall, they gave the advantages of being both more permanent and more prominent. Fraternities built the meeting halls as much to proclaim their existence as to have a simple place to gather. However, very few American college fraternities had their own buildings before the Civil War, which made Union and Dartmouth unique, as will be discussed. The change from being a group that “met” together to being a group that “lived” together was an evolution in fraternity/sorority communal residential living. It altered the entire concept of fraternity. This had its own advantages and disadvantages. It strengthened unity, discipline, activities, and friendships of its members. It also provided these newly residential groups ways to become more engaged and invested within the campus life. On some campuses the fraternities began fostering extracurricular activities, such as athletics, the newspaper, homecoming, and college dances. Many colleges concerned themselves solely with the educational process and took no responsibility for the other facets of student life, such as at Dartmouth and Union. At Union College, the fraternities established the “Fraternity Quad” beginning in 1883. This quad housed 15 fraternity houses in the center of the campus (Huffcutt, 1899). This provided the social hub of the campus and was the social epicenter of the campus culture through its antebellum period until well into the 20th century. The fraternities built the houses and were self-financed. The college owned the land on which the houses were built. Psi Upsilon was the first fraternity to build a house, with Chi Psi following suit (Huffcutt, 1899). Chi Psi constructed the largest house at the time and named it the Phillip Spencer Lodge in honor of one its primary chapter founders. Also following the trend was Phi Delta Theta which was founded when Psi Upsilon built the first house on campus in 1883. Phi Delta Theta constructed the largest fraternity house on campus. It was so large that the Union College administration stated that no other houses could be any larger. The Phi Delta Theta house slept over 20 men, which was quite substantial in size during this era. It featured a billiards room, a smoking room, a large meeting room, as well as a lounge, a fireplace, and a large study room (Huffcutt, 1899). Its amenities quickly challenged the short-lived status quo of fraternity housing as these same amenities quickly attracted many prospective members such that the chapter was literally bursting at the seams. This house set the tone for made-to-order fraternity houses which boast luxurious common rooms, libraries, recreation rooms, complete kitchens and dining rooms, as well as sleeping and studying accommodations for 20 to 80 members that would be the envy of the campus. Thus, by the turn of the century the fraternity/sorority housing movement began to spread in earnest. Unlike the Fraternity Quad at Union, Dartmouth fraternities were less united and even more segregated to form a “Greek Row.” They bought or rented any open or communal space that was available in Hanover (Dartmouth, 1936). For instance, Phi Zeta Mu met until 1868 in Chandler Hall, which they rented from Dartmouth, and Theta

from halls to house

51

Delta Chi in 1869 moved into the abandoned brick Dartmouth National Bank building, which they converted into a lounge and meeting space. By 1860 all six fraternities began to occupy the first dedicated and privately owned meeting spaces at Dartmouth. Delta Kappa Epsilon was the first, as they occupied a hall a year after its 1853 founding date. These halls began as single meeting rooms, used for weekly gatherings and therefore probably similar to the Society Hall in Dartmouth Hall, which is still in use at this time for academic or literary debate. The fraternities added new functions to the mere debating chamber: their spaces fostered a comfortable, club-like atmosphere for lounging and in some cases included bedrooms for members. These halls, though usually not expressed on the exterior of their buildings, also attempted to impress. This atmosphere befitted the secretive nature of the fraternities and reflected their status as organizations that were funded privately and therefore more susceptible to extravagance. The most common sort of meeting hall was an upstairs room on Main Street, though in one case Psi Upsilon built a freestanding hall in 1860. Other fraternities soon began to occupy common-space buildings or inns such as the Tontine. The Tontine was an inn that by 1860 eventually had all of its rooms rented to fraternities. In 1860, Kappa Kappa Kappa or “Tri-Kapp,” erected its own hall in Hanover on College Street, the first freestanding hall in town and one of the earliest dedicated fraternity buildings in the country. The hall was a single-story building about 38 feet deep by 28 feet wide (Dartmouth, 1936). The building resembled a simple flat-roofed box, amassing an aura almost as tomblike as it was “house-like”, with a single fireplace which heated the hall. Within a decade since the inception of the push for communal space, Alpha Delta Phi established a new standard in the conception of the fraternity house above that of the Union Phi Delta Theta house. In 1872, this is the single Dartmouth example of this change in the evolution of fraternities to social living groups (Dartmouth, 1936). This was the first building to mix both communal space and living quarters in one structure. Previously, the Dartmouth fraternities had erected a hall or a hall with an attachment for sleeping quarters. This building cost the fraternity $4,000. For almost 30 years no other Dartmouth fraternity could afford to build its own building, with the next fraternity building made of brick not arriving until 50 years later. The Dartmouth building neither favored the domestic living aspects over its secret nature nor separated the two functions of ordinary living and secret meeting. Even though the organization had added the new addition of inclusive living quarters, the form of the building disguises the fact. The Alpha Delta Phi house marks the end of an era for the fraternity, as later fraternities abandoned the secretive mode and began to build around this house to form a “Greek Row,” as fraternities would continue to occupy Main Street and other halls until the first decade of the 20th century, especially when they were in their ephemeral years. Based on this model all new fraternity buildings would incorporate bedrooms and follow domestic models more suited to a family house in town. This was a catalyst to mark the end

52

histor ical foundations

of the halls era at Dartmouth, which facilitated the transition from halls to true houses and the beginning of fraternities as a social living group as at Union. During this period of the early Fraternity Quad at Union and the Greek Row at Dartmouth, fires caused significant setbacks. They were far more common at Dartmouth than at Union, unfortunately. A major fire on Main Street on January 4, 1887, destroyed the inn as well as all the halls (Dartmouth, 1936). This caused most of the fraternities to either rebuild or move. For example, Psi Upsilon moved to a large former general store they converted to a house complete with living quarters and Delta Kappa Epsilon moved to more comfortable quarters on the second and third floors of another house formerly used as a commercial building. The appearance of the house stood in stark contrast to the fraternity halls that previously existed, but the domestic symbolism may have been unintentional. This was a shift in iconography which took place following Alpha Delta Phi’s much earlier implementation of residential living and the Main Street fire of 1887. These events caused a shift in fraternities with mercurial rapidity toward the status of social living groups. By 1910, all Union fraternities were residential and all those at Dartmouth that had been headquartered in halls began to move into houses with residential accommodations. The addition of the traditionally southern fraternities such as Sigma Nu or Phi Sigma Kappa had truly begun to take root at Dartmouth and at Union Colleges during this time (Collett, 1955). These organizations, who each respectively formed in the 1890s, searched for a “desirable country residence” and constructed grandiose houses at the turn of the century. Sigma Chi, Phi Delta Gamma, and Kappa Sigma, also southern fraternities, followed in the footsteps of their predecessors by 1911 and thereby established the prototypical fraternity house marked by Ionic or Corinthian order columns in a Dutch colonial style. There was no unity of style with the other fraternity houses, other than that they were universally domestic in character. Only the southern fraternities conformed to the “Dutch colonial” style. In this Dutch style, often the first floor comprised a reception room and hall, a living room, and a billiard room. The other three floors accommodated 12 men in five suites, with living rooms and studies in a white Colonial finish. The design usually included surrounding landscape with English hedge and flower gardens. These rather large Georgian fraternity homes today characterize the pillared residences so often stereotyped in the respective minds of the collective consciousness. Many fraternities built houses to their own designs while copying this exterior design. Beta Theta Pi and Phi Delta Theta constructed two large “colonial”-style buildings modeled after southern fraternity houses, in 1902 and 1903, respectively (Dartmouth, 1936). Psi Upsilon did the same in 1908. Sigma Phi Epsilon had its house exterior done to match this same style in 1912. Other fraternities sought residential quarters and adapted the structures to best fit their organizational needs. The style at Union, for example, is not the common style of house that is portrayed in popular collegiate movies and TV shows.

from halls to house

53

At Dartmouth, fraternities generally bought family residences, though a few bought such buildings as a church, a hotel, and a nurses’ dormitory that the hospital’s school of nursing had once used. Some organizations bought houses that another fraternity had previously occupied. In 1897, Pi Lambda Phi began as the first Jewish fraternity and ironically occupied a former Catholic cathedral (Sanua, 2003). The fraternities by 1915 had predominantly centered themselves on Webster Ave., North Main St., West Wheelock St., and School St. (Dartmouth, 1936). This marked the formation of the now traditional Dartmouth “Greek Row” (Hering, 1925). The dawn of the World War I era in 1917 marked an end to the fraternity housing boom at Dartmouth (Dartmouth, 1936). There were no fraternity houses or changes to the structural facades of the chapter houses until well after 1925 (Dartmouth, 1936). Then, the temperance movement gave rise to fraternity houses as speakeasies, by which they were able to gain much capital (Nuwer, 1999). This new capital from the speakeasies they ran, coupled with the economic boom of the 1920s, gave rise in 1925 to a national boom in fraternity house construction. This time was also marked by a book, Oswald Hering’s (1925) Designing and Building the Chapter House. The propagation of communal housing shifted the emphasis from a simple social living group towards a model that was much more substantially significant.

The Beginnings of the Modern Residential Model As previously mentioned, the transition from meeting in dormitory rooms caused a need for space which eventually caused the formation of the Fraternity Quad at Union and the eventual formation of the Greek Row at Dartmouth as they moved from halls to houses. However, this evolution and iconic shift of the fraternity from a social outlet to a social living group naturally mirrored a larger national trend that originated at Dartmouth and Union, as previously mentioned. An author of an 1895 American University Magazine article on Dartmouth fraternities wrote: The idea of chapter houses as it came from other colleges was discussed by many of the chapters, and the prevalent belief was that a chapter house would tend to isolate its occupants from the rest of the college, or worse still, might create factions in college affairs. The Dartmouth man has always looked with abhorrence upon anything savoring of an aristocracy. Gradually there has come a change in the attitude of the students toward this question, not that they have weakened in principle, but it appears that the chapter house does not destroy the unity of the College. (Dartmouth, 1936, p. 36)

54

histor ical foundations

The move mirrored a rather national change in meaning. Fraternities had previously been shifting to an outlook that valued socializing more than secrecy and the fellowship of meetings more than the literary aspect. The new emphasis was on the good times one could have in college and the associations one could make. During this period the collegiate ideal was returning after a period of German-influenced “universitization.” Fraternities experienced a great growth in popularity. Faculty member Ashton Willard observed this change in 1897, noting that “the students who belong to these organizations have close social relationship with each other, and find it agreeable to be quartered under the same roof ” (Dartmouth, 1936, p. 38). Willard insightfully commented on the architectural component of this shift. Campus housing during the early era of campus life left a growing number of students becoming used to living in boarding houses rather than in dormitories as more students had a greater personal wealth than in earlier periods and could afford to board in fraternity houses. Finally, many fires forced many fraternities out of their old homes, such as the Tontine in 1887 at Dartmouth. Owning and maintaining property required the cooperation of the alumni, many of whom in the past had simply graduated and disappeared. They became involved with the management of the chapters, which indirectly benefited the colleges by keeping alumni interested and engaged in the affairs of their alma mater. Likewise, private ownership of these houses relieved many colleges and universities of the financial burden of building additional residence halls. Fraternities have a practical benefit of housing people when an expanding college or university cannot cope, and many institutions at this time relied on fraternities this way. This willingness on the part of sororities and fraternities to assume responsibility for housing has gradually led to many arrangements on the part of the institutions, such as “leased land” agreements, whereby the school owns the land and the fraternity constructs the building. These complicated arrangements caused many tensions between fraternities and their host institution. This even happened at Dartmouth. Its trustees saw a danger in the new houses and the potential it promised for what was happening elsewhere. They saw the existence of separate dining facilities and de facto private dormitories which segregated their members into cliques (Dartmouth, 1936). So in 1902, they decided in the “interest of democracy” that no more than 14 members could live in a fraternity and that no house could have a dining facility. These rules made their way into the deeds for Webster Avenue properties that the institution sold to many of the fraternities. This later caused much tension between students and the administration, which led to several food fights involving frozen potatoes as well as tomatoes (Huffcutt, 1899). Dartmouth did not truly accept fraternity houses compared to Union which embraced them so early on. As an institution, Dartmouth instead approved of more separation between themselves and their emerging fraternity/sorority community. However, they did provide the foundation for what the modern conception is of a Fraternity Quad or a Greek Row. This helped position the collegiate fraternity

from halls to house

55

or sorority as an independent social living group. This legacy is the true impact of the Greek communities at Dartmouth and Union.

Fraternities as Residential Learning Communities Shortly after 1925, Stanford allowed fraternities to build or purchase houses around the campus in order to facilitate the original idea of campus planner Frederick Law Olmsted for a cottage system modeled after Dartmouth (Hering, 1925). Though it came to fruition in one form with fraternities, Olmsted’s ideal was a domestically scaled residence where a small number of students could live and dine together in familial camaraderie. By 1915, approximately 600 chapters owned houses of some descriptions, mostly private dwellings adapted to their use (Bailey, 19149). It is estimated at that time 60 to 70% of fraternities lived in their own houses—either leased or owned (Hering, 1925). The rest had lodges or suites or rented meeting rooms (Bailey, 1949). A great boom in fraternity construction had swept the country in the first quarter of the 20th century. Millions of dollars had been invested by the fraternities in their buildings and their furnishings. This legacy grounded in the origins of Dartmouth and Union continues in the contemporary era. The proliferation of fraternity housing also impacted the sorority community with the advent of coeducation in the 1950s and 1960s. Opponents of fraternity/sorority life often argue that another type of student organization would arise in place of fraternities and sororities. Moreover, its necessity for housing has outlived its purpose as many colleges support their existence only for tradition. They are merely an artifact of a past existence as many colleges have attempted to eliminate or reduce their influence. Whether a new residential model is to replace the fraternity and sorority remains an enigma. However, several different formats of practice exist based on the Union and Dartmouth models of a Fraternity Quad and Greek Row.

Examples of Practice The challenges of fraternity and sorority housing within the contemporary era rest in the attitudes of students, administrators, faculty, and other external constituencies of a college or university who have facilitated the views that sororities and in particular fraternities are no more than speakeasies or drinking clubs (Wechsler, Kuh, & Davenport, 1996). This has generated the Animal House stereotype that is commonly associated with fraternities (Maisel, 1990). This perception along with consistent stories of alcohol misuse has motivated college administrators and officials to take action; however these efforts have had little effectiveness Meanwhile, fraternity and sorority housing has been featured in the mainstream press with significant negative publicity on a more than consistent basis (Sasso, 2015; Sasso & Schwitzer, 2016). Reports of incidents involving

56

histor ical foundations

hazing, alcohol and substance abuse, sexual assault, discrimination, ethnic/cultural insensitivity, and poor scholarship fill its headlines (Mathiasen, 2005). University administrations have attempted a number of measures to curb the trend of binge drinking and its associated negative effects. These efforts have included everything from mandating dry housing (Crosse, Ginexi, & Caudill, 2006) to banning common source containers such as kegs specifically for fraternities and sororities (Kilmer, Larimer, Parks, Dimeff, & Marlatt, 1999). However, these measures have been found to have little or no effect (Wall, Reis, & Bureau, 2012). Regardless of policy, fraternities continue to consume heavy volumes of alcohol (Kilmer et al., 1999). If there are policies in place to restrict alcohol use, fraternities will increase their levels of binge drinking (Kilmer et al., 1999). Additionally educational programs have limited effectiveness in addressing fraternity alcohol misuse (Wall, Reis, & Bureau, 2012). Therefore, most measures and attempts to control alcohol misuse such as binge drinking have not resulted in the decrease of alcohol consumption levels sought by institutions (Wall, Reis, & Bureau, 2012). This failure is indicative of the numerous social aspects of fraternity life that can create an environment conducive to excessive alcohol use (Baer, 1994). Dinger and Parsons (1999) examined the prevalence of high-risk sexual behaviors among college students at a midwestern university. Questionnaires using 12 sexuality items and several demographic questions from the National College Health Risk Behavior Survey were completed by 735 students aged 18 years or older who lived in residence halls or fraternity/sorority housing, with most of the behavior being addressed involving alcohol. Results revealed that 86.3% of the students had experienced sexual intercourse, with students living in fraternity or sorority housing having more lifetime sexual intercourse partners and engaging in more sexual activity during the 30 days preceding the survey than students living in residence halls. Thus, residing in fraternity/sorority housing is a strong correlate with increased sexual activity involving alcohol. Baer (1994) studied individual perceptions of approval concerning alcohol consumption of first-year students who reside in Greek, residential, and off-campus housing and also examined the frequency of drinking within Greek housing. Residential students reported that others would not care about their drinking every weekend. Greeks generally indicated that individuals would show mild approval about drinking every weekend, but showed moderate disapproval in drinking every day. Off-campus residents showed strong disapproval for drinking every day. This survey further studied the frequency of college student binge drinking in social groups and also examined the social norms surrounding the culture of alcohol use within the social groups with residential students and fraternity houses. Overall, Greek members were found to drink at least once or twice a week. Fraternity members were found to be drinking almost three or four times a week in Greek housing. Their frequency of alcohol consumption was significantly higher than residential students who drank at least once or twice a week. With additional respect to risk management as an intervention for high-risk drinking, several national fraternities and universities have enforced a dry-housing mandate

from halls to house

57

for their houses or living-learning communities. Crosse et al. (2006) and Hart (1999) found that dry-housing efforts were ineffective. Hart (1999) specifically found that at one institution that instituted dry housing fraternity and sorority members partied in the greater community instead of at their chapter house. This resulted in significant community issues and a public health burden on local law enforcement (Hart, 1999). Additional findings by Robison (2007) reveal that it is possible to maintain dry housing, but not without significant challenges. An additional effort to facilitate alcohol awareness interventions within chapter houses has also shown low levels of efficacy (Savoy, 2007). However, despite these findings, a recent trend in the year 2018 yielded several larger, more influential inter/national fraternities declaring they would become alcohol free over the next few years. Beta Theta Pi, Sigma Phi Epsilon, and Delta Upsilon, arguably three of the most influential fraternities in the country as evidenced by their visibility on the staff of the NIC and on the board of the Association of Fraternity and Sorority Advisors (AFA), declared their movement toward this type of housing. On May 16, 2018, Delta Upsilon’s Board of Directors passed a substance-free housing policy to take effect August 1, 2020, beginning with the removal of hard alcohol from all houses by August 1, 2018 (Delta Upsilon, 2018). Although the removal of alcohol does remove the risk from the houses, it is not necessarily a catch-all as it does not replace or provide guidelines for what to do nor does it account for refocusing efforts on productive behaviors. Administrators may have also considered connecting engagement to fraternity housing. Research has indicated creating a living-learning environment can increase student engagement and enhance student experiences (Kuh, 1996; Nesheim, Guentzel, & Kellogg, 2007). Connecting the living environment to learning experiences pushes students beyond boundaries. In fact, studies suggest fraternities may challenge students to move beyond themselves and reflect on their place in society. This reflection, when combined with peer discussions, can create an atmosphere of inclusion and social consciousness. Previous research has already suggested an impact of living environment on social awareness (Inkelas, Zeller, Murphy, & Hummel, 2006; Kezar, 2006; Li, McCoy, Shelley, & Whalen, 2005; Pasque & Murphy, 2005). Although residential students provide a unique environment for student engagement, we must also meet the needs of fraternity members living off campus. Faculty may provide an important link for connecting with this population as classroom interaction may be a primary engagement opportunity (Harper & Quaye, 2008; Kuh, 2009). These challenges have led to several different formats or outcomes related to fraternity/sorority residential communities.

Transitioning Fraternity/Sorority Housing Bowdoin College would join the ranks of those colleges eliminating their fraternity and sorority communities. In March of 1997, the Board of Trustees approved the recommendations of the Trustee Commission on Residential Life. Fraternities at Bowdoin were phased out and a new system of inclusive “College Houses” was implemented.

58

histor ical foundations

Interest in fraternities and sororities had waned. After more than a century and a half of fraternities at Bowdoin, their abolition was a historic shift for the college. The houses were restored into independent-living communities linked by common dining facilities that were remodeled as part of recommendations made by the Trustee Commission on Residential Life. Outcomes included a greater sense of community, but the elimination of fraternity/sorority life did not lead to a reduction in alcohol consumption by undergraduates. For over about a century, visitors to Union College stood at its gates and were greeted by three regal mansions. The houses were occupied by fraternities; their presence was a symbol of the centrality of fraternity/sorority organizations. However, they have been reframed into a residential model inspired by the Greek goddess of wisdom, Minerva. Minerva housing at Union College has replaced the three former fraternity/sorority mansions with an additional four other houses and relocated the fraternities to other residences. In Minerva housing, incoming first-year students are placed into a first-year preceptorial class, which is connected to their Minerva House assignment. Students are also connected to a faculty member as these houses serve as living-learning communities as well. Each house is also governed independently and is given a programming budget. Students are encouraged to develop a governance structure that is unique in character and spirit. Each House Council is led by a House Council chair and a residential upperclassman mentor. Although Minerva housing has failed to produce the alternative that the college administration sought, it has allowed students to create a different sense of community outside of the one created by members of fraternities and sororities. Additional support now exists for the proliferation of theme houses, Minervas, and other alternative fraternity/sorority institutions. This approach will ideally starve fraternities and sororities of potential new members, pushing the remaining ones off campus. This has begun to happen in a subtle fashion. Just as Colby was wrapping up its transition period by 1990 (as the last students with any organizational affiliation were graduating), the fraternity/sorority relevance question at Middlebury College was arising. A series of embarrassing public incidents, particularly involving fraternities, called into question the relevance and role of its own fraternity/sorority community. One such incident involving a mannequin being thrown out of a house onto the front lawn of the fraternity house, in direct view of the university president, certainly appeared to conjure up images of the revels of Animal House. The mannequin become a metaphor of unbridled influence the six fraternities had exerted over campus life. This truly marked the beginning of the end, as the drinking age was raised to 21 in 1986 in Vermont. The fraternities had simply become speakeasies and unruly bastions for underage drinking. Shortly thereafter, the Middlebury president Olin Robison declared it “a point beyond which our tolerance cannot and must not be stretched.” The mannequin fraternity, Delta Upsilon, was suspended for a full year. A generation of college students passed and, by 1990, the Board of Trustees had reached its

from halls to house

59

limit. In late 1989, a task force study stated, “The narrowly defined, fraternity-dominated social life on campus is incompatible with our vision of the future.” Through a vote in early 1990, it was insisted that the fraternities include women and become coeducational. The fraternities realized that they would then have to forfeit their national affiliations or dissolve. Within one academic year, the fraternity community had been officially abolished. Several of them transitioned into coeducational “social houses.” A new type of residential system was also set in place in 1991, combining elements of the colonial residential college system with the contemporary conception of living-learning communities. First-year Middlebury students were put in cohorts and tracked into one of five coeducational living learning communities. The response was not completely cordial on the part of all the fraternities; one, in particular, resisted the new social order on campus. Delta Kappa Epsilon (DKE) attempted to keep its house and later trashed it in the vein of 1980s rock stars when they were forced to vacate the premises. They reportedly ripped off bannisters, broke windows, and put many holes in the walls. The college later repaired the house and made it one of the coeducational houses. The chapter waged a legal battle that ended up being fruitless. The group also attempted to meet in secret at an off-campus warehouse through 1994. Similarly, Swarthmore College students initially voted in favor of coeducational fraternities/sororities, but the college made no formal policy changes or mandates until they eliminated their fraternity/sorority community at the end of the 2018-2019 academic year after significant student protest.

Residential Learning Communities Different forms of residential housing exist, as previously noted in this chapter, including (a) leased-land agreements, (b) theme housing, or (c) private housing. However, none of these arrangements are intentional for student learning and development. However, the next iteration in the evolution of fraternity/sorority housing may serve as a promising practice that will align chapters with the learning mission of collegiate institutions and is based on the residential education living-learning community (LLC) model. These are termed residential learning communities (RLC). RLCs have been found to challenge and support students to move to higher levels of intellectual and psychological development (Chickering & Reisser, 1993; Evans, Forney, Guido, Patton, & Renn, 2009). They have the potential to encapsulate the three main areas that have the most influence on academic outcomes—involvement with academics, involvement with faculty, and involvement with student peer groups (Astin, 1996). These outcomes are believed to improve through the development of shared beliefs and norms within a shared living environment, which extends learning beyond the classroom. Though RLCs have evolved from their original inception, inspired by Oxford and Cambridge Universities in England, much of their structure and purpose have remained consistent across time (Sanford, 1962).

60

histor ical foundations

Lenning and Ebbers (1999) identified four main categories of learning communities. The first type of learning community they identified focused strictly on academics, which links students who are coenrolled in two or more courses though a common theme, often across disciplines. The second type of learning community builds on the idea of using the classroom as the vehicle for creating a learning community, but takes the concept a step further. It features cooperative learning techniques and group process learning activities that integrate pedagogical approaches. The third type of learning community is similar to the first two, with the addition of a common residence hall setting allowing classmates to live in close proximity, thereby increasing opportunities for out-of-class interaction and supplemental learning activities. This type of learning community is aligned with what Tinto and Braxton (2000) and Shapiro and Levine (1999) found. Providing a common meeting place helps to create the feeling of unity within that space, thus creating an RLC. A fourth type of learning community is designed around affinity groups such as cultural and academic interests (Lenning & Ebbers, 1999). An example of this is Sig Ep RLC, as fraternities are considered to be affinity groups. The critical difference among these four learning communities is the residential component found in the third type. This component provides additional opportunities for shared experiences outside of the classroom. The purpose of this component of learning communities is to provide seamless integration of the student’s social and academic life. It is important to note that although many forms of learning communities exist, this chapter focuses on the type that includes a residential component as part of its structure. Once integrated fully into a structured residential community, students became more committed and engaged, which creates the sense of belonging that leads to persistence (Pike, Schroeder, & Berry, 1997; Tinto, 1975). As student engagement in educationally purposeful activities both inside and outside of the classroom became more of a focus in higher education, a more contemporary version of the RLC that was informed by research conducted in the previous decades was developed (Kuh, 1996; Zhao & Kuh, 2004).

Residential Learning Communities in Fraternity/Sorority Communities Recognizing that many of the behavioral issues and academic failures that fraternity members were experiencing involved the context of the fraternity house, one fraternity committed to finding a solution that could be implemented system-wide. Sigma Phi Epsilon (Sig Ep) fraternity began to research programs that could potentially create an environment in which the shared social norms were more in line with the vision of the fraternity, which is “building balanced men” (Sigma Phi Epsilon, 2017). The Balanced Man Program initiative, described on their website, is founded on five philosophical tenets: equal rights and responsibilities, continuous development, accountability, living the ritual, and mentoring.

from halls to house

61

The work group responsible for finding the solution discovered that the traditional residential learning community supported by residential life programs on university campuses showed promise for their needs and success in the areas which they needed to address. The traditional measures of determining the success and effectiveness of RLCs focus on increased academic success (Zhao & Kuh, 2004) and the motivation and behavior of the student with regard to personal development (Astin, 1984). The assumptions underpinning the positive influence on these two variables through an RLC seem to have merit regardless of their structure or design (Sriram & Shushok, 2010; Stassen, 2003; Zhao & Kuh, 2004). The fraternity is committed to “building balanced men,” as they navigate the most transformative time in their lives, their college years (Sigma Phi Epsilon, 2017). Part of the execution of this commitment to building balanced men is the development of unique programs that address the challenges the members of Sig Ep face as collegiate men. The headquarters staff identified the on-campus RLC model as a program that could aid in the academic and social development of their members. They took best practices and structural components of RLCs and developed their own iteration consistent with the values espoused by the fraternity. Sig Ep claims to have implemented a unique program that attempts to combat academic apathy and the underperformance of their members, including social irresponsibility, using the RLC structure. The fraternity defines their RLCs as undergraduate chapters that are committed to the following four operational components: recruiting and developing balanced men, providing consistent support from a strong alumni and volunteer corporation (alumni advisory team to the chapter), engaging university faculty and student affairs professionals as faculty fellows, and managing an environment conducive to undergraduate success, putting academics to the forefront in the living environment. The headquarters staff is committed to the ideal that the implementation of the program will be similar to the residentially based RLC models, which have been shown to be successful in promoting academic achievement and social development (Pike, 1999; Stassen, 2003). The design of this fraternal RLC is unique, as it is not housed within a unit of the department of residential life on a local campus, and much of the oversight rests on volunteers and a student leader. The RLC structure is built on university partnerships and faculty engagement. Once the program is built, several key people ensure that the RLC program is being executed properly. Those responsible for the oversight of the RLC are the appointed faculty fellow (a member of the local institution’s faculty or administration), the hired graduate resident scholar (traditionally a graduate student originally from another Sig Ep chapter), and the undergraduate RLC chair, who is elected by his peers. To be considered a successful program, certain components must be developed, including a transparent and sound academic plan for the individual members of the chapter, goals to increase the academic performance of the chapter that are shared and upheld by the members, a relationship with the host institution and faculty members, and relationships with key RLC partners and stakeholders. Additionally, the program

62

histor ical foundations

must include regularly scheduled RLC events that address academic performance and study skills and have scholarships, awards, or incentives to promote academic success. The program, established in 2000 as a guide for chapters, aimed to create a more powerful living-learning environment. These efforts are believed to provide the members of the 50 chapters of the RLC program out of the 228 total Sig Ep chapters a superior experience as undergraduate fraternity men. A dissertation study on the Sig Ep RLC uncovered several implications of subscribing to this program. Although the analysis revealed that RLC members were less engaged with faculty and their campus environment, their GPAs were significantly higher than their non-RLC counterparts (Zunick, 2017). It is important to note that this study indicated that levels of engagement in cocurricular participation for students involved in the RLC in their freshman year dropped off by their senior year, meaning that RLCs should focus more on all years of membership, perhaps connecting it more to the Balanced Man program in more intentional ways. Perhaps the most surprising finding from the study that was conducted is the notion that students were less engaged than their counterparts in chapters that did not employ the RLC, despite each of these chapters having a specific faculty member serving as an advisor (Zunick, 2017). It was hypothesized that this area of the program had been underdeveloped and that if proper training for faculty fellows was implemented, a reverse of these outcomes might be possible. This is an important and telling indication that RLCs can be a best practice for engaging Students of Color, and that perhaps fraternities can provide a similar experience, based on the results of this study. Conversely, this study indicated that levels of engagement in cocurricular participation for students involved in the RLC in their freshman year dropped off by their senior year, suggesting that Sig Ep should work on providing more high-impact learning activities for upperclassmen, including active and collaborative learning and higher order cognitive activities such as the application of learning or synthesis of ideas (Umbach & Wawrzynski, 2005).

Conclusion Using the evolution of fraternity housing as an example, this chapter has demonstrated that fraternity and sorority housing has taken many forms as demonstrated by the historical timeline. Other more modern examples have suggested the unraveling of traditional fraternity/sorority housing communities on college campuses. The future purpose and relevance of fraternity/sorority housing remains to be established. Campus professionals often seek programs that can teach high-impact practices that have been linked to academic performance. Supported by the current research, models such as the Sig Ep RLC is a strong candidate for enhancing students’ GPAs. Professionals can use components of this program to create structures for fraternity men living in houses, possibly resulting in academic success being part of the culture in the chapter.

from halls to house

63

Other high-impact practices as indicated by the National Survey of Student Engagement, aside from engaging in a learning community, can create a synergistic effect on outcomes, such as incorporating service-learning. Intentional opportunities should connect with a continuous educational membership development program (McCormick, Gonyea, & Kinzie, 2013).

References Astin, A. W. (1984). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of College Student Personnel, 25(4), 297–308. Astin, A. W. (1996). Involvement in learning revisited: Lessons we have learned. Journal of College Student Development, 37(2), 123–134. Baer, J. S. (1994). Effects of a college residence on perceived norms for alcohol consumption: An examination of the first year in college. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 8(2), 43–50. Baily, H. J. (1949). Baird’s manual of American college fraternities (15th ed). Menasha, WI: Banta. Chickering, A. W., & Reisser, L. (1993). Education and identity. (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Collett, R. C. (1955). Centennial history of Sigma Chi Fraternity. TN: Benson Publishing. Dartmouth College (1936). Survey of the social life in Dartmouth College: Fraternities. Dartmouth, NH: Dartmouth College Publications. Delta Upsilon. (2018, May 16). Delta Upsilon announces alcohol free policy. Retrieved from https://www.deltau.org/substance-free-announcement Crosse, S. B. Ginexi, E. M. &Caudill, B. D. (2006). Examining the effects of a national alcohol-free fraternity housing policy. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 27( 5), 477-495. Dinger, M. K., & Parsons, N. (1999). Sexual activity among college students living in residence halls and fraternity or sorority housing. Journal of Health Education, 30(4), 242-246. Evans, N. J., Forney, D. S., Guido, F. M., Patton, L. D., & Renn, K. A. (2009). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Harper, S. R., & Quaye, S. J. (2008). Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations. London: Routledge Hart, L. A. (1999). A study of campus Greek advisors regarding alcohol use on American college campuses (Doctoral dissertation, Georgia State University, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(04A), 1039. Hering, O. (1925). Designing and building the chapter house. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota University Press. Huffcut, E. W. (1899). Fredric Carter: The Shield of Theta Delta Chi. New York, NY: Theta Delta Chi. Inkelas, K. K., Zeller, W. J., Murphy, R. K., & Hummel, M. L. (2006). Learning moves home. About Campus, 10(6), 10–16. Kezar, A. (2006). Redesigning for collaboration in learning initiatives: An examination of four highly collaborative campuses. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 804-838. Kilmer R. J., Larimer, M. E., Parks, G. A., Dimeff, L. A., & Marlatt, G. A. (1999). Liability or risk management? evaluation of a greek system alcohol policy. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 4, 269-278.

64

histor ical foundations

Kuh, G. D. (1996). Guiding principles for creating seamless learning environments for undergraduates. Journal of College Student Development, 37(2), 135–148. Kuh, G. D. (2009). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. In R. Gonyea and G. Kuh (Eds.), Using student engagement data in institutional research. New Directions for Institutional Research, No. 141 (pp. 5-20). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lenning, O. T., & Ebbers, L. H. (1999). The powerful potential of learning communities: Improving education for the future (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, Vol. 26, No. 6). Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Higher Education. Li, Y., McCoy, E., Shelley, M. C., & Whalen, D. F. (2005). Contributors to student satisfaction with special program (fresh start) residence halls. Journal of College Student Development, 46(2), 176-192. Mathiasen, R. E. (2005). Moral development in fraternity members: A case study. College Student Journal, 39(2), 242. Maisel, J. P. (1990). Social fraternities and sororities are not conducive to the educational process. NASPA Journal, 28(2), 8-12. McCormick, A. C., Gonyea, R. M., & Kinzie, J. (2013). Refreshing engagement: NSSE at 13. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 45(3), 6–15. Nesheim, B. E., & Guentzel, M. J. & Kellogg, A. H., & McDonald, W. M., & Wells, C. A. & Whitt, E. J. (2007). Outcomes for students of student affairs-academic affairs partnership programs. Journal of College Student Development, 48(4), 435-454. Nuwer, H. (1999). Wrongs of passage: Fraternities, sororities, hazing, and binge drinking. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1999. Pasque, P. A., & Murphy, R. (2005). The intersections of living-learning programs and social identity as factors of academic achievement and intellectual engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 46, 429-440. Pike, G. R. (1999). The effects of residential learning communities and traditional residential living arrangements on educational gains during the first year of college. Journal of College Student Development, 40, 269–284. Pike, G. R., Schroeder, C. C., & Berry, T. R. (1997). Enhancing the educational impact of residence halls: The relationship between residential learning communities and firstyear college experiences and persistence. Journal of College Student Development, 38(6), 609–621. Robison, A. (2007). Case study analysis of a college fraternity utilizing alcohol-free housing (Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, 2007). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(10A), 4227. Sanford, N. (1962). The American college. New York, NY: Wiley. Sanua, M. R. (2003). Going Greek: Jewish college fraternities in the United States, 1895–1945. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press. Sasso. P. A. (2015). White boy wasted: Compensatory masculinities in fraternity men. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 10(1), 14-30. Sasso, P. A., & Schwitzer A. M. (2016). Social desirability and expectations of alcohol in fraternity members. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors. 10(2), 17-35. Savoy, N. D. (2007). The results of an alcohol intervention program for members of Greek chapter houses (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Nebraska, 2007). Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(11A), 4617.

from halls to house

65

Shapiro, N. S., & Levine, J. H. (1999). Creating learning communities: A practical guide to winning support, organizing for change, and implementing programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED434624 Sigma Phi Epsilon. (2017). Balanced Man program. Retrieved from http://sigep.org/thesigepexperience/ programs/balanced-man-program/ Sriram, R. R., & Shushok, F. (2010). Exploring the effect of a residential academic affairs-student affairs partnership: The first year of an engineering and computer science living-learning center. Journal of College & University Student Housing, 36(2), 68–81. Stassen, M. L. (2003). Student outcomes: The impact of varying living-learning community models. Research in Higher Education, 44(5), 581–613. Syrett, N. L. (2009). The company he keeps: A history of white college fraternities. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Tinto, V. (1975). Dropout from higher education: A theoretical synthesis of recent research. Review of Educational Research, 45(1), 89–125. Tinto, V., & Braxton, J. M. (2000). Reworking the student departure puzzle. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Torbenson, C. L., & Parks, G. S. (Eds.). (2009). From the beginning: A history of college fraternities and sororities. Cranbury, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=lJ0hFQlKx4oC&oi=fnd&pg= PA15&ots=DOxt4vzJlZ&sig=ZMuNHYk5v2g2cMxOAN8gJwFopOY Umbach, P. D., & Wawrzynski, M. R. (2005). Faculty do matter: The role of college faculty in student learning and engagement. Research in Higher Education, 46(2), 153–184. Wall, A., Reis, J., & Bureau, D. (2012). Fraternity and sorority new members’ self-regulation of alcohol use. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity Advisors, 2(2), 108-116. Wechsler, H., Kuh, G. D., & Davenport, A. (1996). Fraternities, sororities and binge drinking: Results from a national study of American colleges. NASPA Journal, 33(4), 260-279. Zhao, C.-M., & Kuh, G. D. (2004). Adding value: Learning communities and student engagement. Research in Higher Education, 45(2), 115–138. Retrieved from https://doi. org/10.1023/B:RIHE.0000015692.88534.de Zunick, T. (2017). Assessing academic and personal outcomes for men engaged in the sigma phi epsilon residential learning community (Order No. 10629232). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1923454105)

Part two: legal issues



Chapter 5

Protected Speech or Illegal Behavior: Fraternity Activities in a World of Campus Insecurity Dennis E. Gregory

In January of 2018, I was in Washington, DC, and had the time to visit several shrines to our democracy, including the National Archives, which houses the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution, among other things. Spending a day in the Archives reminded me of our history, and how our freedoms are so important to the nature of who we are as Americans. While in DC, I also had the opportunity to visit the Newseum which, along with the Freedom Forum Institute, is located just a stone’s throw from the Archives. The Newseum is a marvelous six-story edifice which houses a huge number of exhibits related to the First Amendment, with primary focus on the media and their role in upholding the freedom we hold so dear and for which so many have given their talents, their freedom, and their lives. It is good to reflect on these freedoms at a time when the press are under attack by a president and executive branch who lack an appreciation for and understanding of the meaning of the five freedoms in the First Amendment. While at the Newseum I saw a T-shirt (much wisdom is displayed on T-shirts and comic strips) which said, “The First Amendment is not a license to be stupid.” I thought to myself, this is a truism that every American citizen should know and understand. However, as I reflected on the writing of this chapter I began to think that was not true after all. In fact, many fraternities (and to a lesser extent sororities) have absolutely used

70

legal issues

the First Amendment in just that way. They have, legally, acted stupidly, in racist, sexist, and homophobic ways that are antithetical to core fraternal beliefs and defended themselves by using the First Amendment as a shield for their stupidity. It has been said that you “can’t fix stupid” and I truly believe that this is accurate. A First Amendment defense for crass and disgusting behavior, although an articulable defense from punishment at a public university, should not be tolerated by the national and international headquarters of fraternal organizations which are private organizations, and even if a public university is powerless to do so, such stupidity should be punished by the organizations’ leadership. Failure to do so is a demonstration of cowardice that is unacceptable. So how do fraternal organizations defend these stupid and senseless affronts to good taste and violations of common sense using the First Amendment? They argue that whatever they do is protected speech rather than behavior that is not protected. Largely, the courts have bought this argument. This is because it is so difficult to determine what is protected speech or expression and what goes across the line to become unprotected action. For instance, the physical act of burning a U.S. flag has been determined to be protected expression (Texas v. Johnson, 1989). The following are several cases in which fraternal stupidity has been allowed to survive as a result of a call by the courts. Whether this will continue has yet to be seen. However, actions by fraternities and their members continue to shock and dismay university officials and those who support fraternal organizations. According to the Tribune Media Wire (“University of Central Florida,” 2018) the Delta Sigma Phi chapter at the University of Central Florida is accused of posting intimate videos of unsuspecting women on a private Facebook page called the “Dog Pound.” Delta Sigma Phi headquarters has reportedly suspended the chapter. The story also indicated that although the University of Central Florida is not being sued as part of this action, it is reported “that UCF permitted the culture that allowed the incident to occur.” Is this protected expression or do the circumstances of the acquisition of these videos move this beyond protected speech? According to CNN (Sanchez, 2015), this follows an earlier but similar incident involving a chapter of Kappa Delta Rho fraternity. There the chapter was suspended for a year when it was alleged chapter members had posted videos of “unsuspecting victims, drug sales and hazing.” David Chlohessy, director of an organization which supports survivors of sexual abuse, noted that this situation in which “fraternity members posted nude pictures of women on Facebook, some of whom appeared to be sleeping or passed out” raises the question of whether Penn State has corrected the culture which allowed sexual abuse, so close after the case of Jerry Sandusky sexually assaulting children. He noted, this does “raise serious doubts about those claims.” The university did investigate and took action against the fraternity. Could the fraternity have claimed protected expression? Most would argue that this disgusting behavior deserves no protection and falls, if not into criminal action, at least as a violation of Title IX and other civil statutes.

protected speech or illegal behavior

71

In a 2018 case (Ramirez, 2018) the president of the Interfraternity Council at Texas Tech University, Kye Mitchell, posted comments in an online forum called “Frat Chat” in which he indicated, “I’m telling you, build a wall . . . and the us [sic] govt. can sell permits for legal hunting on the border and we can make a sport of this, can be a new tax revenue stream for the gov.” He also indicated, “The us [sic] govt would be making money to stop illegals instead of spending it, win win for everyone.” Mitchell resigned his post and university officials denounced his comments. Here, this seems to be protected speech in the legal sense, and the university, through its condemnation, made a positive statement about its values and principles. Should Mitchell face student conduct adjudication? Should the IFC, in whose name he spoke through one of its social media platforms, be condemned as well? Perhaps the most well-known case is Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi v. George Mason University (1993), in which the fraternity held an “ugly woman” contest: Fraternity members appeared in the contest dressed as caricatures of different types of women, including one member dressed as an offensive caricature of a black woman. He was painted black and wore stringy, black hair decorated with curlers, and his outfit was stuffed with pillows to exaggerate a woman’s breasts and buttocks. He spoke in slang to parody African-Americans. (p. 387)

The court ruled that this was “entertainment” and thus expressive speech that was protected. The court also noted that even absent a ruling that this was entertainment, that the university could not punish the fraternity even if its expression was antithetical to the university mission. To do so would be considered content-based discrimination and thus be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has defined the limits on free speech on campus in a number of cases regarding many types of speech. The basic rule is that speech is protected as long it does not materially disrupt the educational activities of the institution (Healy v. James, 1972; Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 1969). One might define this speech, even if entertainment, as hate speech, but the Supreme Court has ruled that hate speech is protected as well (R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 1992; Snyder v. Phelps, 2011) and has prohibited “Speech Codes” that do not pass constitutional muster because they do not stay within the limits to speech which have been clearly stated by the Court (Doe. v. University of Michigan, 1989; UWM Post v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin, 1991). Julian (2012) noted: “The lesson of the aforementioned cases (Doe v. Michigan, UWM Post, Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi), is straightforward: hate speech is generally protected by the First Amendment. There is no general First Amendment exception for offensive, prejudiced, or demeaning speech” (p. 1587). Julian goes on:

72

legal issues

There are strong policy justifications for both protecting speech that is covered by the First Amendment and rejecting the impulse to regulate and censor. As the academic community realizes, regulating ideas can do more harm than good. The American Association of University Professors has recognized that hate speech cannot and should not be banned. Nurturing ideas and fostering debate are central missions of the university, and institutionalized hostility toward particular views is anathema to those purposes. Moreover, when values are imposed on a community rather than allowed to spring organically from it, those values are undermined by a lack of authenticity. As current Columbia University president and noted First Amendment scholar Lee Bollinger has observed, the toleration of intolerance reaffirms community norms. Even one of the most vociferous advocates of regulating and suppressing hate speech admits that tolerating intolerance demonstrates the strength of a community’s commitment to tolerance. (pp. 1611–1612)

The Court has defined what types of speech are not protected, including the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Obscenity (Miller v. California, 1973) Fighting words (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942) Insightment to violence (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969) Defamation (Gertz v. Welch, 1974) Child pornography (New York v. Ferber, 1982)

Other than these circumstances the Court has ruled that freedom of expression is sacrosanct. This has raised concerns in recent years as “hate speech” is protected speech, as noted previously. There have been calls for the limitation of protection of this type of speech on campus by those who would cede constitutional protection to provide a comfortable, safe campus on which students from vulnerable populations would feel welcome and supported. Those supporting these views have sometimes been referred to in unflattering terms such as “snowflakes,” which means a person who needs a “safe space” and who is not tough enough to understand the realities of life. Chemerinsky and Gillman (2016) note this phenomenon in their article in the Chronicle of Higher Education. The question then is when does expression become behavior and thus is no longer protected expression? A clear line has been drawn regarding hazing. Although local fraternal organizations may tout hazing as ritual and part of their expression to support “pledge class unity,” the need to inculcate the members with organizational values, and other values, hazing is behavior and is no longer tolerated except at some military academies and institutes.

protected speech or illegal behavior

73

As I noted in my chapter entitled “Free Expression at Public Colleges and Universities” (Gregory, 2018): While I abhor those who would demagogue and use hateful language and expression to injure and bully others by threatening their education—and even their ability to exercise basic Constitutional and civil rights—I do not condone the violation of the rights of everyone to stop those who would pervert our freedoms. More speech is better than limiting speech. When we see injustice, such as verbal attacks and demagogery, we should confront it and expose it to the light of a free society, not respond in kind and seek to ban it by violating everyone’s rights. No one, especially not the leaders of our postsecondary institutions, should impose restrictions on expression and punish those who utter speech with which they disagree. While we should condemn racist and sexist speech, we must respond to it rather than try to ban it. Colleges and universities that maintain speech codes that seek to limit protected speech should be ashamed of themselves for institutionalizing political correctness. (p. 138)

Having said that, fraternal leaders, campus leaders, and others should always condemn such “expression” but only limit it when it clearly becomes action. Although this is a truism, such distinctions are difficult to determine. Hazing and other illegal activities have become a bright line which creates this distinction. According to the Roanoke Times (Mastrangelo, 2018) a Radford University student sued the now disbanded Pi Kappa Phi chapter, including multiple members, its national chapter, and several others for an alleged hazing incident. Criminal charges against individual members of the organization had occurred earlier. Most were found guilty of alcohol and related charges but hazing charges were dropped because the court was unable to find evidence to convict them beyond a reasonable doubt. This is but one of many hazing cases that could be cited here, but hazing is not the focus of this chapter. We have only to examine the hazing cases (Reilly, 2017) resulting from the deaths of Tim Piazza at Penn State University, Maxwell Gruver at Louisiana State University, Andrew Coffey at Florida State University, and Matthew Ellis at Texas State University to determine that this is clearly “action’ and one that needs to be stamped out of the lexicon of fraternal life and higher education. That said, however, hazing is not the focus of this chapter. So when does expression become action? A very thorough discussion of this question is provided in a law review article by Frederick Schauer (2015) which appeared in the Emory Law Journal. In this provocative article, Professor Schauer argues that in order for there to be a difference between freedom of speech and other “action” there must be a meaningful distinction between the two concepts. He indicates that this is difficult because any speech is a form of action. “But the basic idea is that of a distinction between

74

legal issues

speech and non-speech behavior, or between the behavior that we designate as ‘speech’ and the behavior that we do not” (p. 427, n. 3). And Unless there are free-speech-relevant attributes that are possessed by speech but not by action, the distinction between speech and action, at least as a matter of free speech theory, cannot do the work that appears to be required of it. (p. 428)

He goes on to argue that it is not clear that any such distinction arises. Professor Schaur describes how this argument has occurred in many discussions regarding hate speech and pornography. He cites no less of an author than Stanley Fish (1994) as indicating that there is no such distinction. Schauer argues that in order for the state to regulate speech it must show a compelling interest or similarly high level of burden to justify this behavior. Professor Schauer analyzes several conceptual and doctrinal arguments for the differences between speech and action and delves deeply into the concept of thought versus speech and thought as it leads to action. His conclusion is that, ultimately, in order to find a difference one must base it upon the end results of the speech/action. If speech does harm then it might fall over into the concept of action and may then be controlled due to the harm on society. However, he concludes: There may be good historical reasons for carving out speech from these broader categories, but if we set aside the history and the existing legal or constitutional doctrine, we will discover that the non-historical reasons for doing so—for distinguishing speech from action—do not stand up to close analytic scrutiny. (p. 454)

If one accepts this deep philosophical approach to the differences, one understands why the courts have such difficulty in determining that such actions as those exhibited by the fraternity chapter are protected speech. Given that concept, it appears that such behavior as was demonstrated in the Iota Xi case will continue to be protected by the courts, even if it is hate speech. If that is the case, how should those of us who are free speech advocates and are also supportive of fraternal life, and who believe that such stupid and senseless behavior is not acceptable for young adults in college, behave? I would argue that this is also, and perhaps more importantly, true of fraternity professionals. The loss of one chapter for heinous speech violations pales in the face of the long-term indignation and criticism that the national organization will receive if it does not take action. First of all, we should condemn such speech/actions whenever we see them being practiced by our students. We should do what we as educators do best—educate. We must work with our fraternal organizations, especially male fraternities, to point out

protected speech or illegal behavior

75

that racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, and religious and cultural intolerance are ignorant and counterproductive. Unfortunately, this is difficult during a time when all of these negative characteristics are demonstrated by our government leaders and are pandered to by elements of the press. I would imagine that the large majority of the readers of this book are supportive of fraternal life and fraternal organizations. If that assumption is true, and if we wish to preserve the system in the face of growing criticism of “Greek Life,” we must take bold steps to stop our organizations from demonstrating such stupid and irrational actions. I am a supporter of the strict protection of free expression and believe that this concept is better for all members of the higher education community, especially marginalized populations and those who are targeted by nasty speech. We have only to look to the civil rights movement when governmental entities in the South and elsewhere sought to limit speech by saying that it was hateful to see that freedom of speech protects the speech we hate in order to protect the speech we love.

References Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 US 444 (1969). Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 US 568 (1942). Chemerinsky, E., & Gillman, H. (2016, April 8). What students think about free speech. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/WhatStudents-Think-About-Free/235897 Doe v. University of Michigan, 721 F. Supp. 852 (ED Mich., 1989). Fish, S. (1994). There’s no such thing as free speech: And it’s a good thing too. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Gertz v. Welch, 418 US 323 (1974). Gregory, D. E. (2018, March). Free expression at public colleges and universities: Why students should care about it and why campus officials should make sure it is protected. In J. L. DeVitis & P. A. Sasso (Eds.), Colleges at the crossroads: Taking sides on contested issues (pp 129–140). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972). Iota Xi Chapter of Sigma Chi Fraternity v. George Mason University, 993 F.2d 386, 4th Circuit (1993). Julian, S. C. (2012, November). Free speech, hate speech, and the hostile speech environment. Virginia Law Review, 98, 1578–1619. Mastrangelo, D. (2018, March 27). Radford frat files suit: Former students seeks $7.3 million. Roanoke Times. Retrieved from https://www.roanoke.com/news/local/radford/ radford-frat-suit-former-student-seeks-million/article_abf79c87-0e58-5810-9cad35be093dd2cb.html Miller v. California, 413 US 15 (1973). New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982). Ramirez, M. (2018, June 23). Texas Tech frat leader steps down after he suggests hunting border crossers for sport in online chat. Dallas News. Retrieved from https://www.

76

legal issues

dallasnews.com/news/immigration/2018/06/23/texas-tech-frat-head-quits-after-racistremarks-surface-including-suggestion-illegal-immigrants-hunted-sport R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 US 377 (1992). Reilly, K. (2017, December 21). “Those families are changed forever.” A deadly year in fraternity hazing comes to a close. Time. Retrieved from http://time.com/5071813/ fraternity-hazing-deaths-2017/ Sanchez, R. (2015, March 19). Penn State fraternity suspended over alleged nude Facebook pictures. CNN. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2015/03/17/us/penn-state-fratsuspension/index.html Schauer, F. (2015). On the distinction between speech and action. Emory Law Journal, 65, 427–454. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 US 443 (2011). Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, 393 US 503 (1969). University of Central Florida fraternity members accused of posting revenge porn on Facebook. (2018, June 15). WTKR.com. Retrieved from https://wtkr.com/2018/06/15/ university-of-central-florida-fraternity-members-accused-of-posting-revenge-pornon-facebook/ UWM Post v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin, 774 F. Supp. 1163 (ED Wisc., 1991).

Chapter 6

Fraternal Law Mitch Kamrass

Introduction As fraternities and sororities have entered turbulent times, they have also entered uncharted legal territory on a variety of issues. 2017 brought three tragic fraternity-related hazing deaths: Timothy Piazza at Penn State University, Max Gruver at Louisiana State University, and Matthew Ellis at Texas State University (Reilly, 2017). These tragedies have highlighted a growing challenge for universities and fraternal groups alike: how can they promote the groups and members who abide by the rules and positively impact the community, while eradicating the groups that present a danger to themselves and to others? Although many universities have collaborated with fraternal groups in this endeavor, others have acted more punitively to all fraternal organizations as a result of the tragically poor actions of a small number of groups. Perhaps the clearest example of a broad overreaction comes from Harvard University, one of the nation’s most prestigious and visible institutions of higher education. Beginning with the class of 2021, Harvard College (n.d.) is banning undergraduate students who choose to join fraternities and sororities from holding leadership positions in student organizations and athletic teams, and also refusing to recommend any fraternity or sorority member for prestigious scholarship opportunities, including the Rhodes and Marshall. This decision to punish students for merely associating with fraternal groups has expedited an important conversation about the legal rights of fraternities and sonorities and their members. As a result of this

78

legal issues

turmoil, the status of the laws impacting fraternities and sonorities and their members has never been more interesting. This chapter will explain the current status of First Amendment freedom of association rights, single-sex membership status under Title IX, zoning law for fraternity and sorority houses, and criminal hazing statutes.

Freedom of Association Even though it is not explicitly mentioned in the First Amendment, for 60 years, the United States Supreme Court has held that “[a]mong the rights protected by the First Amendment is the right of individuals to associate to further their personal beliefs” (Healy v. James, 1972). The Healy Court explicitly extended this to student organizations at public universities when it held, “There can be no doubt that denial of official [university] recognition, without justification, to college organizations burdens or abridges that associational right. The primary impediment to free association flowing from nonrecognition is the denial of use of campus facilities for meetings and other appropriate purposes”. A major focus of subsequent litigation has centered around the “without justification” language from the Healy decision. In 2000, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the University of Pittsburgh did not deny a fraternity its freedom of association rights because the fraternity chapter did not rise to the level of an intimate or expressive association protected under the First Amendment (Pi Lambda Phi Fraternity, Inc. v. University of Pittsburgh, 2000) This specific chapter lost its recognition from the University after a drug raid at the fraternity house. Quoting a different part of the Healy opinion, the Pi Lambda Phi Court noted that “associational activities need not be tolerated where they infringe reasonable campus rules, interrupt classes, or substantially interfere with the opportunity of other students to obtain an education” (p. 445). The Pi Lambda Phi Court clarified that “it is entirely possible that a fraternity (or sorority, or similar group) could make out a successful expressive association claim. . . . We hold only that the University chapter of Pi Lambda Phi has failed to make out such a claim on the record before us” (pp. 444–445). This analysis was narrowly tailored to the traits of this specific chapter and to the serious drug violations that occurred at its facility. Somewhat similarly, in 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit examined the City University of New York College of Staten Island’s (CSI) decision to refuse recognition to a men’s fraternity that would not abide by a university mandate that they admit both men and women (Chi Iota Colony of Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity v. City University of New York, 2007). In a departure from Healy, the court held that this policy did not deny the fraternity and its members of their right to the freedom of association. They reasoned:

fr ater nal law

79

Also important is the fact that CSI’s non-discrimination policy interferes only to a limited extent with the Fraternity’s associational rights. CSI’s policy does not prevent the Fraternity from continuing to exist, to hold intimate meetings, to exclude women, or to exercise selectivity in choosing new members. Denial of recognition has consequences primarily for the Fraternity’s non-intimate aspects. CSI’s denial of use of school facilities interferes more with the Fraternity’s ability to solicit strangers from future classes to become new members than it interferes with the ability of its existing members to gather and share intimate associations. The Fraternity has not shown that the unavailability of school facilities makes it impossible, or even difficult, to find suitable places for meetings. CSI’s refusal to subsidize the Fraternity’s activities does not constitute a substantial imposition on the group's associational freedom. (pp. 147–148)

Just a few years later, in a case that did not involve a fraternity or sorority, the Supreme Court of the United States echoed this rationale that a group may continue to associate at a public school without university recognition (Christian Legal Soc. Chapter of the University of California, Hastings College of Law v. Martinez, 2010). The Court held, “Private groups, from fraternities and sororities to social clubs and secret societies, commonly maintain a presence at universities without official school affiliation” (p. 691). The Court reasoned that the ability to operate without university recognition (and its associated benefits) was sufficient grounds to conclude that a university mandated “all-comers policy” did not deny student organizations their freedom of association rights. Taking these cases together, it seems that at least certain fraternities and sororities could demonstrate their freedom of association rights as intimate or expressive associations. However, that alone is insufficient to suggest that a public university must grant official recognition to the group. Instead, the public university could allow those groups to continue to associate without university recognition if they were unwilling to comply with a reasonable and viewpoint-neutral regulation such as an all-comers policy. Although some schools may see this as an attractive “out of sight, out of mind” option, this author is of the belief that fraternities and sororities and universities all benefit from collaborative partnership. Although there are exceptions, the general rule is that private schools are not typically deemed to be state actors, and as a result, are not liable to suit for the violation of an individual’s constitutional rights (Blackburn v. Fisk University, 1971). As a result, the relationship between private schools and their students is typically contractual in nature, with the student manuals and registration materials serving as binding contracts between the parties (Mangla v. Brown University, 1998). Correspondingly, the general rule is that students do not have the freedom of association right to be a member of a fraternity or sorority at a private school. Therefore, in most cases, private schools may successfully take disciplinary action against students

80

legal issues .

who choose to join fraternities and sororities not recognized by the university. As an example, in August of 2017, American University, a private school, expelled 18 students for being members of an unrecognized fraternity that was linked to serious conduct violations (Mangan, 2017). There are at least two potential exceptions to this general rule. The first is when a state law may extend constitutional rights to students at a private university within that state. An example of this may be the Massachusetts State Civil Rights Act, which provides a remedy to individuals who have had their constitutional or statutory rights denied to them by a private actor through intimidation or coercion. Although this issue has not yet been litigated, it is entirely possible that a policy such as the aforementioned policy of Harvard University may be litigated, in part, on these grounds. The second exception is when a private university manual (which is typically a binding contract) extends to students their constitutionally protected rights. As an example, New York University’s University Policy on Student Conduct states that “the University should not use its powers to interfere with the rights of a student outside the University campus. In general, a student’s off-campus activities should be subject only to sanctions of the public authorities” (New York University, 2017). This type of language could lead to a successful claim that New York University students have a freedom of association right to be a member of a fraternity or sorority that is not recognized by the university. Notwithstanding these two major exceptions, fraternities and sororities do not have many protections for violations of their freedom of association by private universities. They enjoy far greater protections at public universities. This author would not be surprised to see more private schools mimicking Harvard and seeking to punish students who associate with fraternal groups, but the law makes it unlikely that public schools could successfully enact a similar policy.

Single-Sex Membership The vast majority of social fraternities and sororities have considered themselves single-sex organizations since their founding. This principle was etched into federal law with the passage of Title IX (1965). Most relevant to fraternities and sororities, Title IX includes the following language: Section 1681. Sex (a) Prohibition against discrimination; exceptions. No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination

fr ater nal law

81

under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance, except that: . . . (6) Social fraternities or sororities; voluntary youth service organizations this section shall not apply to membership practices (A) of a social fraternity or social sorority which is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of Title 26, the active membership of which consists primarily of students in attendance at an institution of higher education.

Although some erroneously believe that this language grants fraternities and sororities a “right” to exist as single-sex organizations, what it instead does is grant colleges and universities the ability to allow single-sex social fraternities on their campus without fear of losing federal funding. This is a critical distinction. One way in which the federal government has struggled to interpret the meaning of sex in Title IX is how it applies to gender identity, particularly for transgender students. On April 29, 2014, the assistant secretary of education for civil rights issued a letter which explained, as an ancillary matter, the application of the previously recited provision of Title IX in the context of fraternity transgender membership policies (“Questions and Answers,” 2014). In short, the Department of Education confirmed that Title IX neither requires nor prohibits fraternities from admitting transgender members. Two years later, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) reiterated this interpretation of Title IX in a “Dear Colleague” letter on transgender students (U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education, 2016). It should be noted that the Dear Colleague letter was not issued as a statute or a rule, but instead was intended to be “significant guidance” without the force of law (p. 1). The Dear Colleague letter set out four relevant definitions (pp. 1–2): 1. Gender Identity. An individual’s internal sense of gender, which may be different from or the same as an individual’s sex assigned at birth. 2. Sex Assigned at Birth. Sex designation recorded on an infant’s birth certificate. 3. Transgender Individual. A person whose gender identity is different from the sex they were assigned at birth. 4. Gender Transition. The process in which transgender individuals begin asserting the sex that corresponds to their gender identity instead of the sex they were assigned at birth. Utilizing these definitions, the Dear Colleague letter explained, “The [d]epartments [of Justice and Education] treat a student’s gender identity as the student’s sex for purposes of Title IX and its implementing regulations” (p. 2). Schools were put on notice

82

legal issues

that a student is a transgender individual as soon as the student (or the parent if the student is a minor) notifies the school that s/he wishes to assert a gender identity that is different from the school’s current records (p. 2). No birth certificate or medical diagnosis is required (p. 3). There was one other provision of the Dear Colleague letter that was directly relevant to social fraternities. It reiterated the previous position of DOE stating that “Title IX does not apply to the membership practices of social fraternities and sororities. Those organizations are therefore permitted under Title IX to set their own policies regarding the sex, including gender identity, of their members. Nothing in Title IX prohibits a fraternity from admitting transgender men or a sorority from admitting transgender women if it so chooses” (p. 4). This letter provided complete autonomy for fraternities and sororities to decide whether or not transgender individuals would be eligible for membership. However, following the election and inauguration of President Trump, the Departments of Justice and Education, under new leadership, issued another Dear Colleague letter on the question about transgender students and Title IX (U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education, 2017). Citing a variety of items having nothing to do with fraternities and sororities, the 2017 Dear Colleague letter announced that the departments have “decided to withdraw and rescind the 2016 Dear Colleague Letter on Transgender Students in order to further and more completely consider the legal issues involved.” Even though none of the reasons cited for the withdrawal of the 2016 letter were particularly relevant to fraternities and sororities, the significant guidance providing those groups with autonomy on this issue no longer carried any value. Nonetheless, as of October 2017, at least 22 international fraternities and sororities chose to adopt transgender-inclusive membership policies, as in the following examples: Delta Tau Delta International Fraternity does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity. Delta Tau Delta is open to all men of superior character including transgender males. (Lloyd, 2016) Any individual of merit who identifies as a man is welcome to seek membership in the [Delta Upsilon] Fraternity. In any membership decision, including recruitment, pledging, suspension, expulsion, or electing one to Membership in the Fraternity, a Member, Associate Member, Undergraduate Chapter, Colony, Alumni Chapter or the Board of Directors may not discriminate against any male on the basis of his race, color, ethnicity, age, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, citizenship or physical disability. (Martin, 2016)

fr ater nal law

83

Sigma Phi Epsilon is a national Fraternity built on the brotherhood and fellowship of men. Any individual who identifies as a man is welcome to seek membership in the Fraternity. This policy is intended to uphold the mission of Sigma Phi Epsilon as a fellowship of men and should not be interpreted as changing the all-male character of the Fraternity or as a waiver of the Fraternity’s exempt status under Title IX. (Verdi, 2015)

This author expects that this trend will continue as fraternities and sororities seek to become more inclusive. A similar and emerging legal issue within the realm of fraternity and sorority single-sex status is the role of gender nonbinary students. The Delta Phi Epsilon sorority made headlines in August of 2017 when it announced that it would expand eligibility for membership beyond cisgender and transgender women to also include “non-binary, gender nonconforming individuals who are committed to the advancement of womanhood” (Alhadari, 2017). The policy defined gender nonbinary individuals as “those who identify with neither, both, or a combination of genders”. It will be interesting to see if this move toward inclusion of gender nonbinary individuals becomes a trend or an isolated incident. The fraternity and sorority system has a long history rooted in the single-sex status of the groups. The current status of the law provides very little guidance as to whether or not groups can include transgender individuals while maintaining their single-sex status. Nonetheless, many groups are moving in this direction. As institutions like Harvard University seek to eliminate single-sex organizations on college campuses, some wonder if fraternities and sororities may one day decide to shed their single-sex statuses, just as the Boy Scouts of America decided in 2017 (Rosenberg & Silverman, 2017).

Zoning Contingent on University Recognition Another major legal issue fraternities and sororities are currently facing is the zoning requirement by a number of major municipalities that private residences zoned for fraternity and sorority use require official recognition by the neighboring university in order to be compliant with the municipal zoning code. Examples of this include the following (emphasis added): Fraternity or Sorority House—a dwelling or combination of dwellings on a single lot occupied by and maintained exclusively for college students who are affiliated with a social, honorary, or professional organization recognized by the college or university. (Tallahassee, FL, Municipal Zoning Code, n.d.)

84

legal issues

Dormitories, fraternity houses and sorority houses, officially affiliated with an accredited college, university or private school and only for the time period that such affiliation is in effect, such that loss of affiliation shall result in the loss of permission for the use. (Atlanta, GA, Municipal Zoning Code, n.d.)

The legality of a zoning provision such as this was recently litigated in the Supreme Court of New Hampshire. The case centered on the Alpha Delta fraternity house that served students of Dartmouth College in the Town of Hanover (Dartmouth Corporation of Alpha Delta v. Town of Hanover, 2017). At issue was the Town of Hanover’s zoning definition of a student residence in the “institutional district as ‘[a] building designed for and occupied by students and operated in conjunction with another institutional use’” (p. 746). In 2015 Dartmouth College revoked recognition of Alpha Delta due to violation of the school’s standards of conduct (p. 746). A letter from the college to the fraternity also stated that Dartmouth would “‘notify the [Town] that Alpha Delta no longer has a relationship with Dartmouth College’ and that it was the College’s understanding that ‘under the Town zoning ordinance no more than three unrelated people will be allowed to reside in the property’” (p. 746). Ten days later, the Town of Hanover’s zoning administrator notified Alpha Delta that “[b]ecause [the fraternity] has been derecognized by Dartmouth College, the facility is no longer operated in conjunction with an institutional use. The continued use of the property as a residence is therefore a violation of the zoning code” (pp. 746–747). This would essentially make it impossible for the fraternity chapter to continue to operate in compliance with the zoning code without university recognition. Ultimately after years of litigation, the New Hampshire Supreme Court upheld this decision by the zoning administrator (pp. 754–755). The New Hampshire Supreme Court did not address the claim that the delegation of zoning to a third party, in this instance a private college, is an unlawful delegation of the government’s authority. However, this author expects that this issue will continue to be litigated in various states around the county, as zoning is a state power and can often vary tremendously state by state and municipality by municipality. Since fraternities and sororities often have multimillion-dollar investments in their chapter facilities, they can be severely damaged by a zoning code that conditions use of the facility on recognition by the university.

Hazing Hazing is a criminal activity in at least 44 states (HazingPrevention.Org, n.d.). In 2017, with the support of NIC, NPC, NPHC, NALFO, NAPA, NMGC and the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, Representatives Meehan of Pennsylvania and

fr ater nal law

85

Fudge of Ohio introduced the Report and Education About Campus Hazing (REACH) Act (“Fraternal Umbrella Organizations,” 2017). This would require all federally funded colleges and universities to report hazing incidents in their annual crime reports, so that the scope and prevalence of the issue can be better understood (Congressman Patrick Meehan, 2017). Although this act has not yet become law, it is indicative of the fraternity and sorority community’s commitment to eradicating hazing from its ranks, as well as of the national attention now given to the very serious issue of hazing. Criminal prosecutors have also begun to devote significant resources to hazing allegations. As David LaBahn, president of the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, told the New York Times, “Go back a generation or two, and hazing was accepted conduct, part of the fraternity experience, part of the football experience. Now it’s no longer ‘boys will be boys,’” and there is no longer doubt as to why prosecutors are seeking to punish people who haze others (Perez-Pena & Stolberg, 2017). In addition to the 18 Penn State University students who had criminal charges filed against them arising from the hazing death of Timothy Piazza, students from Baruch College, Northern Illinois University, Fresno State University, and others have recently faced criminal charges for hazing. This is not unique to just fraternity hazing, as several former Florida A&M University students were convicted of manslaughter as a result of a marching band hazing incident (Cherney, 2015). One of those students is currently appealing his conviction to the Florida Supreme Court, where he is challenging the constitutionality of the state’s hazing statute (“FAMU Hazing Defendant,” 2017). That will be an important case to watch. Most recently, prosecutors have also taken an interest in criminally prosecuting the national organization that charters a chapter where hazing occurred. In what appears to be a first, the Pi Delta Psi national fraternity was convicted of criminal hazing on November 21, 2017 (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Pi Delta Psi, 2017). Although the national fraternity had an antihazing policy, it distributed materials that promoted the hazing act that resulted in the tragic death of Michael Deng, a Baruch College student. Additionally, the fraternity national president had attended prior hazing events with the group at Baruch College, and he also personally attempted to conceal the fraternity’s involvement in the hazing death from law enforcement officials. The national fraternity was ultimately fined $112,500 and also prohibited from operating anywhere in the state of Pennsylvania for 10 years. In addition to the much-warranted attention criminal prosecutors are giving to hazing, national fraternities and sororities are continuing to enact new policies focused on eliminating hazing. In 2000, the Phi Delta Theta Fraternity implanted a policy that all of its properties and facilities must be alcohol free (Phi Delta Theta, n.d.). In the 15 years following the implementation of this policy, its undergraduate membership increased by 43%, its insurance claims dropped by 61%, and the severity of the claims dropped by 94% (Phi Delta Theta, n.d.). Although this policy was tragically ignored in the hazing death of Max Gruver at Louisiana State University, it remains an important policy that more groups are considering in their desire to eliminate hazing.

86

legal issues

Another policy on the rise is the complete and total elimination of a pledge program. In 2014 the Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity eliminated their pledge program and replaced it with the “True Gentleman Experience.” (Sigma Alpha Epsilon, n.d.). This is somewhat similar to the “Balanced Man program” of the Sigma Phi Epsilon Fraternity, which also eliminated pledging and replaced it with a four-year ongoing educational experience for its members (Sig Ep, n.d.). This author expects that policies like these will continue to grow in popularity and will be implemented by an increasing number of fraternity and sorority groups in the coming years. These types of policies should hopefully lead to a reduction in dangerous hazing activities in fraternities and sororities. Those who choose to ignore these policies and to break the law are likely to face criminal prosecution in the future.

Conclusion The recent tragic hazing deaths highlight the dangers of fraternal groups who refuse to abide by the rules of their inter/national organizations and universities and the laws of their jurisdiction. Fraternal groups, universities, and law enforcement officials can and should use all of the powers at their disposal to eliminate groups who engage in dangerous and illegal activity. Similarly, fraternal groups, universities, and municipalities should also do everything in their power to promote the fraternities and sororities who follow the rules and create a positive impact on their members and on their communities. It is this author’s hope that the law continues to develop in the areas of the freedom of association, single-sex membership groups, zoning for fraternity and sorority houses, and hazing in a way where the stakeholders provide meaningful opportunities for groups that safely embody their fraternal values, while also eliminating the groups that fail to live up to those same values.

References Alhadari, A. (2017). Delta Phi Epsilon announces policy on trans and non-binary inclusion. Delta Phi Epsilon International Society. Retrieved from https://www.dphie.org/press/ delta-phi-epsilon-announces-policy-trans-and-non-binary-inclusion Atlanta, GA Municipal Zoning Code. (n.d.). Part III, Part 16, Ch. 11. Sec 16-11.005(g). Retrieved from https://library.municode.com/ga/atlanta/codes/code_of_ordinances? nodeId=PTIIICOORANDECO_PT16ZO_CH11COBUDIRE Blackburn v. Fisk University, 443 F.2d 121 (6th Cir. 1971). Cherney, E. (2015, June 26). Three ex-FAMU students sentenced to 10 years probation in fatal hazing case. Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved from http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/ famu-hazing-band/os-famu-hazing-sentencing-20150626-story.html

fr ater nal law

87

Chi Iota Colony of Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity v. City University of New York, 502 F.3d 136 (2nd Cir. 2007). Christian Legal Soc. Chapter of the University of California, Hastings College of Law v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661 (2010). Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Pi Delta Psi, Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2578 CR2015 (2017). Congressman Patrick Meehan. (2017, June 16). Bipartisan bill targets hazing on college campuses. Retrieved from https://meehan.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/bipartisanbill-targets-hazing-on-college-campuses Dartmouth Corporation of Alpha Delta v. Town of Hanover, 169 N.H. 743 (2017). FAMU hazing defendant files Supreme Court appeal. (2017, February 7). Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved from http://www.orlandosentinel.com/features/education/school-zone/osfamu-hazing-defendant-files-supreme-court-appeal-20170207-story.html Fraternal umbrella organizations unanimously support new anti-hazing legislation. (2017, July 13). National Panhellenic Conference. Retrieved from http://www.npcwomen. org/2017/07/13/anti-hazing-release/ Harvard College. (n.d.). Social organization policy. Retrieved from https://www.harvard.edu/ media-relations/media-resources/popular-topics/unrecognized-single-gender-socialorganizations HazingPrevention.Org. (n.d.). Hazing law—Interactive state map. Retrieved from https:// hazingprevention.org/home/hazing/statelaws/ Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 181 (1972), citing NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958). Lloyd, J. (2016, January 16). Arch chapter conducts business at winter meeting. Retrieved from https://www.delts.org/arch-chapter-conducts-business-at-winter-meeting Mangan, K., (2017, August 28). American U. expels 18 students for involvement in rogue frat. The Chronical of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/ American-U-Expels-18-Students/241025 Mangla v. Brown University, 135 F.3d 80, 83 (1st Cir. 1998). Martin, A. (2016, August 18). Delta Upsilon International Fraternity adds gender identity to nondiscrimination policy. Retrieved from https://www.deltau.org/delta-upsilon-internationalfraternity-adds-gender-identity-to-nondiscrimination-policy Massachusetts State Civil Rights Act. (1964). Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, §§ 11H, 11I. New York University. (2017, August 8). University policy on student conduct. Retrieved from https://www.nyu.edu/about/policies-guidelines-compliance/policies-and-guidelines/ university-policy-on-student-conduct.html Perez-Pena, R., & Stolberg, S., (2017, May 8). Prosecutors taking tougher stance in fraternity hazing deaths. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/08/ us/penn-state-prosecutors-fraternity-hazing-deaths.html Phi Delta Theta. (n.d.). Alcohol free housing. Retrieved from http://www.phideltatheta.org/ resources/afh_15.pdf Pi Lambda Phi Fraternity, Inc. v. University of Pittsburgh, 229 F.3d 435 (3rd Cir. 2000) Questions and answers on Title IX and sexual violence. (2014, April 29). Retrieved from http:// www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201404-title-ix.pdf Reilly, K. (2017, December 21). “Those families are changed forever.” A deadly year in fraternity hazing comes to a close. TIME. Retrieved from http://time.com/5071813/ fraternity-hazing-deaths-2017/

88

legal issues

Rosenberg, E., & Silverman, E. (2017) Boy Scouts of America to become fully inclusive for girls. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ post-nation/wp/2017/10/11/boy-scouts-of-america-to-allow-girls-in-its-ranks-for-thefirst-time/?utm_term=.d42a99617318 Sig Ep. (n.d.). Balanced Man program. Retrieved from http://sigep.org/the-sigep-experience/ programs/balanced-man-program/ Sigma Alpha Epsilon. (n.d.). Sigma Alpha Epsilon announces historic change for membership experience. Retrieved from https://www.sae.net/home/pages/news/news---news-fromhq---historic-change-on-founders-day Tallahassee, FL Municipal Zoning Code. (n.d.). Ch. 1. Sec 1-2. Retrieved from https://library. municode.com/fl/tallahassee/codes/land_development_code?nodeId=LADECO_ CH1GEPR_S1-2DERUCO Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 (1965). U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education. (2016, May 13). Dear Colleague letter on transgender students. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ ocr/letters/colleague-201605-title-ix-transgender.pdf U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education. (2017, February 22). Dear Colleague letter on transgender students. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/about/ offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201605-title-ix-transgender.pdf Verdi, T. (2015, August 4). SigEp votes to allow transgender brothers. The Odyssey. Retrieved from https://www.theodysseyonline.com/sigep-votes-transgender-brothers

Chapter 7

Hazing in Fraternities and Sororities Jenny Nirh

Introduction Hazing is prevalent in colleges and universities across the United States. According to Allan and Madden (2008, 2012), 55% of students involved in a club, organization, or athletic team are hazed during their college careers. Though hazing is common throughout many types of organizations, the focus here will be on hazing in fraternities and sororities. This chapter will cover a short history of hazing, a comparison between hazing in fraternities and sororities and other groups, the involvement of alcohol, and trends in hazing law and policy.

What Is Hazing? There is no universally accepted definition of hazing, and hazing comes in many forms. In one of the only large-scale research projects on hazing, Allan and Madden (2008, 2012) describe hazing as an activity to join a group that “humiliates, degrades, abuses or endangers” the participant, regardless of whether or not they want to participate (p. 2). Previous to 2018, the Fraternal Information and Programming Group (FIPG) worked with more than 80 inter/national of the National Interfraternity Council (NIC) and the National Panhellenic Conference (NPC) fraternities and sororities to coordinate anti-hazing policy, but the group has recently dissolved.

90

legal issues

There is a diverse spectrum of activities that can be considered hazing; hazing can encompass less dangerous tasks such as running errands, cleaning, or other forms of personal servitude for active members, to more alarming activities involving overconsumption of alcohol or other substances, physical assault, brandings, and simulated or real sex acts. Hazing activities can have physical and psychological repercussions for participants (Allan & Madden, 2008, 2012; Finkel, 2002).

History of Hazing The first cases of hazing can be traced back more than 2,000 years, to observations made by Plato in 387 B.C., but it was in the early 1300s when hazing practices began to appear in European universities (Nuwer, 2004). The earliest forms of hazing in higher education consisted of requiring new students to wear particular or ridiculous garments, throwing trash at them, and general harassment. There were also reports of requiring new students to drink urine and other forms of physical assault (Lipkins, 2006). Hazing was condoned and at times even encouraged up until the 1700s, when it was abolished by many institutions. Hazing was first seen in the United States at Harvard University in the early 1700s between freshmen and upperclassmen (Lipkins, 2006; Nuwer, 2004; Salinas & Boettcher, 2018). In the almost 250 years since hazing was introduced at Harvard, it has become a deadly and widespread issue on college campuses across the United States. Initially hazing in the United States began as pranks and the sophomores and upperclassmen teaching the freshmen “how to be men” (Parks, 2008; Syrett, 2009). Hazing has been entwined within organizations in the United States for hundreds of years, and there is no clear date on when it began in fraternities and sororities. According to some, the ties to Ivy League schools where hazing was already common, or the presence of students with military experiences, caused the perpetuation of hazing (Parks, 2008). Others believe hazing is perpetuated by the individual desire for rites of passage. Works on rites of passage show that individuals want to participate in rituals or rites of passage to create belonging in their environment and often hazing fills that need.

Hazing Deaths The first hazing death in the United States was associated with a man wishing to gain entry into the Society of the Freemason. Non-Masons tricked Daniel Reese into participating in a fake initiation he thought would grant him membership. During the “initiation,” boiling water was thrown on Reese and he died days later (Nuwer, 2018). The first death on a college campus took place in 1838 at a seminary in Kentucky; the second was in 1847 at Amherst College when Johnathan Torrance became ill after his sheets were soaked with water; the third occurred in 1858 when a brawl erupted between

hazing in fr ater nities and soror ities

91

upperclassmen over hazing and John Edward Roach’s throat was slit during the fracas (Nuwer, 2018). The first fraternity hazing death occurred at Cornell University in 1873. A new member of the Kappa Alpha Society was being led blindfolded by two initiated members when all three fell into the gorges famous in Ithaca (Nuwer, 2018). The two Kappa Alpha Society members were injured, but the new member, Mortimer Leggett, died due to injuries related to the fall. From 1959 to the present there has been at least one hazing death each year on a college campus, and from 1970 to the present at least one of the deaths each year can be attributed to a fraternity or sorority. It is difficult to determine the number of hazing-related injuries that occur each year. There is currently no tracking or documentation that occurs for hazing injuries. It is believed as well that victims of hazing practices will also conceal injuries or provide false information to avoid police inquiry (Finkel, 2002). Individuals in the midst of the hazing process may not want any additional attention, especially if they believe it will lead to more violence or abuse. Additionally, individuals often still want to belong to the group and do not want to be ostracized by reporting. Since the 1970s, hazing has escalated in severity and frequency, and is often fueled by alcohol (Lipkins, 2006). Deaths related to hazing are often attributed to alcohol poisoning, or injuries related to overconsumption of alcohol. In the past 10 years the news media has more frequently reported on hazing and hazing deaths, which could also be due to advances in technology and social media. Now that most college students have a camera on their phone and can post and share their experiences freely with the world through social media, the landscape of secrecy around hazing has changed (Joyce & Nirh, 2018).

Hazing in Other Organizations Hazing is present in many different types of organizations, particularly those on campuses of institutions of higher education. To date, there have been few large-scale studies on hazing, due to the secrecy of the issue, the legal issues surrounding hazing, and the fact that many students do not label the activities they participate in as hazing. Hoover (1999) focused on the hazing activities of NCAA athletes and Allan and Madden (2008, 2012) completed a study involving a broader group of college students at a number of institutions. These studies provide a strong picture of what hazing is like in different types of organizations and how it may differ across organizations. Each of the studies asked questions about behaviors and activities that are considered hazing, without requiring students to identify as being hazed. Each of these studies also provided a strong picture of how common hazing is among college students.

92

legal issues

Hazing in Athletics Hoover’s (1999) work demonstrated that 80% of NCAA athletes participated in activities that would be considered hazing. The later study by Allan and Madden (2008, 2012) showed 74% of NCAA athletes have engaged in some kind of hazing activity. The NCAA (2018) defines hazing as: any act committed against someone joining or becoming a member or maintaining membership in any organization that is humiliating, intimidating or demeaning, or endangers the health and safety of the person. Hazing includes active or passive participation in such acts and occurs regardless of the willingness to participate in the activities. Hazing creates an environment/climate in which dignity and respect are absent.

According to the Allan and Madden (2008) study, the rates of hazing are very similar in athletics compared to fraternities and sororities. Within college NCAA athletics, 74% of students participate in hazing activities, whereas 73% of fraternity or sorority members experience hazing activities. Additionally, 49% of intramural team members and 42% of recreational club members indicated their participation in hazing activities. Hoover’s study (1999), which reported NCAA athlete participation in hazing at 80%, involved responses from more than 325,000 athletes at 1,000 NCAA institutions. Hoover’s study found that 20% of college athletes had participated in illegal hazing behaviors—kidnappings, beatings, solitary abandonment, or destruction of property. They study also showed that alcohol was involved in half the experiences for the athlete’s “initiation,” and two-thirds of the athletes experienced demeaning behaviors—being yelled at, forced to wear ridiculous clothing, or deprived of access to sleep, food, and personal hygiene. The study revealed that hazing activities were widespread and often part of the athletic culture at the institutions. Overall, fraternity and sorority members participate in more high-risk drinking activities than their athlete peers, but athletic teams require some physical challenges or activities not as common in fraternities and sororities: drinking nonalcoholic beverages, shaving heads or body parts, tattoos or piercings, or enduring outdoor activities with inappropriate clothing (Allan & Madden, 2008). Additionally, fraternity and sorority members are more likely to be awoken in the middle of the night by active members and have to more often participate in skits or performances designed to embarrass.

Hazing in College Military Organizations There is currently very little data on hazing within campus military organizations or military colleges and academies (Knight & Boettcher, 2018). In both Allan and Madden’s 2008 study and Allan, Payne, and Kerschner’s 2018 follow-up study, they found hazing

hazing in fr ater nities and soror ities

93

occurred in campus military organizations. According to Allan, Payne, and Kerschener (2018), 25% percent of the students associated with ROTC on their campus reported participating in hazing activities. Unfortunately, the sample size for students involved in ROTC was very low and not likely to be generalizable. Additionally, the hierarchical structure of the U.S. military, used in both ROTC and military academies and colleges, creates additional challenges in defining hazing. Prior to 2015, the U.S. military definition stated that hazing occurs without “proper authority”; however, authority is inherent in these organizations (Knight & Boettcher, 2018). The Deputy Secretary of Defense Memorandum on Hazing and Bullying Prevention and Response in the Armed Forces in 2015 changed some of the language and stated that hazing occurs when personnel do not have a proper military or governmental purpose (Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity, 2017). Most often, those in charge of ROTC at higher education institutions are active military personnel, which could create differences in hazing education and policy implementation between ROTC students and other campus groups, though ROTC students are required to follow their institution’s policies (Knight & Boettcher, 2018). Recent incidents of hazing in military academies or colleges are similar in nature to those seen in fraternities and sororities and other organizations. In fall 2017, senior men on the Air Force Academy swim team introduced freshmen to the swimming fraternity “Phi Kappa Sierra” (Roeder, 2018). During the activity, after being told to eat as much as they could during Olive Garden’s all-you-can-eat-pasta promotion, the freshmen were then placed in cars, blindfolded, and driven to the woods. Once in the woods the men had to drink gallons of milk and eat foods like Jell-O with mustard and then run. They were told the purpose was to make them vomit. The final activity was a threat of forced oral sex, the senior members took off their clothes and informed the freshmen of the plan, but the acts did not actually take place. In 2015, there was a three-month investigation into cadets at the Citadel regarding allegations of hazing. Cadets were allegedly being required to do physical activities and calisthenics behind closed doors. Previous concerns at the Citadel involved a freshman being taped to a chair and left in the bathroom (Kerr & Pan, 2015). Though the rates of hazing in college-based military groups are not as well known, the incidents that have become public echo those in the fraternity and sorority community.

Hazing in Student Organizations The original study by Allan and Madden (2008) found that 55% of college students experienced hazing activities while in college. The research also demonstrated commonalities across all groups, in that they used alcohol, humiliation tactics, isolation, sleep deprivation, and sex acts to haze their new members. Frequency of hazing activities is lower among other student groups when compared to athletics or fraternities and sororities; 50% of service fraternity and sorority members, 56% of performing arts group members, 42% of recreation club members, 28% of academic organization members, 20%

94

legal issues

of honor society members and 30% of other student organization members participate in hazing activities. Use of alcohol and participation in drinking games are common practices in all the organizations. Members are also deprived of sleep. The groups commonly encourage potential members to only associate with some individuals and not others. Fraternities and sororities were more likely to require members to engage in personal servitude and engage in sex acts than other organizations.

Hazing in the Fraternity and Sorority Community Since their beginnings, fraternities and sororities have diversified. The first fraternities were created for the population that existed at universities in the late 1700s and early 1800s. The population was largely White and male. As universities and colleges evolved, so did fraternities and sororities. Women’s organizations were founded beginning in the mid-1800s, after they were denied full membership into the existing fraternities (Torbenson & Parks, 2009). Local women’s groups began in the 1850s and by 1900, 18 sororities existed in the United States National Panhellenic Conference. (n.d.).). Historically Black organizations began in the early 20th century to support students not allowed entry to the existing organizations. The “Divine Nine,” or the nine historically Black organizations, brought together Black men and women for the purpose of uplifting their community, doing service, and performing philanthropic and civic work (Parks, 2008). There are now many identity-based organizations, focusing on different ethnic, religious, or gender identities. In the period between 1885 and 1929, 42% of the organizations founded were based on Judaism or a variety of ethnic identity groups, including many historically Black organizations (Torbenson & Parks, 2009). From 1975 to 1999, there were 34 Asian-identity and 34 Latinx groups created, and now there are fraternities and sororities dedicated to a variety of religious, ethnic, and gender identities across the country (Torbenson & Parks, 2009). The diversification and vastness of the fraternity and sorority community have also created some differences in terms of hazing activities and perceptions within the organizations (Joyce & Nirh, 2018). Hazing is less common within sororities, and less physical, but research has shown that hazing activities increased in sororities in the late 20th century (Geraghty, 1997; Nuwer, 1999). Studies also showed that fraternity members participated in forced alcohol consumption and endured harsh weather conditions at significantly higher rates than sorority members (Allan & Madden, 2008). Additionally, sorority members are more likely to acknowledge hazing activities and to perceive them as problematic (Campo, Poulos, & Sipple, 2005). There is some research that compares the practices among different types of organizations, with the most research on historically Black organizations and little research on other identity-based organizations. Within fraternities, particularly those that are social and not identity based, students explain their participation as a way to maintain traditions within the organization (Nirh,

hazing in fr ater nities and soror ities

95

2014; Parks, 2008). Additionally, the students in social, non-identity-based groups obtain a new sense of self and social standing based on group membership and therefore the hazing they endure (Sweet, 1999). Hazing in fraternities is often linked to masculinity, which is why there is often a physical element, or activities that involve sexualized behaviors. The potential fraternity members want to prove their masculinity to initiated active members (Parks, 2008). Furthermore, alcohol and substance abuse is more prevalent in social fraternities than in identity-based groups (Parks & Laybourn, 2017). Members of historically Black fraternities and sororities explain their hazing participation as a way to help shape potential members into good members, different from those justifying their actions through organization tradition (Parks, 2008). Some believe that physical hazing is significantly worse among historically Black fraternities than among the social fraternities. The ban on pledging in the 1990s created an increase in severity of hazing, as all activities went underground, with little to no supervision from alumni or institutions. Within historically Black fraternities, there is a strong tie to establishing masculinity, preserving the organization, and creating a rite of passage for members. Hazing in historically Black sororities is less common than their fraternity counterparts and often focuses on regulation of appearance and personal servitude. The sororities also justify their actions as ways to create members worthy of their organization and set behavioral expectations. In both historically Black fraternities and sororities, nonparticipation in hazing activities carries a connotation that members are not as worthy of membership, though research is mixed on this topic. The hazing practices within Asian-identity organizations, and particularly fraternities, are also based in concepts of hypermasculinity and combating stereotypes of Asian men (Parks, 2008). According to the limited empirical research, Asian men are stereotyped as being less masculine and more effeminate, and consequently participate in physical hazing activities and alcohol-based activities to establish their status as men and as fraternity members. There is extremely limited information available about the hazing practices of Asian-identity sororities.

Hazing and Alcohol Across all types of organizations, the presence of alcohol during activities is the most common hazing practice (Allan & Madden, 2008). The participation in drinking games is a theme through almost all organizations. More than half of students in NCAA athletics as well as social fraternities and sororities participated in drinking games; however, the frequency of drinking game participation is lower in identity-based fraternities and sororities. Though there is no national tracking of hazing-related issues or deaths, Hank Nuwer, a staunch hazing-prevention advocate, has maintained a list of hazing-related deaths. According to Nuwer, 76% of the hazing deaths from 2004 to 2011 were related to

96

legal issues

alcohol and the majority of fraternity and sorority deaths from 1970 have been related to alcohol (Nuwer, 2018).

Current Trends in Policy and Law With no federal law or policy defining hazing in educational institutions, policymaking is left to the states. There are currently antihazing laws in 44 states, with Alaska, Hawaii, Montana, New Mexico, South Dakota, and Wyoming not having state laws regarding hazing. States have a variety of standards for hazing, and 22 states have used the same wording to define hazing (Salinas & Boettcher, 2018). In 7 states—Illinois, Idaho, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin—hazing that results in death or bodily harm constitutes a felony (Nuwer, 2018). States also vary on whether consent to participate in an activity negates it as hazing, as well as the threshold for when it is criminal hazing (Crow & Rosner, 2004). Furthermore, there are 16 states that have included provisions on consent within hazing laws. The court system has likewise treated consent differently between civil and criminal cases. Within criminal cases, defenses based on consent have been largely dismissed; conversely, within the civil courts consent has been admitted as a defense, particularly when participants knew of the possible risks associated with the activities (Parks & Southerland, 2013). When the courts have not allowed consent as a defense, this is due to a belief in prevention of harm in society or the idea that acts that harm an individual cannot be defended through consent because violence prevention is good for society even if individuals are not concerned for their own safety. There are some laws that take into consideration that peer pressure or a strong desire to belong to a group would cause individuals to participate in an activity that is uncomfortable or risky. Laws regarding hazing are currently evolving, in part due to public outcry over publicized injuries and deaths of college students. In 2018, in response to deaths of multiple college students, New York, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania passed bills related to hazing, and Indiana, Maryland, and Ohio all currently have new legislation being reviewed (Peterson, 2018). In New York, the new law prohibits “physical contact or requiring physical activity during the initiation or affiliation ceremonies, which creates a substantial risk of physical injury to such other person or a third person and thereby causes such injury,” and making that act criminal in nature. In Louisiana, there were four acts of legislation passed in 2018 ranging from required hazing-prevention education, to protecting the identities of those reporting hazing, to criminal prosecution and fines for death or serious injury and requiring individuals to take action if someone is injured by reaching out for emergency assistance. The legislation in Pennsylvania, in reaction to the death of Timothy Piazza, established criminal hazing laws, making aggravated hazing a third-degree felony, creating the crime of institutional hazing impacting individual

hazing in fr ater nities and soror ities

97

organizations and their involvement, and providing immunity for alcohol-related violations if individuals seek help for others who are in danger.

Summary and Conclusion Hazing has been present in the fraternity and sorority community almost since the first organization was created. Hazing continues to be a serious and common issue in the fraternity and sorority community, and will continue to plague the community without increased and strategic prevention efforts. Although there is an evolution in policy and law, it will take a significant amount of time for legislation and adjudication to have an impact on hazing practices. Though there is no proven way to prevent hazing on college campuses, institutions should continue to create prevention efforts focusing on helping students identify and understand hazing behaviors. Prevention efforts utilizing a research-based framework, employing a number of different stakeholders, and creating a comprehensive and campus-wide plan have been shown to have an impact on some campuses (Allan, Payne, & Kerschner, 2018).

References Allan, E. J., & Madden, M. (2008). Hazing in view: College students at risk. Orono, ME: University of Maine, College of Education and Human Development. Retrieved from http:// stophazing.org Allan, E. J., & Madden, M. (2012). The nature and extent of college student hazing. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 24(1), 83–90. Allan, E. J., Payne, J. M., & Kerschner, D. (2018). Transforming the culture of hazing: A research-based hazing prevention framework. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 55(4), 1–14. Campo, S., Poulos, G., & Sipple, J. W. (2005). Prevalence and profiling: Hazing among college students and points of intervention. American Journal of Health Behavior, 29(2), 137–149. Crow, R. B., & Rosner, S. R. (2004). Institutional liability and hazing—Mainly athletics related. In H. Nuwer (Ed.), The hazing reader (pp. 224–252). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Finkel, M. (2002). Traumatic injuries caused by hazing practices. American Journal of Emergency Medicine, 20, 228–233. Geraghty, M. (1997). Hazing incidents at sororities alarm colleges. Chronicle of Higher Education, 43(41). Hoover, N. (1999). National survey: Initiation rites and athletics for NCAA sports teams. Alfred, NY: Alfred University. Retrieved from http://www.alfred.edu/sports_hazing/ hazingpdf.cfm Joyce, S. B., & Nirh, J. (2018). Fraternity and sorority hazing. In S. Knight & M. L. Boettcher (Eds.), Critical perspectives on hazing in colleges and universities (pp. 72–84). New York, NY: Routledge.

98

legal issues

Kerr, A., & Pan, D. (2015). 19 involved in hazing at Citadel. The Post and Courier. Retrieved from https://www.postandcourier.com/archives/involved-in-hazing-at-citadel/article_ de64b34f-3f1e-5382-b591-092302f30b6b.html Knight, S., & Boettcher, M. L. (2018). An overview of military hazing in university programs. In S. Knight & M. L. Boettcher (Eds.), Critical perspectives on hazing in colleges and universities (pp. 85–94). New York, NY: Routledge. Lipkins, S. (2006). Preventing hazing: How parents, teachers, and coaches can stop the violence, harassment and humiliation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. National Panhellenic Conference. (n.d.). National Panhellenic Conference. Retrieved from www.npcwomen.org. NCAA. (2018). Building new traditions: Hazing prevention in college athletics. Retrieved from http://www.ncaa.org/sport-science-institute/topics/hazing Nirh, J. L. (2014). Explanations of college students for engaging in hazing activities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. Nuwer, H. (1999). Wrongs of passage. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Nuwer, H. (2004). The hazing reader. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Nuwer, H. (2018). Hazing: Destroying young lives. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity. (2017, September 20). Hazing prevention and response in the armed forces (Annual Summary Report to Congress). Retrieved from https://www.deomi.org/DownloadableFiles/humanRelations/documents/2017-HazingReport-to-Congress.pdf Parks, G. (Ed.). (2008). Black Greek-letter organizations in the twenty-first century: Our fight has just begun. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky. Parks, G. S., & Laybourn, W. M. (2017). Asian American fraternity hazing: An analysis of community-level factors. Asian Pacific American Law Journal, 22, 29. Parks, G., & Southerland, T. (2013). The psychology and law of hazing consent. Marquette Law Review, 97(1), 2–54. Peterson, K. (2018, October 25). Recent developments in hazing law. Retrieved from https://everfi. com/insights/blog/hazing-laws-legal-consequences-and-the-fight-against-hazing/ Roeder, T. (2018). Air Force Academy ritual was something out of a bad fraternity movie, sources say. The Gazette. Retrieved from https://gazette.com/military/air-force-academy-ritualwas-something-out-of-a-bad/article_1f51652a-b7ae-11e8-841e-0b41618542b8.html Salinas, C. Jr., & Boettcher, M. L. (2018). History and definition of hazing. In S. Knight & M. L. Boettcher (Eds.), Critical perspectives on hazing in colleges and universities (pp. 23–33). New York, NY: Routledge. Sweet, S. (1999). Understanding fraternity hazing: Insights from symbolic interactionist theory. Journal of College Student Development, 40(4), 355–364. Syrett, N. L. (2009). The company he keeps: A history of white college fraternities. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. Torbenson, C. L., & Parks, G. (Eds.). (2009). Brothers and sisters: Diversity in college fraternities and sororities. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses.

Part three: values and student development



Chapter 8

The Position of Fraternity and Sorority Values in College Student Development Ashley Tull, Justine Grace, and Colin Nelson-Pinkston

Introduction Values guide organizations in pursuit of fulfilling their stated purpose. For fraternities and sororities, values play important parts in the symbolic rites enacted at various stages of membership. This chapter will focus on the importance of values in student development processes by making connections between the espoused values of fraternities and sororities and their position on the continuum highlighted in Schwartz’s (2012) theory of basic human values. As calls for values congruence increase while incongruent behavior remains prominent, understanding the significance of espoused and enacted values is crucial for scholars and practitioners to change the course of the fraternity and sorority experience. Through a review of the most prominent values of fraternities and sororities and their relation to Schwartz’s theory, the chapter provides a starting point for understanding how to engage various stakeholders in meaningful dialogue about values that, although presented in different terms, express a synonymous reaction.

The Place of Values in College Student Development Values have been described in the literature as “beliefs . . . refer[ing] to desirable goals . . . transcend[ing] specific actions and situations . . . [and] serv[ing] as standards

102

values and student development

or criteria” (pp. 3–4). Shalom Schwartz, one of the world’s foremost experts on values, developed a values theory that included values categorizations under major themes: openness to change, self-transcendence, self-enhancement, and conservation. These will be outlined later as they relate to the espoused values of fraternities and sororities. A critical goal of colleges and universities is to assist students in developing personal values systems that will best prepare them for life in a global society (Matthews, Featherstone, Blunder, Gerling, Loge, & Messenger, 2009). Fraternities and sororities provide outlets for the development and practice of these values in cocurricular ways (Barber, Espino, & Bureau, 2015). When best developed, these will be congruent on personal and organizational levels and will equip students for entry into society. Fraternal organizations have been criticized for being detrimental to the development of values important for academic achievement and student development. In response to these notions, the Franklin Square Group (2003) published A Call to Values Congruence. Several inter/national organizations, including the National Interfraternity Conference (NIC), reemphasized the importance of incorporating founding values in recruitment activities, the new member education process, and the membership experience (Matney, Biddix, Arsenoff, Keller, Dusendang, & Martin, 2016). Although A Call to Values Congruence was published some 15 years ago, its purpose and intent remain relevant today. Character values have been described as being innate in a person, with chosen environments allowing for the full development of these in early adulthood. Fraternities and sororities historically have been identified as providing encouragement for greater accomplishments for young adult students both in college and at large (Musgrave, 1923; Scott, 1965; Schutts & Shelley, 2014). Time spent in college has been described as a time of in-depth socialization and as providing “ample opportunity for continued development and change of personal values” (Scott, 1965, p. 76). Membership in fraternities and sororities further facilitate environments where students can develop values systems in semistructured spaces that allow for practice and accountability of adopted personal and organizational values (Shaffer, 1983; Schutts & Shelley, 2014; Tull & Cavins-Tull, 2018).

Review of Fraternity/Sorority Values A review of values found for several fraternity/sorority subpopulations follows. These include traditional (historically White), historically Black, Native American, Asian/ Pacific Islander, multicultural, and Latinx. Each of these, with the exception of Native American, were examined in a study (Tull & Shaw, 2017) that classified values based on Schwartz’s (2012) theory of basic values. Common values shared by many of the organizations are identified, frequencies/percentages related to Schwartz’s theory are reported, and espoused value means are provided. In each example, the total number of

fr ater nity and soror ity values in student development

103

reviewed values does not represent unique values, but rather the total number identified (including duplicates).

Values of Traditional Fraternities and Sororities A review of the values of 76 organizations (mostly members of the National Interfraternity Conference) found 351 values present for these organizations. Common among fraternal groups were scholarship, brotherhood, service, responsibility, excellence, and leadership (Tull & Shaw, 2017). This represented an average of 4.68 per organization, with 25 fraternities having 3 values and 3 fraternities with 10 values. The mode for number of values reported by an organization was 3 (p. 10). The study included all the organizations represented by NIC and several organizations similar in their purpose but not a part of NIC, including Alpha Phi Delta, Kappa Sigma, Lambda Chi Alpha, Phi Delta Theta, Sigma Lambda Beta, Sigma Phi Delta, and Tau Kappa Epsilon. NIC member organizations’ values were categorized into broad themes. Frequencies for the 351 espoused values that were classified showed the greatest under self-transcendence (120 values; 34.1%), followed by conservation (110 values; 31.3%), self-enhancement (80 values; 22.7%), and openness to change (41 values; 11.6%). Espoused value means by type included 1.17 for self-enhancement, 1.98 for self-transcendence, 1.79 for conservation, and 1.24 for openness to change. The broad themes of fraternity values are built on a long, tumultuous history with noble intentions that have evolved as time and as higher education has progressed. Early fraternity practices focused on extending learning beyond the classroom and challenged fraternity members to live in a world where “good scholarship was held in high esteem, but taking one’s studies too seriously implied [negatively] identifying with the faculty” (Townsend, 2009, p. 1478). Following the completion of the Civil War, fraternity men “began to be defined in opposition to others” (p. 1478). Perhaps this early focus on the fraternity man as an elite figure played a part in the current disparity between Tull and Shaw’s (2017) illustration of the disparity between fraternity values related to conservation and openness to change. Despite the early antagonism associated with being a fraternity member, more recent themes suggest fraternity membership is important in developing civic awareness and involvement because of espoused fraternal values. A senior participant in Jackson and Iverson’s (2009) interview study focusing on fraternity members’ beliefs about citizenship stated that a purpose for participating in fraternity ritual was to teach the importance of living out espoused values, but noted that “it is the actions you take as a result of thinking about these rituals and values that make you a good citizen” (p. 8). The importance of ritualistic teachings is not lost in the literature. Driver (1991) noted, “Not only are rituals behaviors, since they are patterned and repetitive, they can be employed as signaling devices. Equally if not more significant is that ritualizations can be used to store and transmit information, across time

104

values and student development

and generations” (p. 26). Although society and higher education have progressed, the avenues for fraternities to pass down their teachings and values remain consistent in their symbolic delivery, albeit with changes to content; and they provide an important lens for studying the contemporary men’s college fraternity. A review of the values of the 26 members of the National Panhellenic Conference (NPC) found 134 values listed for these organizations. Common among these sorority groups were: friendship, service and philanthropy, leadership, scholarship and learning, loyalty (to school and sorority), and sisterhood. This represented an average of 5.12 per organization, with 8 sororities having the lowest reported with 3 values and 1 sorority having the highest reported with 10 values. The mode for number of values reported by organizations was 3 (Tull, Shaw, & Barker, 2018, pp. 12–13). NPC member organizations values were categorized into broad themes. The greatest number fell under self-transcendence (45 values; 33.8%), followed by conservation (40 values; 30.1%), openness to change (25 values; 18.8%) and self-enhancement (23 values; 17.3%). Espoused value means for sororities by type included 1.17 for self-enhancement, 1.98 for self-transcendence, 1.79 for conservation, and 1.24 for openness to change. Since their earliest founding in the mid-19th century, NPC organizations have espoused values through membership education and communicated them to their larger campus and geographic community either explicitly or implicitly through community service and modeling behaviors. The NPC espouses the values-based nature of their organizations on its website: “As values-based organizations, the 26 members of NPC live their missions, with their members providing millions of dollars in philanthropic support to dozens of worthy causes and pursuing millions of additional hours in community service” (National Panhellenic Conference, 2016, para. 2). These organizations often began as support networks for women in the early days of coeducation, where their presence was often resented or even hostilely denied (Turk, 2004). Sororities provided a safe space where women could be confident in their scholarly pursuits and espoused values that followed suit, with scholarship and learning emerging alongside sisterhood and loyalty. Later, sisters at the turn of the 19th century used this established network of scholarly sisterhood to secure job opportunities and social status and to obtain emotional and financial support; however, this climb in social standing forced tradeoffs with fitting into social norms, often muddying that initial spark of their counterculturist founders. The NPC formed in 1902 to bolster the values of shared scholarship and sisterly support espoused by early (and modern) sorority members (National Panhellenic Conference, 2012). Before the conference formed, each sorority functioned as an island from campus to campus. It was at these meetings that the sororities discovered the commonalities in their espoused values, which as mentioned earlier, is one of their top publicized attributes. Although many of the espoused values are similar or the same, they exist in a unique context among other values within each organization.

fr ater nity and soror ity values in student development

105

Values of Black Greek-Letter Organizations A review of the values of Black Greek-letter (also known as the “Divine Nine”) organizations revealed 49 values present for these organizations. Common among fraternal groups were brotherhood, citizenship, leadership, manhood, scholarship, and service. Common among sorority groups were charity, friendship, honesty, integrity, respect, scholarship, service, sisterhood, unity, and womanhood (Tull, Shaw, Barker, & Sandoval, 2018). NPHC organizations were found to have an average of 6 values each, with 1 organization having the highest at 9 and one having the lowest at 3. The mode for the number of values for NPHC organizations was 7. Results found the largest grouping of NPHC values under self-transcendence (16 values; 29.62%) and conservation (16 values; 29.62%), respectively. These were followed by values under self-enhancement (12 values; 22.22%) and openness to change (10 values; 18.51%). The means for each of the espoused values for NPHC groups included self-transcendence (1.77), conservation (1.77), self-enhancement (1.33), and openness to change (1.11). Values and their development have been a central focus for NPHC organizations since their founding. Ross (2000) stated that these organizations have “stressed education, philanthropy, self-improvement, and excellence” (p. xvi). This is important for incorporating aspects of racial identification, cultural heritage and social uplift considered as primary values to be transmitted to both undergraduate and alumni members.

Values of Native American Fraternities and Sororities Although an overarching national umbrella organization for Native American fraternities and sororities does not exist, to date seven groups can be identified; six had values examined in this chapter. Fraternity groups reviewed included Phi Sigma Nu and Sigma Nu Alpha Gamma. Sorority groups included Alpha Pi Omega, Sigma Omicron Epsilon, and Gamma Delta Pi. Additionally, one coeducational fraternity (Beta Sigma Epsilon) was also reviewed. The review of the values of Native American fraternities and sororities found a variety of values types. Common among each of these groups (fraternities and sororities) were values related to respect for Native American traditions, brotherhood/sisterhood, cultural identity, scholarship, and unity. Minthorn and Shotton (2015) identified important values of Native Americans that included “being committed, community, and collaboration” (p. 35). They further identified fraternities/sororities as being good alternatives for the development of these values for Native American college students as they are closely aligned with what they aspire to culturally and as students.

106

values and student development

Values of Asian/Pacific Islander Fraternities and Sororities In reviewing the 18 member organizations of the National Asian Pacific Islander Desi American Pan Hellenic Association (NAPA), 86 values were found present for these organizations. Common among fraternal groups were academic education, excellence, brotherhood, leadership, service, tradition, and unity. Common among sorority groups were culture, integrity, leadership, personal development, scholarship, sisterhood, and womanhood. Results found the largest grouping of NAPA values under conservation (27 values; 33.75%) and self-transcendence (23 values; 28.75%). These were followed by values under self-enhancement (15 values; 18.75%) and openness to change (15 values; 18.75%). The means for each of the espoused values for NPHC groups included conservation (2.7), self-transcendence (2.3), self-enhancement (1.5), and openness to change (1.5). There have been recent calls for college and university leaders to provide places for Asian American students to connect with those who share their culture, values, and community. Asian American and Pacific Islander fraternities/sororities are conduits for the previously identified needs of these students. They provide opportunities for members not only to learn about their ethnic communities but also to help in the conservation of their culture (Museus, 2013; Museus & Yi, 2015). NAPA, through its member organizations, also serves as an important link to help in “the development of positive relations through open communication with interfraternal partners to enrich the fraternal experience” (NAPA, 2018, para 1).

Values of Multicultural Fraternities and Sororities A review of the values of the 11 multicultural fraternities and sororities who are member organizations of the National Multicultural Greek Council (NMGC) found 51 values present. Common among fraternal groups were friendship, multiculturalism, and service. Common among sorority groups were advancement, community service, friendship, leadership, multiculturalism, sisterhood, strength, and unity. Results found the largest grouping of NMGC values under openness to change (12 values; 31.57%). These were followed by conservation (11 values; 28.94%), self-transcendence (10 values; 26.31%), and self-enhancement (5 values; 13.15%). The means for each of the espoused values for NMGC groups included openness to change (1.2), conservation (1.1), self-transcendence (1.0), and self-enhancement (0.5). Since the emergence of the multicultural fraternity/sorority movement in the 1980s and 1990s, students who are members have had new and unique opportunities to develop values that are inclusive “of all cultures, races, religions, and creeds” (NMGC, 2018, para. 7).

fr ater nity and soror ity values in student development

107

Values of Latinx Fraternities and Sororities A review of the values of the 16 Latinx fraternities and sororities who are member organizations of the National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations (NALFO) found 66 values present for these organizations. Common among fraternal groups were academic excellence, brotherhood, culture, personal achievement, personal growth, and social awareness. Common among sorority groups were cultural awareness, diversity, friendship, integrity, leadership development, service, sisterhood, and unity. The largest grouping of NALFO values appeared under conservation (22 values; 37.93%). These were followed by values under self-transcendence (12 values; 20.68%), self-enhancement (12 values; 20.68%), and openness to change (12 values; 20.68%). The means for each of the espoused values for NALFO groups included conservation (1.69), self-transcendence (.92), self-enhancement (.92), and openness to change (.92). Latinx students benefit from cocurricular opportunities to develop and practice their personal and organizational values. For Latinx students, their “social identities can lead to an examination of the intersectionality of social identities, family, history, traditions, and subcultures” (Salinas, 2015, pp. 23–24). Each of these are congruent with the values identified previously (Tull, Shaw, & Barker, 2018). They are further supported by NALFO (2018), which helps to “empower Latino organizations and their communities through advocacy, cultural awareness, and organizational development” (p. 2).

Conclusion Values play an important role in defining and understanding fraternity and sorority histories and trajectories. Although specific values differ by conference, council, and type of organization, their overarching callbacks to societal values identified by Schwartz (2012) unify them. By investigating the history of these organizations, the emergence of different categories of values fits into the contextual puzzle of what these organizations seek as their ideal, what they and their members should strive to achieve. Values provide insight into how organizations affect their members during the especially formative years of undergraduate study. The ideals of these organizations fit into what society at large values, and these organizations publicly espouse and promote those values. The question is whether members live out or recall those values, and to what extent they affect their development—which is more difficult and nuanced in explanation.

108

values and student development

References Barber, J. P., Espino, M. M., & Bureau, D. (2015). Fraternities and sororities: Developing a compelling case for relevance in higher education. In P. A. Sasso & J. L. DeVitis (Eds.), Today’s college students: A reader (pp. 241–255). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Driver, T. F. (1991). The magic of ritual: Our need for liberating rites that transform our lives and our communities. San Francisco, CA: Harper. Franklin Square Group. (2003). A call for values congruence. Washington, DC. Author. Jackson, A., & Iverson, S. V. (2009). “Step up and do it”: Fraternity and sorority members’ beliefs about citizenship. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity Advisors, 4(1), 1–16. Matney, M. M., Biddix, J. P., Arsenoff, S., Keller, T., Dusendang, J., & Martin, D. (2016). Fraternity member reflections about civic values. Journal of College and Character, 17(4), 223–240. Matthews, H., Featherstone, L., Blunder, L., Gerling, A. J., Loge, S., & Messenger, R. B. (2009). Living in your letters: Assessing congruence between espoused and enacted values of one fraternity/sorority community. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity Advisors, 4(1), 29–41. Minthorn, R., & Shotton, H. J. (2015). Native American students in higher education. In P. A. Sasso & J. L. DeVitis (Eds.), Today’s college students: A reader (pp. 31–43). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Museus, S. D. (2013). Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders: A national portrait of growth, diversity, and inequity. In S. D. Museus, D. C. Maramba, & R. T. Teranishi (Eds.), The misrepresented minority: New insights on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, and their implications for higher education (pp. 11–41). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Museus, S. D., & Yi, V. (2015). Asian American college students. In P. A. Sasso & J. L. DeVitis (Eds.), Today’s college students: A reader (pp. 45–55). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Musgrave, W. M. (1923). College fraternities. New York, NY: The Interfraternity Conference. National Asian Pacific Islander American Panhellenic Association. (2018). About. Retrieved from http://www.napahq.org/about/#history National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations. (2018). NALFO history. Retrieved from http://nalfo.org/home/nalfo-history/ National Multicultural Greek Council. (2018). History. Retrieved from http://nationalmgc. org/about/history/ National Panhellenic Conference. (2012). Adventure in friendship: A history of the National Panhellenic Conference. Retrieved from https://www.npcwomen.org/resources/pdf/ Adventures%20in%20Friendship.pdf National Panhellenic Conference. (2016). About NPC. Retrieved from http://www.npcwomen. org/about Ross, L. C. (2000). The Divine Nine: The history of African American fraternities and sororities. New York, NY: Kensington Publishing. Salinas, C. Jr. (2015). Understanding and meeting the needs of Latinas/os in higher education. In P. A. Sasso & J. L. DeVitis (Eds.), Today’s college students: A reader (pp. 21–30). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Schutts, J., & Shelley, K. (2014). Modeling a values-based-congruence framework to predict organization constructs in fraternities and sororities. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 9(1), 33–53.

fr ater nity and soror ity values in student development

109

Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 1–20. Scott, W. A. (1965). Values and organizations: A study of fraternities and sororities. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally. Shaffer, R. H. (1983). Review of research in Greek affairs. In W. A. Bryan & R. A. Schwartz (Eds.), The eighties: Challenges for fraternities and sororities (pp. 6–30). Carbondale, IL: ACPA Media. Townsend, K. (2009, December). Review of the book The company he keeps: A history of white college fraternities by N. L. Syrett. American Historical Review, 1477–1478. Tull, A., & Cavins-Tull, K. (2018). Are fraternities and sororities relevant in today’s world? In J. L. DeVitis & P. A. Sasso (Eds.), Colleges at the crossroads: Taking sides on contested issues (pp. 436–476). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Tull, A., & Shaw, A. (2017). Universally espoused fraternal values on college and university campuses: Commonplace or coincidence? Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 12(2), 1–11. Tull, A., Shaw, A. & Barker, B. (2018). The espoused values of undergraduate panhellenic women on campus: Universal or unintentional? College Student Affairs Journal, 36(2), 140-154. Tull, A.; Shaw, A.; Barker, B.; & Sandoval, T. (2018) An analysis of Black, Latinx, multicultural and Asian/Pacific islander fraternity/sorority organizational values. Journal of Multicultural Affairs, 3(2), Article 2. Turk, D. B. (2004). Bound by a mighty vow: Sisterhood and women’s fraternities, 1870–1920. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Chapter 9

Membership and Values: Dissonance and Opportunities Denise L. Davidson and Mark Bauman

When a fraternity or sorority is in the news, a tragedy is generally involved (Whipple & Sullivan, 1998). Even before the advent of social media and immediate tweeting, the arrest of fraternity members involved in the 1994 hazing death of Michael Davis, a student at Southeast Missouri State University, was “headline news,” replayed on CNN every 30 minutes for a 24-hour period. Although Greek chapters profess varied and aspirational values and are often discussed as great sources for leadership development and support for academic achievement, they do not always live up to these ideals. This presents a potential conflict between espoused organizational values and the actions of their members, sometimes resulting in a conundrum for postsecondary institutions concerning ongoing resourcing and endorsement of these groups. Such a conflict is increasingly of interest to the public, students, and potential future members of Greek-letter organizations, along with other stakeholders. The Franklin Square Group (2003) noted that “[a] thriving Greek community can enhance student learning and leadership, build strong ties between the institution and its future alumni, and develop well-rounded students who value community and citizenship” (p. 4). Additional—and positive—findings point to increased campus engagement by students affiliated with Greek organizations (Pike, 2000), with even stronger engagement observed in Greek seniors (Pike, 2003). Still others point to the interpersonal relationships formed within Greek life organizations and Greek life as a whole. Bronfenbrenner (1977), for example, posited his ecological systems theory, within which deep, significant, and impactful relationships

112

values and student development

are formed within one’s microsystem—those smaller, more closely connected groupings. Astin (1993) echoed this sentiment, stating that one’s peer group in college is a critical influence on one’s development. Contributions by both authors demonstrate the significant and unique influence exerted by membership in a Greek-letter organization. But we must balance these positive outcomes with the negatives, all the while considering how these organizations do, or do not, align with institutional values and goals. Such a question of alignment has been asked frequently since the inception of Greek life organizations and is presented succinctly by Barefoot (2001) suggested the central question for campuses to consider is whether Greek life supports or is a deterrent to the academic mission of an institution. Although their question centered on the academic mission of the institution, extrapolating to the broader goals and objectives of today’s complex institutions is a reasonable application. And this question speaks to the values and ideals of Greek life organizations and their congruence with the host colleges and universities. Given this context, the purpose of this chapter is to highlight key areas related to Greek-letter organization membership and values congruence. After examining trends in fraternity/sorority membership, we consider affiliation through a generational lens. A shift in generational values is explored and we draw attention to the importance of values congruence. Finally, we explore opportunities presented by the current state of affiliation and values.

Membership Trends The National Panhellenic Conference (n.d.) reported 5.1 million active and alumnae members in 2016–2017. More than 4.1 million men were fraternity members, either as students or alumni, in 2014–2015 (North-American Interfraternity Conference, 2017). In combination, there are more than 9 million current and alumni members of American fraternities and sororities. Of these, roughly 400,000 are members of fraternities and 415,000 are members of sororities (NPC, n.d.); almost 1 million college students are members of these organizations. These numbers, however, represent a snapshot rather than a portrayal of membership over time. Some authors assert that Greek organization membership has declined in recent decades. In 2000, Reisberg reported that fraternity membership had decreased roughly 30% from the previous decade. At the time, declines were attributed to negative incidents, the cost of membership, the perception of an alcohol-dominated culture, and lack of alignment with student goals (Reisburg, 2000). To muddy the waters a bit, Barefoot (2001) reported in their National Survey of First-Year Co-Curricular Practices that Greek life affiliation was mixed, with fraternity membership trending downward and sorority membership trending upward. Almost a decade later, Fouts (2010) surveyed nonaffiliated students at two institutions and identified reasons students elected not to join Greek organizations: perceptions of these organizations and their members, time commitments, financial obligation, and

membership and values: dissonance and opportunities

113

“lack of overall perceived benefit” of membership (p. 28). Issues such as “hazing, pressure to drink, and perceived conflict in personal and organizational values” (p. 28) were secondary considerations for respondents. These noted decreases in membership appear unrelated to dangerous behaviors attributed to fraternities and sororities and more closely connected to a sort of “return on investment” mindset. Students in the late 1990s seemed to be asking if their time and money would result in relevant benefits. More recent data, however, suggest a shift in interest in fraternity/sorority membership. Responses to the Higher Education Research Institute survey of incoming first-time, fulltime college students indicate that interest in joining a fraternity or sorority is at an all-time high, up roughly 2% between 2000 and 2014 (Ingraham, 2015). Given the range of negative incidents within this decade and a half, including deaths from hazing and alcohol use, social media “ratings” of female college students, racism, sexism, and property destruction, the continued interest in social fraternal organizations is unexpected. This shift has been attributed to broad changes in the culture of fraternity/sorority life and in the students who attend college (Svrluga, 2015a).

Generational Framework Although time frames can vary (Seemiller & Grace, 2016), Millennials are generally defined as those students born between the early 1980s and the early 2000s. The influx of Millennial students onto the nation’s campuses caused a corresponding surge in research and writing that examined the characteristics of this population. As one might expect, an area of consideration linked Millennials and Greek life affiliation. And as with other areas of the literature related to Greek life, the findings do not coalesce around a single result. These authors further posited that Millennial students look for a return on their potential investment of time and money should they elect to pursue Greek life membership. But as readers of Millennial literature know, such decisions are often not made in isolation. Rather, the parents of the Millennial student (often from the Baby Boomer generation) are frequently part of this process and must themselves be satisfied that such pursuits will result in a corresponding return (Kennedy, 2009). Such involvement was kindly described as “active parenting” by Seemiller and Grace (2016), whereas other descriptors have been less hospitable. Affiliation with Greek organizations can be further amplified by these same actively involved parents, who are themselves college degree holders and who in turn exert influence over their children (Fouts, 2010). What is curious is that evidence of the return on Greek membership is both unclear and uncertain, and yet the affiliation trend ticks upward. The newest generation, Generation Z (Gen Z), are described generally as being born in the early 1990s through the middle or sometimes late 2000s (Seemiller & Grace, 2016; Turner, 2015) and are sometimes referred to as Post-Millennials. Unlike prior generations, Generation Z comprises almost entirely “digital natives,” having been born during the

114

values and student development

early years of the Internet, the World Wide Web, and a host of other rapid, encompassing technological advances (Turner, 2015). Much like the Millennials who preceded them, Generation Z students are well tethered to their parents, many of whom are in fact Millennials (Seemiller & Grace, 2016), suggesting a level of continued influence similarly observed in the prior generation. Gen Z has also experienced conflict and war at an unprecedented level. Most experienced the attacks of September 11, 2001, in some form and the start and continuation of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Such domestic and global conflict has been pervasive throughout their formative years and has certainly impacted the zeitgeist of this generation. Invoking generational cohort theory, Rickes (2016) contends that Gen Z students will experience corrective action from their Millennial parents. Namely, Rickes asserts that Millennial parents will move toward a more hands-off, “free-range” approach to rearing their children, one oriented toward more connections with others, more openness to experience, and more reflection. Rickes also cautions that Millennial parents, in their effort to correct their own upbringing, may in fact overreach in their parenting styles, resulting in “a generation that will be more risk averse and conforming than prior generations” (p. 27). Given this, will Gen Z students pursue Greek life organizations? Will this become part of their collective interests, or will Greek life become a leftover from a prior generation? Frankly, answers to this are unclear. Just as it is fundamentally challenging to paint an enormous, diverse group of individuals with one brush, so too is it fundamentally challenging to predict the evolving interests of that same group. That said, there are characteristics of the Gen Z group—an entrepreneurial spirit, open, technologically connected but interested in the human element—that Greek life organizations might wish to embrace.

Organization Values Spending time on a college campus during the fraternity/sorority recruitment period, one easily discerns that individual chapters go to great lengths to differentiate themselves from one another. Generally, these distinctions arise from their individual missions, core values, and founding principles. The underlying assumption seems to be that potential members will be most attracted to—and perhaps more successful within—the fraternity/ sorority that most closely matches the prospective members’ values and goals. The scant literature tangentially related to this proposition, however, does not support this notion.

Values Congruence It seems that no studies have been conducted that specifically examined the relationship between fraternity/sorority values and students’ interest in membership, either generally or associated with a specific national organization or set of values. A few inquiries have examined areas that are related in some way to values congruence. For instance, while

membership and values: dissonance and opportunities

115

examining members’ inclination towards unethical behaviors, Schutts and Shelley (2014) considered the relationship between values congruence, identification (or psychological attachment) with the organization, and organizational commitment. Using path analysis, they found values congruence and organizational identification to be statistically significant factors in organizational commitment. This suggests that values congruence might be a considerable factor in students’ decisions to choose a particular fraternity or sorority. Further, Schutts and Shelley noted that “as values congruence increases, identification and commitment do likewise” (p. 44), pointing to the long-term importance of values congruence, organization choice, and longterm commitment to the organization. Asserting that the values of “scholarship, leadership, service, and friendship” (p. 16) undergird affiliation with fraternities/sororities, Long (2012) explored changes in these values that occurred as a result of membership. Via analysis of responses to the Educational Benchmarking Inc. Fraternity/Sorority Assessment, Long concluded that participants experienced positive gains in these values areas. These are not, of course, the only ideals that have been associated with fraternal organizations, some of which are not, generally, viewed in a positive light.

Use and Abuse of Alcohol A “value” is typically associated with positive behaviors. However, the definition applied by Matthews et al. (2009) was neutral and focused on value as a characteristic of a student subculture and its behaviors. Matthews et al. identified alcohol abuse as an enacted value of fraternity/sorority members observed within their study. Unfortunately, alcohol use and abuse are commonly associated with college populations, and with fraternal organizations in particular. Rightly or wrongly, many associate the inappropriate and often illegal use of alcohol with membership in a fraternity or sorority and with nonmembers’ involvement in these groups’ social activities. Many studies have examined and validated this connection. Increasing public attention to tragedies, partly driven by the use of social media, has more strongly linked fraternities/sororities to negative and widespread effects of alcohol abuse. Seemingly scandal-ridden in recent years, almost any negative event at Pennsylvania State University draws intense media attention. The combination of alcohol and a Greek organization at Pennsylvania State University seems to add fuel to a smoldering fire. In 2017, Timothy Piazza died as a result of injuries sustained during a fraternity initiation event involving hazing and extreme amounts of alcohol. Soon after this, Andrew Coffey died at Florida State University. Both universities and a few others quickly moved to temporarily halt all fraternity/sorority events, including new member recruitment and initiation (Zamudio-Suaréz, 2017). In the end, the seeming ubiquity of alcohol use within Greek organizations is a clear example of dissonance between the values of fraternal organizations,

116

values and student development

their institutions, and their national organizations. This inconsistency, however, presents an opening for positive change.

Opportunities and Conclusion One important question remains in relation to values and membership: is there relevance to the relationship between affiliation and organization values if students do not enact the espoused values? In other words, who cares about organizational values if they are ignored by members? Matthews et al. (2009) analyzed the values embedded in the missions of 38 fraternities/sororities at a single institution and compared them to members’ verbally expressed values. Finding little congruence between enacted and espoused values, the authors noted that “it is evident that although chapters build community and friendships through their activities, they still foster destructive values like alcohol abuse, homogeneity, and poor cognitive development” (p. 37), a finding that echoes existing research. Despite assertions that “fraternity and sorority mission statements eloquently and clearly define these co-curricular organizations as supporting and enhancing the mission of higher education” (Franklin Square Group, 2003, p. 4), it seems that not all of their values are in accord with those espoused by higher education. And there are, as one might expect, numerous individual examples of where member(s) of a Greek-letter organization conduct themselves in a fashion incongruent with that of the organization’s publicized values and beliefs which, as it happens, are therefore incongruent with the educational institution’s values and beliefs. In 2015, for example, two students were expelled and an additional two dozen faced disciplinary sanctions after video of a racist chant surfaced involving the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity at the University of Oklahoma (Svrluga, 2015b). The videos were filmed “as fraternity members and their dates rode a bus to a formal event celebrating the national organization’s Founders Day” (Fernandez & Perez-Pena, 2015, para. 6). The institution condemned the conduct and swiftly dropped its recognition of the organization, reaffirming its institutional values of zero tolerance for racist behavior and emphasizing mutual respect for all. Indeed these values are part of Sigma Alpha Epsilon’s Diversity and Inclusion Position Statement (2016) which, among other things, states: Sigma Alpha Epsilon seeks to ensure that our members understand that diversity, in its many forms, is understood, respected and valued. Furthermore, we seek to ensure that the diversity of our membership is inclusive in our discussions, thoughts and operations as an organization. It is not by diversity alone, but by inclusivity, that the true strength of diversity within an organization can be achieved. (para. 2)

membership and values: dissonance and opportunities

117

This example, and others like it, beg the question: how can things be so misaligned? If the organization espouses a set of values and beliefs and those values and beliefs are echoed by the institution, how can selected behaviors of its members be so incongruent? Such questions have challenged student affairs personnel likely for generations and often, it is said, lack a sufficient, succinct response. But as we read the research and the personal accounts and the mission statements and the plethora of associated publications, one answer did actually come into focus. And it is an answer readers have likely heard before, but that does not make it any less true. Quite simply the values espoused by Greek organizations—many of which are congruent with values of the institutions within which they operate—are indeed enacted by fraternity and sorority members. The sum total impact of Greek life membership—ranging from philanthropy to service to personal development— exceeds the individual examples noted here and elsewhere—examples that, although shocking and unacceptable, represent the exception rather than the rule of Greek life. As Musulin (2014) noted, the positive stories of Greek life are often “hidden” (para. 2). To suggest that Greek life is characterized by only the negative is to miss a significant portion of the experience; further, it implies that members of Greek life organizations are the only students engaged in such conduct and misses entirely that similar challenges are apparent in athletics, band, and scores of other “independent” organizations. It is time—well past time certainly—to elevate all the positive features of Greek life; to publicize, broadly, how the values of these organizations are in fact congruent with the educational institutions within which they reside; to recognize that these values are enacted day after day, often reaching back multiple generations. Where they fail to uphold these values, where their individual or collective conduct necessitates a swift and sure response, such should be the case—much like it would be with any other individual or collective of students. But we should not let these incidents be the prevailing narrative, for in doing so the positive contributions of these organizations, both individually and as a collective, are lost.

References Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college?: Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Barefoot, B. O. (2001). National survey of first-year curricular practices: Summary of findings. Brevard, NC: Policy Center on the First Year of College. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32(7), 513. Fernandez, M., & Perez-Pena, R. (2015, March 10). As two Oklahoma students are expelled for racist chant, Sigma Alpha Epsilon vows wider inquiry. New York Times, p. 10. Fouts, K. S. (2010). Why undergraduates aren’t “Going Greek”: Attraction, affiliation, and retention in fraternities and sororities. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 5(1), 24–33.

118

values and student development

Franklin Square Group. (2003). A call for values congruence. Retrieved from http://www. afabackup.com/Portals/0/documents/CallForValuesCongruence.pdf Ingraham, C. (2015, March 9). A decade of bad press hasn’t hurt fraternity membership numbers. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/ wp/2015/03/09/a-decade-of-bad-media-attention-hasnt-hurt-fraternity-membershipnumbers/?utm_term=.8428122184f6 Kennedy, K. (2009). The politics and policies of parental involvement. About Campus, 14(4), 16–25. Long, L. (2012). Unchallenged, professed core values. College Student Affairs Journal, 30(2), 15–30. Matthews, H., Featherstone, L., Bluder, L., Gerling, A. J., Loge, S., & Messenger, R. B. (2009). Living in your letters: Assessing congruence between espoused and enacted values of one fraternity/sorority community. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 4(1), 29–41. Musulin, K. (2014, December 17). Voices: The positive, underreported aspects of Greek life. USAToday College. Retrieved from http://college.usatoday.com/2014/12/17/opinionthe-positive-underreported-benefits-of-greek-life/ National Panhellenic Conference. (n.d.). 2016–17 Annual Survey highlights: Fast facts. Retrieved from nicindy.org/press/fraternity-statistics/http://nicindy.org/press/fraternity-statistics/ North-American Interfraternity Conference. (2017). Fraternity stats at a glance. Retrieved from http://nicindy.org/press/fraternity-statistics/ Pike, G. R. (2000). The influence of fraternity or sorority membership on students’ college experiences and cognitive development. Research in Higher Education, 41(1), 117–139. Pike, G. R. (2003). Membership in a fraternity or sorority, student engagement, and educational outcomes at AAU public research universities. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3), 369–382. Reisberg, L. (2000, January 7). Fraternities in decline. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com Rickes, P. C. (2016). Generations in flux: How Gen Z will continue to transform higher education space. Planning for Higher Education, 44(4), 21. Schutts, J., & Shelley, K. (2014). Modeling a values-based-congruence framework to predict organization constructs in fraternities and sororities. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 9(1), 33–53. Seemiller, C., & Grace, M. (2016). Generation Z goes to college. New York, NY: Wiley. Sigma Alpha Epsilon. (2016). Diversity & inclusion position statement. Retrieved from http:// www.sae.net/home/pages/about/about---our-position-statements---diversity--inclusion Svrluga, S. (2015a, January 20). Despite scandals and bad ink, more and more students want to go Greek. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ grade-point/wp/2015/01/20/despite-scandals-and-bad-ink-more-and-more-students-wantto-go-greek/?utm_term=.0288cf29d34e Svrluga, S. (2015b, March 27). OU: Frat members learned racist chant at national SAE leadership event. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost. com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/03/27/ou-investigation-sae-members-learned-racistchant-at-national-leadership-event/?utm_term=.52ae20def20c Turner, A. (2015). Generation Z: Technology and social interest. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 71(2), 103–113.

membership and values: dissonance and opportunities

119

Whipple, E. G., & Sullivan, E. G. (1998). Greek letter organizations: Communities of learners? New Directions for Student Services, no. 81, 7–17. Zamudio-Suaréz, F. (2017, November 14). Texas State U. is the latest campus to suspend Greek life after a fraternity death. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com

Chapter 10

Looking Inward: Meaning Making, Spirituality, and the Fraternal Experience Robert Jason Lynch

Values. Character. Integrity. Virtue. These concepts are commonly found within the contemporary values statements or missions of college fraternities and sororities, although the operational focus of many groups has evolved. The most recent shift was to a renewed commitment to values congruence in 2003, centering on issues of students’ inner lives, or their ability to make meaning of their experiences and develop a sense of ethics and morality (Franklin Square Group, 2003). Today, many students report a desire to purposefully engage with issues of spirituality, religious pluralism, and existentialism (Astin, Astin, & Lindholm, 2010; Mayhew et al., 2016). To assist fraternity and sorority advisors, professional staff, and student leaders in addressing this area of college student development, this chapter explores the role of the fraternal movement in addressing an aspect of student development often ignored: spiritualty. In this chapter, I unpack the concept of spirituality in higher education, provide a holistic overview of spiritual development on college campuses, link the history of fraternities and sororities with spirituality, and explain how the fraternal movement is uniquely positioned to have a significant impact on the ability of students to explore existential questions, develop a broader vision for their inner lives, and address issues of interfaith equity and inclusion.

122

values and student development

Religion, Spirituality, and the Inner Lives of College Students Spirituality is a nebulous term. Some may link spirituality to formal religious practices and institutions, whereas others view spirituality as an overarching philosophy or concentration on an individual’s inner life. Certainly, the definition of spirituality may be viewed as a spectrum, but it is important to understand how each concept has impacted the experiences of fraternity and sorority members, as well as how the future of the fraternal movement may be impacted by how the term is viewed. For the purposes of this chapter, I offer a more structured framework for the concepts of spirituality and religion. Most directly, religion may be defined as “a belief in a spiritual dimension, the observance of a set of spiritual rituals or practice, and the adherence to a doctrine of ethical conduct arising from spiritual teachings” (Fontana, 2003, p. 11). Religion may be thought of as a practice that is structured, with norms, traditions, and systems that center collective belief systems. Some scholars have attempted to dissect religion, or religiosity, into smaller identifiable components: belief in a deity, engaging in prayer, attending religious services, discussing religion within social networks, and following religious teachings (Astin, Lindholm, Calderone, & Szelényi, 2003). Worldwide, there are a number of religions, but the Pew Research Center (Hackett & McClendon, 2017) identified the top five largest as Christianity (2.3 billion), Islam (1.8 billion), Unaffiliated (1.2 billion), Hinduism (1.1 billion), and Buddhism (500 million). Currently, many of these religious traditions are represented by directly affiliated fraternities and sororities in colleges and universities including, but not limited to Alpha Epsilon Pi (Judaism), Beta Upsilon Chi (Christianity), Delta Beta Tau (Buddhism), Mu Delta Alpha (Islam), and Phi Kappa Theta (Catholicism). Although many people may identify as a member of an organized religious institution, a growing number identify as having a spiritual, or inner, practice that is not religiously affiliated (Bowman, 2017; Smith, 2009). Specifically, within higher education, students are increasingly identifying as spiritual or atheist/agnostic but not religious, a group often referred to as the nones (Astin et al., 2010; Hout, 2017). This trend has been mapped over three decades of data from the Freshman Survey from the Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP), where in 1982, 7.6% of respondents did not identify with a particular religious category, whereas in 2014 this number increased to 27.5% (Bowman, 2017). Identifiers that may describe a spiritual perspective may be a focus on the sacredness of life, searching for meaning and purpose, engagement in existential discussions, and seeking out opportunities to grow spiritually (Astin et al., 2003). Going forward, I frame this chapter’s discussion of the fraternal movement’s role in the spiritual development of college students; I define spirituality as an individual’s connection to something bigger than themselves that provokes personal reflection regarding meaning making, values exploration, and a connection to others. Although American higher education once was rooted in religiosity, there has been a renewed focus on the spiritual lives of students since the turn of the 21st century. The

looking in war d

123

seminal work of Alexander Astin, Helen Astin, and Jennifer Linholm and their Spiritualty in Higher Education investigation (Astin et al., 2003) set the foundation for the next two decades of research. Two critical takeaways from their work, for practitioners, included two factors that were shown to greatly impact students’ spiritual development: opportunities for self-reflection and meditation. These factors were associated with higher levels of intellectual self-confidence, psychological well-being, and overall collegiate satisfaction. Today, national organizations in college student affairs have underscored the importance of spirituality as an aspect of developing the whole student. Examples of this include the establishment of professional learning communities such as the ACPA (American College Student Personnel Administration) International’s Commission for Spirituality, Faith, Religion, and Meaning. Currently, Mayhew and Rockenbach, along with their research team, in partnership with the Interfaith Youth Core (IFYC, 2018), are creating new ways of understanding collegiate attitudes and experiences of faith, meaning, and religion through the Interfaith Diversity Experiences and Attitudes Longitudinal Survey (IDEALS, 2018). In an initial round of findings, Rockenbach et al. (2017) reported that students are coming to college with high expectations of a welcoming environment, but their experiences may not mirror these expectations, as religious minorities report more issues with campus climate than majority peers. Over two decades of research and practice have illustrated college students’ desire to engage in purposeful experiences related to faith, spirituality, religion, and meaning making. With thousands of affiliated members across the United States, fraternities and sororities are well positioned to make an impact on the spiritual lives of students, as they promote values congruence, personal reflection, and community.

Spirituality and the Fraternal Movement In recent years, the development of the inner self has become an area of increased curiosity within the fraternity and sorority community, from the perspective of values congruence (Rebholz & Hoke, 2009; Shalka, 2008; Torbenson, 2009; Torbenson & Parks, 2009). Yet few scholars and practitioners have directly addressed issues of religion, faith, and spirituality within this population. Of these inquiries, scholars found that membership in fraternities and sororities was not a predictor of spiritual development (Webb & Mueller, 2009); it has also been noted that those members who were involved in religious organizations may hold negative views of gender and sexual minorities (Robinson, Gibson-Beverly, & Schwartz, 2004). One area of fraternity and sorority membership that receives little attention is the concept of Christian privilege (Lynch, 2011). Many of the first fraternities and sororities were established during a time when U.S. higher education catered solely to those who were rich, White, and Christian (Thelin, 2011; Torbenson, 2009; Torbenson & Parks, 2009). Even when campuses slowly began to admit students who did not fit this mold,

124

values and student development

historically White and Christian fraternal organizations continued to bar students from marginalized identities, resulting in the emergence of historically Black, Jewish, and other social identity–based GLOs (Greek Letter Organizations) (Ross, 2000; Torbenson & Parks, 2009; Turk, 2004). It follows that many of the fraternal organizations founded during the infancy of U.S. higher education were heavily influenced by Christian cultures. Yet today many organizations continue to see the remnants of religious influence through areas such as fraternity and sorority ritual and symbols. What message does this send students who may not identify as Christian? In my own research, I explored this concept within the narratives of fraternity and sorority members who identified as religious minorities within their organization and the ways that they felt deep connections to their brothers or sisters while at the same time facing a number of barriers as a result of their spiritual, or nonreligious, identities (Lynch, 2011). In an issue of Perspectives, a periodical published by the Association of Fraternity/ Sorority Advisors, Rebholz and Hoke (2009) called on fraternity and sorority leaders to begin addressing spiritual development in members in a more direct way, stating: In many ways, spirituality is alive and present in the values, beliefs, and programming of fraternal organizations—although it is not directly identified using the term spirituality. The challenge now is for us to be intentional with this additional aspect of student development and infuse it into the core values that fraternities and sororities already espouse. (p. 9)

Leveraging Fraternities and Sororities in Meaning Making and Reflection Fraternities and sororities are unique among student organizations in the level of campus-based and external support they receive, as well as the collective impact they can have on campus cultures (Pike, 2000). This may be evidenced, in part, through a 2011 study using sampled data from the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE), where researchers found that students affiliated with a fraternity or sorority were more likely to report higher involvement in activities that are valuable to student learning, as well as academic engagement (Bureau, Ryan, Ahren, Shoup, & Torres, 2011). Spirituality, as defined in this chapter, is an area of student learning worth exploring, and an area that fraternity and sorority leaders may already be tangentially addressing through national collectives such as the Association of Fraternal Leadership & Values. Ashlee Canty, director for diversity and inclusion for the Association of Fraternity and Sorority Advisors (AFA) and manager of community involvement and diversity for Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE), underscored the positionality of fraternities and sororities

looking in war d

125

in promoting diversity outcomes viewed from the perspective of religious and spiritual pluralism, in a recent conversation. She stated, We talk a lot about values congruence. We ask: What do students identify with? What values did they grow up with? A lot of these values are linked to the concept of spirituality in fraternities and sororities. Values such as making your community better, being the best version of yourself, providing help and support to those around you, and creating experiences that bring people together and gives them a sense of belongingness. A lot of the ways people practice spirituality in the way they do is focused on a sense of belongingness and a sense of purpose and calling. I believe those ideals are found in fraternity membership when it is a positive experience.

To that end, student leaders, professional staff, and volunteers associated with fraternities and sororities may consider the following best practices and existing programs as they seek to increase the value of the fraternal experience and align member experiences with positive outcomes. Drawing from current literature, my own experiences, and conversations with fraternity and sorority leaders, there are several specific areas that practitioners may keep in mind as they create developmental interventions focused on the spiritual development of their students: exposure to different spiritual practices and perspectives, acknowledging Christian privilege within fraternal rituals and policies, and equipping students with tools and experiences that allow them to engage respectfully with perspectives that they may not hold. Fraternities and sororities have been criticized for their historically insular structure and the homogenous nature of the identities their members share (Torbenson & Parks, 2009). However, recent understandings of the fraternity and sorority experience have begun to show a shift in how membership impacts college students, particularly as the impact applies to areas of diversity. From the perspective of interfaith cooperation and spiritual development, practitioners must assist student leaders in finding meaningful ways to expose their members to spiritual practices or perspectives to which they may not subscribe. In my own research, I found that chapter members may already be engaging each other in deep conversations of an existential nature (Lynch, 2011). Leaders should leverage these existing curiosities using structured dialogue opportunities. While employed at the University of California, Berkeley, I had the privilege of serving as a facilitator for a course entitled Critical Dialogues Across Difference: Can We Coexist? This course spent three weeks introducing students to techniques based on the Michigan model of dialogue (Program on Intergroup Relations, 2018; Sachi, 2017). For the remainder of the semester, students engaged in intergroup dialogue regarding predetermined topics intersecting faith, religion, and spirituality with difficult topics such as the afterlife, sexuality, science, and religious privilege. Students in the course self-reported high levels of satisfaction and expansion of their own perspectives. This model

126

values and student development

might be restructured to serve fraternity and sorority communities, where students could be recruited across affiliations to learn more about dialogue skills and practice them using topics such as spirituality, gender and sexuality, and race. By keeping dialogue groups contained to affiliated students, practitioners may leverage fraternity/ sorority identity as a common point to center students throughout the semester. From an inter/national perspective, fraternity and sorority professional organizations have many programs that focus on various tenets of spiritualty. For instance, an existing framework for values congruence and personal meaning making may be found through national programs such as LeaderShape (LeaderShape, 2018) and IMPACT (North-American Interfraternity Conference, 2018). Both programs focus on values discovery and alignment, connectedness, and personal reflection. Finally, alumni, chapter advisors, student leaders, and professional staff must engage in intentional reflection centering on how the rituals and policies associated with fraternities and sororities may exclude religiously underrepresented students from choosing (or even considering) participation in their organizations. Professional staff may begin this process through coalition building on the campus level between members of the fraternity/sorority community and interfaith leaders on campus, with the purpose of reviewing practices and policies that may impact non-Christians. From my own work experience and research regarding religious minorities in social fraternities and sororities (Lynch, 2011), these practices may be exemplified through planning recruitment during holidays such as Ramadan or Rosh Hashanah without accommodating students whose observance practices may impede their ability to participate. Another example may be students receiving fines or experiencing repeated bureaucratic hassle to avoid being penalized for lack of attendance at a fraternity or sorority event during a religious observation, especially as most Christian religious observances are avoided during event scheduling. Campus leaders may also consider engaging in a fraternity/sorority community climate assessment, which may highlight areas of improvement, as well as help identify the diversity of interfaith perspectives within communities. Many resources currently exist which can aid in the assessment development process, such as the Interfaith Youth Core (IFYC, 2018), which focuses on interfaith initiatives on U.S. college campuses, as well as IDEALS, which has followed the attitudes and expectations regarding religious and spiritual engagement of over 20,000 college students from 122 U.S. colleges and universities.

Looking Ahead This chapter explored the link between the history of the fraternal movement and the spiritual development of students. Also discussed were best practices for equipping fraternity and sorority leaders with tools to assist students as their belief systems are challenged and they seek new ways to make meaning of their lived experiences. As

looking in war d

127

higher education continues to become more accessible to historically underrepresented student populations, campus cultures will continue to diversify. The National Center for Education Statistics projects that by 2022, the number of non-White students will increase by 27%, with the number of White students increasing by only 7% (Hussar & Bailey, 2014). Stakeholders, in and out of higher education, are becoming more aware of the need to equip students with the tools to succeed in an expanding world. One area of inclusion that has become of increasing interest is spirituality. From community building initiatives to increased representation and policy reviews to ensure the equitable experience of members, fraternity and sorority leaders must find ways to prepare members to be interfaith stewards if these organizations are to realize their visions of inclusion and diversity.

References Astin, A., Astin, H., & Lindholm, J. (2010). Cultivating the spirit: How college can enhance students’ inner lives. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A., Astin, H., Lindholm, J., Calderone, S., & Szelényi, K. (2003). The spiritual life of college students: A national study of college students’ search for meaning and purpose. Los Angeles, CA: Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles. Retrieved from http://spirituality.ucla.edu/publications/ research-reports/ Bowman, N. A. (2017). Religiously unaffiliated students in the United States: Characteristics, experiences, and outcomes. In K. Aune & J. Stevenson (Eds.), Religion and higher education in Europe and North America (pp. 55–68). New York, NY: Routledge. Bureau, D., Ryan, H. G., Ahren, C., Shoup, R., & Torres, V. (2011). Student learning in fraternities and sororities: Using NSSE data to describe members’ participation in educationally meaningful activities in college. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 6(1), 1–22. Fontana, D. (2003). Psychology, religion, and spirituality. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Franklin Square Group. (2003). A call for values congruence. Retrieved from http://www. afa1976.org/Portals/0/documents/ CallForValuesCongruence.pdf Hackett, C., & McClendon, D. (2017, April 5). Christians remain world’s largest religious group, but they are declining in Europe. Pew Research Center Fact Tank. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/05/christians-remain-worlds-largestreligious-group-but-they-are-declining-in-europe/ Hout, M. (2017). Religious ambivalence, liminality, and the increase of no religious preference in the United States, 2006–2014. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 56(1), 52–63. Husser, W. J., & Bailey, T. M. (2014, February). Projections of education statistics to 2022. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces. ed.gov/pubs2014/2014051.pdf IDEALS. (2018). Interfaith Diversity Experiences and Attitudes Longitudinal Survey: Measuring colleges’ impact on the student experience. Retrieved from https://www.ifyc.org/IDEALS IFYC. (2018). Meet IFYC. Retrieved from https://www.ifyc.org/about

128

values and student development

LeaderShape. (2018). About LeaderShape. Retrieved from https://www.leadershape.org/ About Lynch, R. J. (2011). Hidden voices: Narratives of religious minorities in historically Christian fraternities and sororities (Unpublished thesis). North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC. Mayhew, M. J., Rockenbach, A. N., Correia, B. P., Crandall, R. E., Lo, M. A., & Associates. (2016). Emerging interfaith trends: What college students are saying about religion in 2016. Chicago, IL: Interfaith Youth Core. North-American Interfraternity Conference. (2018). About Impact. Retrieved from http:// nicindy.org/programs/about-impact/ Pike, G. (2000). The influence of fraternity or sorority membership on students’ college experiences and cognitive development. Research in Higher Education, 41(1), 117–139. Program on Intergroup Relations. (2018). About the Program on Intergroup Relations. Retrieved from https://igr.umich.edu/about Rebholz, M. M., & Hoke, S. (2009, Summer). Spirituality: The forgotten precept? Perspectives, 7–9. Robinson, D. T., Gibson-Beverly, G., & Schwartz, J. P. (2004). Sorority and fraternity membership and religious behaviors: Relation to gender attitudes. Sex Roles, 50(11/12), 1–7. Rockenbach, A. N., Mayhew, M. J., Correia-Harker, B. P., Dahl, L., Morin, S., & Associates. (2017). Navigating pluralism: How students approach religious difference and interfaith engagement in their first year of college. Chicago, IL: Interfaith Youth Core. Ross, L. C. (2000). The Divine Nine: The history of African American fraternities and sororities. New York, NY: Kensington Publishing. Sachi, E. (2017). Intergroup dialogue and religious identity: Attempting to raise awareness of Christian privilege and religious oppression. Multicultural Education, 24(2), 18–24. Shalka, T. R. (2008). An exploration into differences in consciousness of self and congruence among culturally based fraternity, social fraternity, and non-affiliated college men. College Park, MD: Department of Counseling and Personnel Services, University of Maryland. Smith, C., with Snell, P. (2009). Souls in transition: The religious and spiritual lives of emerging adults. New York, NY: Oxford. Thelin, J. R. (Eds.). (2011). A history of American higher education (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Torbenson, C. L. (2009). Praising god and maintaining tradition: Religious diversity within college fraternities and sororities. In C. L. Torbenson & G. Parks (Eds.), Brothers and sisters: Diversity in college fraternities and sororities (pp. 210–236). Cranbury, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. Torbenson, C. L., & Parks, G. (2009). Brothers and sisters: Diversity in college fraternities and sororities. Cranbury, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. Turk, D. B. (2004). Bound by a mighty vow: Sisterhood and women’s fraternities 1870–1920. New York, NY: New York University Press. Webb, B. M., & Mueller, J. A. (2009). Spirituality of college students: An examination of fraternity/sorority member and non-member groups. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity Advisors, 4(2), 1–15.

Part four: diversity and inclusion



Chapter 11

Cultivating Cultures of Inclusion: A Leadership Development Approach Leonard Taylor Jr. and Shirdonna Lawrence

Introduction Fraternities and sororities are not unfamiliar with the struggle for inclusion. Diversity and inclusion issues with fraternity and sorority communities have been particularly public over recent years. For example, the “Machine” is a secret society aligned with some members of the National Panhellenic Conference (NPC) and Interfraternity Council (IFC) organizations at the University of Alabama to maintain influence over campus politics. The group has operated since the early 1900s and has influenced the selection of candidates for the Student Government Association (SGA), homecoming queen, and other campus offices. The Machine has been at the center of several racial concerns at the University of Alabama and the larger state of Alabama community. In 2015 Elliot Spillers defeated the Machine’s candidate for SGA president for the first time since 1986. Elliot also was the first Black SGA president elected since 1976. His election was followed by intense racial tension and political conflicts across the university, leading to calls for the university administration to take action against the Machine organization. Also in 2015, members of Sigma Alpha Epsilon from the University of Oklahoma were captured on video singing a fraternity song using racial slurs and referencing lynching. Later it was discovered that this song was popular in their fraternity and was passed from different chapters and alumni. Ultimately the chapter was removed from campus and the songleaders were expelled from school.

132

diversity and inclusion

These challenges often overshadow the strides toward cultivating inclusion many organizations have made, however. For example, Delta Sigma Theta sorority recently amended their membership intake policy to be more trans* inclusive. Additionally, the NPC commissioned a gender identity study group in 2016. The purpose of this group was to provide information to its member organizations regarding the complexities of gender such that the member organizations could go forward in creating their own policies and statements (National Panhellenic Conference, 2017). It is also important to note that a number of fraternal organizations have been established with an explicit focus on inclusion. The histories of the National Pan Hellenic Council (NPHC) and National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations (NALFO) reveal their purpose to creating outlets for people from identities who were unwelcomed or excluded from membership into other groups. A number of LGBT Greek-lettered organizations, such as Delta Phi Lambda, which was the first gay fraternity, share a similar commitment to challenging the binary and heterosexist cultures often maintained even in the most racially diverse fraternities and sororities (Johnson & Weber, 2018). Notwithstanding these examples, fraternity and sorority communities have great gains left to make in cultivating the types of inclusive communities that are espoused in their institutional and organizational commitments. This is especially important to the vitality and future of campus communities where fraternities and sororities thrive, as well as communities that these members will eventually enter and lead. Considering these and similar challenges, we introduce literature highlighting the need for more inclusive practices, present a possible framework to guide inclusive efforts, and suggest specific topics to engage that might cultivate more inclusive environments in fraternity and sorority communities.

The Need for Inclusion in Fraternity and Sorority Communities Practitioners working directly with fraternity and sorority communities are faced with the task of supporting members’ growth and development as leaders and community members. In accordance with this task there has been a slight shift in the leadership theories and ideologies guiding development of fraternity and sorority members, away from transactional approaches and toward more inclusive and socially responsive models (Johnson, Johnson, & Dugan, 2015). Even with this shift there is still opportunity for fraternity and sorority advisors and staff intentionally to (re)engage the concept of inclusion in fraternity and sorority communities. A number of authors have considered the impact of fraternity and sorority membership on diversity perspectives, reporting mixed results (Johnson et al., 2015; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). Pascarella, Edison, Nora, Hagedorn, and Terenzini (1996) found fraternity or sorority membership had a negative effect on students’ openness to diversity

cultivating cultur es of inclusion

133

and challenge in their first year of college. Pascarella and Terenzini (2005) made a similar assertion, citing the net negative affect of membership on racial attitudes and change. Complicating and perhaps explaining the prevalence of evidence for the decreased cross-racial interactions in fraternity and sorority communities, investigators have begun to reveal problematic racial attitudes within traditionally White fraternities (Morgan, Zimmerman, Terrell, & Marcotte, 2015) and sororities (Zimmerman, Morgan, & Terrell, 2018). These organizations also have been found to be particularly challenging to navigate for LGBTQ members (Hughes & Hurtado, 2018). Fraternity and sorority membership has been found through a number of studies to contribute positively to students’ leadership development (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Strayhorn & Colvin, 2006). When focused on socially responsible leadership, several investigators have reported positive outcomes associated with membership. Martin, Hevel, and Pascarella (2012) found fraternity- or sorority-affiliated students reported higher levels of socially responsible leadership, particularly related to common purpose, citizenship, and change. Johnson et al. (2015) found women belonging to Panhellenic sororities or involved in multicultural organizations reported higher levels of socially responsible leadership than men belonging to IFC fraternities or involved in multicultural organizations. Particularly important for this chapter is Johnson et al.’s (2015) finding that across councils, everyone reported low on measures of controversy with civility and change. The authors explained: These descriptive data show that fraternity and sorority students have room for growth as it relates to understanding and integrating diverse viewpoints and demonstrate less comfort with transition and ambiguity in the change process. These lower capacities sometimes manifest with impassioned disagreements about new policy changes, lack of cross-council collaborations, and clinging to past practices in new member education. (p. 10)

We contend that the concept of controversy with civility seems to diverge from or does not take into account activist conceptions of social transformation; being able to engage in conflict and facilitate change are vital skills for leaders. In the following section we offer a framework that encourages more critical approaches to developing and engaging inclusive culture and practices within fraternity and sorority communities.

An Emerging Framework Cultivating more socially responsible leaders and more inclusive and justice-oriented leadership environments requires intentional and deliberate work on the behalf of administrators and educators who work with these students and communities. The lack

134

diversity and inclusion

of critically oriented leadership models, frameworks, and theories presents a challenge, however, for fraternity and sorority advisors and communities in search of models to inform their efforts to develop inclusive, socially responsible, equity-minded leaders. Taylor and Brownell (2017) offered a promising framework, created to promote change toward more inclusive, equitable, and liberatory spaces, drawing on theories, paradigms, and practices intended for change. The theorists suggested five dimensions to consider for cultivating critical consciousness among student leaders: internal discourses on social experiences and issues, interpersonal interactions, contextual understandings of leadership theories and concepts, theoretical perspectives, and histories and historical perspectives of societies and social issues (Taylor & Brownell, 2017).

Internal Discourses Uninterrogated perspectives and implicit biases often emerge in the decisions and actions of leaders. A focus on internal discourses invites student leaders to reflect on and interrogate their thoughts, values, and beliefs. Tracing the origins of thoughts and values facilitates a deeper understanding of previous socialization and helps leaders to see their values and beliefs as mutable and negotiable, rather than fixed. A part of leadership development, this type of critical reflection challenges leaders to evaluate how their values and beliefs align with espoused leadership goals.

Interpersonal Interactions A number of leadership perspectives have called attention to leaders’ interactions with different others (Collinson & Tourish, 2015). Underemphasized, however, are students’ interactions with similar peers, particularly how leaders learn to address and interrupt bias within their communities. A focus on interpersonal interactions invites critical consideration of how leaders engage with people different from themselves, and also how they can interrupt injustices from similar peers. From this perspective, for example, White students might be challenged to think critically about their interactions with People of Color and Indigenous people, as well as being charged with addressing the racist and xenophobic beliefs and behaviors of peers. This is necessary because so many problematic beliefs and behaviors are incubated and replicated in exclusive, protected, and seemingly homogenous spaces like locker rooms. “Locker room talk” is a colloquial term representing a physical and discursive space where those with sexist and misogynist views might find comfort sharing their views (Curry, 1991).

cultivating cultur es of inclusion

135

Contextual Understandings When context is ignored, intentionally or unintentionally, concepts from leadership theories and frameworks are taken to be universal (Collinson & Tourish, 2015). This begins to move toward the types of essentialism that some critical theories, like intersectionality, seek to dismantle (Grillo, 1995). It is important to understand how leadership, power, and other concepts exist and operate in different contexts. There is a need for an acute understanding of from what context leadership theories originate, and the need for more and varied perspectives of leadership from different contexts. Leaders’ value of, response to, and use of power are largely influenced by their personal experiences and contexts, particularly in how they respond to others in power (Collinson & Tourish, 2015). By thoughtfully considering context, leaders are encouraged to consider how others may respond to different styles and approaches, and in a variety of contexts. For leaders in collegiate contexts, is it vital to understand their institutional environments. It is also increasingly important for students to understand that the collegiate contexts where they are engaging in leadership learning are likely different from the leadership contexts they will experience outside of college. More intentionally and explicitly considering leadership helps people to explore and deconstruct leadership phenomena with context in mind, thus cultivating context-responsive approaches to leadership (Taylor & Brownell, 2017).

Theoretical Perspectives Theories are often limited to the circumstances within which they were derived. Although some have been evaluated and successfully applied in new situations and contexts (Komives, Owen, Longerbeam, Mainella, & Osteen, 2005), it is important for leaders to understand how the theories and perspectives they draw from were created (Collinson & Tourish, 2015; Taylor & Brownell, 2017). This can help them to more thoughtfully adjust their leadership approaches, or to understand why their approaches might not be working in certain situations. For example, leadership theories created in corporate environments may not work well in less business-oriented settings, where structure, power, and incentives may be different. Additionally, applying approaches to leadership that may be ideologically incongruent with collaborators or followers might lead to dissension and assumptions about others’ leadership ability, rather than critiquing the ill-fitting leadership approach. A persistent challenge in leadership education spaces is the absence or nebulous use of leadership theories to guide leader development (Dugan & Komives, 2010). Those working to support student leaders should strongly and critically consider using theories or frameworks to guide their efforts or have a clear understanding of why leadership theories or frames are not a fit for their tasks.

136

diversity and inclusion

Historical Perspectives Inattention or omission of historical perspectives from specific populations of people has made way for master narratives to emerge. These narratives mask power and subjectivity, allowing for dominant perspectives to take precedence and alternative perspectives of events to be silenced or erased. In leadership contexts, this may mean masking leadership decisions and policies that have contributed to social injustices. Focusing on a diversity of historical perspectives invites leaders to see the past as a series of imperfect, biased decisions made by people, rather than as neutral, immutable, and objective sets of facts (Lynn & Dixson, 2013; McCoy & Rodricks, 2015). An intentional focus on history also supports capturing, maintaining, and retelling histories moving forward. Varied and critical historical perspectives of the organization, society, or phenomena they are working with are central to leaders’ operating in socially just, responsible ways. This is important given the structural and cultural challenges experienced during leadership transitions within organizations and councils. The histories of these organizations and how they have operated on their respective campuses, the histories of relationships and perceptions of organizations, and the history of the fraternity and sorority community as a whole are important to understand as student leaders work to engage their campus environments. This is also critical for leaders within collegiate environments considering the short time students spend on campus and the even shorter time they engage with the campus in student leadership roles.

Conversations for Increased Inclusion Beyond critical, justice-oriented, and reflexive considerations of leadership, a thoughtful application of these perspectives is important (Taylor & Brownell, 2017). Creating change requires deliberate, systematic, and sustainable efforts, meaning the ideas and concepts noted previously must be strategically applied within and across fraternity and sorority communities. In the following sections, we suggest specific areas where critical leadership perspectives may be particularly useful and provide ideas for questions and considerations at each of those levels of application. Afterward is a brief discussion of institutional considerations for practitioners’ successful introduction and application of these perspectives with some recommendations.

Within Chapters and Organizations A persistent challenge in fraternity and sorority communities is to address the problematic and hegemonic aspects of their own cultures and histories. Some fraternity and sorority chapters have been incubators for problematic and oppressive ideologies and

cultivating cultur es of inclusion

137

perspectives. These issues are both explicit, emerging overtly in conversations and practices, and implicit, subtly inculcated into mindsets and cultures. An application of the dimensions presented previously supports chapter leaders and educators in engaging members in critical reflection and conversations. Table 11.1 contains examples of questions that may stimulate critical reflection to this end. Table 11.1 Areas of Focus

Internal

Interpersonal

Contextual

Theoretical

Historical

Chapter members

Which social identities are represented in the chapter membership?

Who interacts with each other the most in the chapter and why? The least?

What are members’ lives like outside of the chapter?

How might members’ previous experiences influence their current performance?

What identities/communities have been historically represented in chapter membership? Historically unrepresented?

Cultural practices

How do members feel about the chapter culture?

How does the chapter culture shape members’ interactions?

How does the chapter culture fit within the larger campus culture?

What factors shape/drive the chapter culture?

What cultural practices are new to your chapter? What things have been around a while? Where do they come from?

Recruitment

What do individu- How are decisions als in the chapter made about new members? look for in new members? Why?

How does the campus environment influence the new member pool/process?

What would the ideal new member be like? What does the chapter need from/of its new members?

How have current members changed (in good or bad ways) since they were initiated? What influenced these changes?

These prompts can be used directly to stimulate conversation within a chapter or can be points to consider when engaging in chapter planning or programming. Chapter officers, advisors, and influencers may be ideal people to begin the conversation. Focusing in these ways can help to problematize the homogeneity that often exist in chapters, while simultaneously acknowledging and creating space for the multiple and intersecting identities chapter members hold.

Within and Across Councils The variability and diversity that often exist across councils can be a great resource for advancing critical aims but is often experienced by students as a barrier. Much of this has to do with the perspectives students have about each other, which often come from actual structural barriers, their observations as nonmembers, and their socialization during new member education programs. Knowing and understanding differences between fraternity and sorority chapters and councils is important for those that work directly or indirectly with fraternal organizations and can create progress in the discussion of inclusion (Johnson et al., 2015). The prompts and questions in Table 11.2 can be useful to increase members’ and advisors’ understanding of the various chapters that make up fraternity and sorority communities,

138

diversity and inclusion

uncover hidden or problematic assumptions, and invite dialogue that may engender understanding, collaboration, and community. Table 11.2 Areas of Focus

Internal

Interpersonal

Contextual

Theoretical

Historical

Assumptions What are individual members’ about other perspectives on chapters other chapters (within or outside of their council)?

What are the interactions that happen between chapters or individual members?

How do other chapters fit within campus culture? How do other chapters compare?

Why are other chapters the way they are? What are some of the determining factors?

What did members learn about other chapters before joining their own?

Perceptions of others’ cultural practices

What is desirable and undesirable about other chapters?

What conversations do members have with each other about other chapters?

How does the chapter culture contribute to (or detract from) the larger campus culture?

What factors shape/drive others’ chapter culture?

How have other chapters evolved over time?

Fraternity and sorority life (FSL) community goals

How do members envision themselves contributing to the FSL community?

Who do members/ chapters want to interact/collaborate with that they don’t already?

What about the campus environment, shapes the FSL community?

What would the ideal fraternity or sorority chapter be like?

How has the FSL community evolved over time?

External and Alumni Entities The opinions and perspectives of alumni tend to be more influential with younger, undergraduate members. Th is is especially true in organizations where alumni members are positioned as authorities in structural and cultural ways. Th is added influence can mean ill-informed or problematic opinions and perspectives have a greater audience and larger impact. Alumni should be challenged to consider how their newfound role or increased influence affects their perspective and position. New and existing members should be encouraged to be critical of the perspectives and opinions that come from alumni and are supported by chapter and university advisors, especially when they disagree or dissent. The prompts in Table 11.3 can be helpful when considering member and advisor perceptions of alumni and alumni-driven entities and perhaps reshape how they interact with one another. Promoting critical reflection for thoughtful intergenerational engagement supports members in being autonomous but informed in their leadership roles. Rather than adhering to historical practices out of custom or obligation, members should be challenged to critically consider the origin and impact of traditions and if they want to continue them. Additionally, they can rely on alumni members as resources but not as the sole authority in determining chapter decisions and trajectories. Last, by critically considering their perceptions of and interactions with alumni, they can become mindful and intentional about the ways they want to perform and engage when they transition into

cultivating cultur es of inclusion

139

alumni status. Overall, encouraging chapter members to reflect in these ways can help to mitigate unspoken tensions and engender much-needed change. Table 11.3 Areas of Focus

Internal

Interpersonal

Contextual

Theoretical

Historical

Perceptions of members outside of the chapter

How do members feel about their alumni?

What are members interactions with alumni?

What shapes/ influences members’ alumni interactions?

How would members reimagine their relationships and interactions with alumni?

Historically, what is the role of alumni in individual chapters? How did that come to be?

Chapter traditions

How have chapter traditions become a part of your experience?

How do chapter traditions influence your relationships with others?

What role do your What traditions specific chapter would you end or traditions have in start if you could? your organization? On your campus?

When did these traditions start? Who started them? Why have they continued?

Perceptions of governing bodies

What do members know about governing bodies? Where did they learn this?

What are the good and challenging aspects of members’ interactions with governing bodies?

What role do governing bodies play in the FSL community?

What role should governing bodies play?

What role have governing bodies played over time? Has that changed at all?

Becoming an alum

What type of alumni do members want to be? What type don’t they want to be?

What would members keep or change about their interactions with alumni?

How have alumni affected members’ individual experiences?

Reimagine the role of alumni; what would they do or how would they show support?

What is the history of alumni relations for individual chapters? For campus?

Recommendations Taylor and Brownell (2017) suggested that for successful and sustainable application of the critical leadership perspectives, educators should consider applying the dimensions with leadership educators as well as at a policy level. Practitioners who work directly with students within the fraternity and sorority community, including university staff and organizational staff, should be trained and supported in self-reflection using the the same lenses. Because many campus advisors also are fraternity/sorority affi liated, it is particularly important to support and direct them in unpacking and questioning their own experiences to avoid replicating or reinforcing problematic practices. Although training and development on the intricacies of formal recruitment and Title IX procedures are important, more attention and accountability to justice-oriented issues is vital. Practitioners should be aware of how racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, and so on manifest and are maintained within fraternity and sorority communities and should be tasked with interrupting, addressing, and ameliorating these ills within the communities they serve. At an institutional level, structures and policies must be thoughtfully considered and reconfigured to support espoused goals for inclusivity. A common policy issue, for example, is the disproportionate policing of NPCH and MGC social events. Large social

140

diversity and inclusion

events hosted by multicultural organizations have been held to particularly stringent standards, resulting in these organizations often having to secure and pay for multiple university police officers for their events. When realizing their IFC and PHC counterparts are not expected to secure security at the same rate, if at all, members of NPHC and MGC organizations often feel targeted. This is one example of existing policies that need to be considered and updated to reflect increasingly diverse campus contexts and to protect organizations from disproportionate policing. To cultivate inclusion in fraternity and sorority life communities we must (re)engage the way we approach leadership development in fraternal organizations from the standpoint of institutional actors, affiliated students, and the alumni of the organizations. In order to be intentional about the approach, it is necessary to include all stakeholders in the conversation during the process rather than creating guidelines for practice and allowing the differing parties to revise policies and processes afterward. Helping campus leaders make space for all voices provides opportunities for critical interpretation of issues that fraternity and sorority communities face and helps to create and cultivate cultures of inclusion.

References Collinson, D. and Tourish, D. (2015) Teaching leadership critically: New directions for leadership pedagogy. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 14, 576–594. Curry, T. J. (1991). Fraternal bonding in the locker room: A profeminist analysis of talk about competition and women. Sociology of Sport Journal, 8(2), 119–135. Dugan, J. P., & Komives, S. R. (2010). Influences on college students’ capacities for socially responsible leadership. Journal of College Student Development, 51(5), 525–549. Grillo, T. (1995). Anti-essentialism and intersectionality: Tools to dismantle the master’s house. Berkeley Women’s Law Journal, 10(1), 16–30. Hughes, B. E., & Hurtado, S. (2018). Thinking about sexual orientation: College experiences that predict identity salience. Journal of College Student Development, 59(3), 309–326. Johnson, M. R., Johnson, E. L., & Dugan, J. P. (2015). Developing socially responsible leadership and social-perspective taking in fraternities and sororities: Findings from a national study. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 10, 1–13. Johnson, T. R., & Weber, D. (2018). LGBTQ students. Retrieved from http://mds.marshall. edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=admissions_faculty Komives, S. R., Owen, J. E., Longerbeam, S. D., Mainella, F. C., & Osteen, L. (2005). Developing a leadership identity: A grounded theory. Journal of College Student Development, 46(6), 593–611. Lynn, M., & Dixson, A. D. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of critical race theory in education. New York, NY: Routledge. Martin, G. L., Hevel, M. S., & Pascarella, E. T. (2012). Do fraternities and sororities enhance socially responsible leadership? Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 49(3), 267–284. doi:10.1515/jsarp-2012-6245

cultivating cultur es of inclusion

141

McCoy, D. L., & Rodricks, D. J. (2015). Critical race theory in higher education: 20 years of theoretical and research innovations. ASHE Higher Education Report, 41(3), 1–117. Morgan, D. L., Zimmerman, H. B., Terrell, T. N., & Marcotte, B. A. (2015). “Stick with yourselves; it’s what’s normal”: The intergroup racial attitudes of senior, White, fraternity men. Journal of College and Character, 16(2), 103–119. doi:10.1080/2194587X.2015.1024796 National Panhellenic Conference (2017). NPC gender identity study group. Retrieved from https://npcwomen.dynamic.omegafi.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2037/2017/11/ Branded-Gender-Identity-August-2017.pdf Pascarella, E. T., Edison, M., Nora, A., Hagedorn, L. S., & Terenzini, P. T. (1996). Influences on students’ openness to diversity and challenge in the first year of college. The Journal of Higher Education, 67(2), 174–195. Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Strayhorn, T. L., & Colvin, A. J. (2006). Assessing student learning and development in fraternity and sorority affairs. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity Advisors, 2(2), 95–107. Taylor, L. D., & Brownell, E. (2017). Building inclusive leaders: A critical framework for leadership education. In A. Boitano de Mora, R. Lagomarsino Dutra, & H. E. Schockman (Eds) Breaking the zero-sum Game: Transforming societies through inclusive leadership (pp. 323-340). United Kingdom: Emerald Publishing Limited. Zimmerman, H. B., Morgan, D. L., & Terrell, T. (2018). “Are we really not going to talk about the black girl?”: The intergroup racial attitudes of senior, White, sorority women. NASPA Journal About Women in Higher Education, 11(2), 191-210.

Chapter 12

The Divine Nine in Contemporary Higher Education: A Critical Race Perspective Shanna E. Smith and Dorian L. McCoy

Critical Race Theory: An Overview Critical race theory (CRT), as a theoretical perspective, acknowledges and promotes the significance of an historical approach to examining the experiences of People of Color. CRT emerged from the critical legal studies (CLS) movement, which sought to illuminate ways in which legal reasoning and the law was influenced by cultural, political, and/or economic forces and was, therefore, neither neutral nor objective (Brown & Jackson, 2013; Crenshaw, 1989; Harris, 2017; Lawrence, 1987; Taylor, 2016). CRT emerged from CLS’s inability to adequately address the struggles of People of Color (McCoy & Rodricks, 2015). Scholars employing the theory seek to actively identify ways in which People of Color traditionally have been “othered” and assume that racism should not be perceived as shocking and anomalous in U.S. higher education and society (Delgado & Stefancic, 2000, 2001). The framework provides a lens through which scholars, administrators, and educators can examine counternarratives from People of Color and give voice to their experiences. In this chapter, we focus specifically on Students of Color in National Pan-Hellenic Council organizations, also known as the “Divine Nine” (McKenzie, 2005). CRT acknowledges the role of race and racism within higher education and actively attempts to eradicate racism as part of a larger objective, one that seeks to

144

diversity and inclusion

expose all forms of oppression related to gender, class, language, sexual orientation, and country of origin (Solórzano & Yosso, 2001, 2002; Taylor, 2016). The theory comprises seven primary tenets: 1. The permanence of racism 2. Experiential knowledge 3. Interest convergence theory 4. Intersectionality 5. Whiteness as property 6. The critique of liberalism 7. A commitment to social justice (McCoy & Rodricks, 2015; Solórzano & Yosso, 2001, 2002) Although we specifically focus on experiential knowledge, intersectionality, and the commitment to social justice, we provide an overview of CRT’s primary tenets.

Permanence of Racism CRT seeks to illuminate the ways in which racism permeates all facets of U.S. society, by acknowledging the systemic ways in which the political, economic, social, and educational (including higher education) systems in the United States oppress and marginalize People of Color. Taylor (2016) described racism as “a normal fact of daily life in U.S. society that is neither aberrant nor rare” (p. 3). Critical race scholars acknowledge that racism in the United States is not random nor isolated, arguing that racism is so ingrained in U.S. society that it seems natural, is often unrecognizable, and/or is invisible to most individuals (Ladson-Billings, 2013).

Experiential Knowledge The stories, knowledge, and experiences of Students of Color traditionally have been overlooked in higher education (McCoy & Rodricks, 2015; Solórzano & Yosso, 2001, 2009). CRT provides voice to, and recognizes, the daily lived experiences of People of Color as legitimate and valued through storytelling, family histories, biographies, narratives, metaphors, and testimonies (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Jones, Torres, & Arminio, 2014; Lynn & Adams, 2002; McCoy & Rodricks, 2015; Solórzano & Yosso, 2001). History, including the history of higher education, has been written from a predominantly White perspective. Therefore, it is important that the counterstories of People of Color are acknowledged. Counterstories typically occur in three forms—personal stories/ narratives, other people’s stories/narratives, and composite stories/narratives (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Solórzano & Yosso, 2002).

the divine nine in contempor ary higher education

145

Interest Convergence Theory Derrick A. Bell Jr., often recognized as the “Father of Critical Race Theory” (Ladson-Billings, 2013, p. 38), first presented the idea of interest convergence. Interest convergence is the concept that People of Color advance their political and social interests when those interests align with those who are in power, typically defined as conservative Christian, heterosexual, White males (Bell, 1992; Hesse, 2007; McCoy & Rodricks, 2015). Bell argued that the landmark 1956 civil rights case Brown v. Board of Education was a matter of interest convergence. He suggested the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Brown because the United States could not challenge the spread of communism while maintaining a racist, segregationist society in its Deep South through Jim Crow.

Intersectionality Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw (1991) first argued that the intersection of race and gender is rarely acknowledged, despite the apparent influence of the ways in which sexism and racism intersect in the lives of Women of Color. Though CRT centers on race and racism, scholars employing a critical race framework recognize that race intersects with an individual’s multiple identities (e.g., gender, religion, social class, sexual orientation, etc.) and that racism intersects with other forms of oppression (i.e., sexism, classism, homophobia) (McCoy & Rodricks, 2015).

Whiteness as Property Although CRT acknowledges race as a social construct, this tenet acknowledges the historical influence of Whiteness in the United States and within higher education as “an intangible property of interest and speaks of how the legal system protected a vested interest in white skin” (Brown & Jackson, 2013, p. 19). In other words, White skin automatically provides legal and social privileges and rights, which translates into a valuable form of property for those who have it. Examples of Whiteness as property in higher education include access to higher education; access to recreational facilities, restrooms, and entertainment areas on college and university campuses; and access to White sororities and fraternities which were designed to promote the success and affluence of White students through and beyond higher education (McKenzie, 2005; Washington & Nuñez, 2005). Students of Color were denied all of these rights because of their racial identities; however, to their White counterparts, these were privileges which afforded them all of the enjoyment, entitlements, and benefits within their higher education institutions.

146

diversity and inclusion

Critique of Liberalism As a continuation of CLS, this tenet explicitly challenges traditional liberalism’s notion that the law, society, U.S. culture, and, relevant to this chapter, higher education are truly objective, equal opportunity, color blind, and/or race neutral (McCoy & Rodricks, 2015; Solórzano & Yosso, 2009; Taylor, 2016).

Commitment to Social Justice Critical race scholars are committed to the concept of social justice (McCoy & Rodricks, 2015). CRT illuminates the necessity for society, U.S. culture, and higher education to commit to providing safety and security to every individual, including equal opportunities and access to resources for People of Color (McCoy & Rodricks, 2015). Higher education has been criticized by CRT scholars for failing to appropriately define and implement this ideology of social justice. Within CRT, social justice is often defined as the full and equal participation of all groups in a society that is mutually shaped to meet their needs and includes a vision of society in which the distribution of resources is equitable and all members are physically and psychologically safe and secure. As a theoretical apparatus, CRT has been widely used in higher education to describe and explore the acquisition of social capital for Students of Color (Winkle-Wagner & McCoy, 2016); faculty interactions with Students of Color and how those interactions influence Student of Color persistence (McCoy, Luedke, & Winkle-Wagner, 2017); and the access, development, engagement, and persistence of Students of Color in higher education (Hernandez, 2016). In this chapter, we focus primarily on the CRT tenets experiential knowledge, intersectionality, and social justice, and their specific application to the National Pan-Hellenic Council (NPHC) organizations, also known as the “Divine Nine” (McKenzie, 2005, p. 202).

Sororities and Fraternities Through a Critical Race Perspective Critical race theory in higher education emphasizes the voices and experiences of Students of Color and stresses disparities in graduation rates between Students of Color and their White counterparts (Ladson-Billings, 2013; McCoy & Rodricks, 2015) Research has provided evidence that Students of Color have different experiences than their White peers due to educational inequality, racism, and marginalization but little has been done to evidence what experiences within the context of higher education could actually address these disparities in success for Students of Color (Hernandez, 2016). Increasing belonging for Students of Color on college campuses through inclusion, purpose, and commitment to higher education through NPHC organizations could potentially improve key areas such as recruitment, retention, and graduation of Students

the divine nine in contempor ary higher education

147

of Color, as well as the overall racial climate (Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Pederson, & Allen, 1998; Solórzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000). An examination of the Divine Nine in contemporary higher education through a CRT lens provides insight into ways in which Black fraternities and sororities enhance the experiences of People of Color in colleges and universities, as well as provide avenues by which these students may feel heard and understood, while also increasing their sense of belonging and purpose.

Experiential Knowledge Student of Color voices on college campuses have been ignored and marginalized throughout the history of U.S. higher education. Student of Color experiences with racism, isolation, loneliness, and cultural differences in higher education institutions have been well documented, and have existed since the first Students of Color were admitted to U.S. colleges and universities (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002; Winkle-Wagner & McCoy, 2016). During the early 20th century, “one black might be on campus for weeks without seeing another . . . [and] assimilation into the life of the school was impossible” at Predominately White Institutions (PWIs) (Crump, n.d., as cited in Washington & Nuñez, 2005). More contemporary research has indicated that Students of Color report feeling invisible and unwanted both in and out of the classroom. These feelings of invisibleness and unwantedness are often perpetuated through faculty-student and student-student racial microaggressions (Harris, 2017; Solórzano, Ceja, & Yosso, 2000). The establishment of historically Black sororities and fraternities was designed to mirror Black “communal values” (Washington & Nuñez, 2005) while also promoting belonging, recognition, and respect for Black students (Laybourn & Parks, 2016). As a part of this promotion of recognition and respect, Black fraternities and sororities were designed to emphasize the Black student experience through the combined, and thus strengthened, voices of students not far removed generationally from slavery, who had overcome significant adversity and struggle to pursue higher education. Similarly, research has evidenced that Black men who participate in Greek-letter organizations develop a greater sense of self-esteem and racial identity when compared to Black men who are not members of a Greek-letter organization (Patton, Bridges, & Flowers, 2011; Taylor & Howard-Hamilton, 1995); they are also more engaged in their respective colleges and universities (Harper, 2007; Patton et al., 2011). Likewise, Phillips (2005) noted, “The sisterhood network of African American sororities has provided avenues for self-improvement, racial uplift, and leadership development” (p. 347); predominantly Black sororities maintain traditions of the Black community, as well as serve as spaces of resistance against racism, classism, and sexism. Counter-storytelling (experiential knowledge) (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Jones et al., 2014; McCoy & Rodricks, 2015; Solórzano & Yosso, 2002) has been used to develop an enhanced understanding of NPHC members’ experiences at predominantly White campuses (Harper & Harris, 2006). Harper and Harris (2006) identified that Black

148

diversity and inclusion

men participating in predominantly Black fraternities reported a significant positive effect on their racial identity development “because of the emphasis they place on social and cultural awareness and collectivism” (p. 136). Black male students have reported being hesitant to ask for help within higher education (Scott, 2012), and also reluctant to join academic clubs because they are not perceived as masculine (Harper & Wolley, 2002). These factors have led to increased stop and/or dropout rates for Black men when compared to their White male counterparts. However, NPHC organizations are often viewed from a masculine perspective by Students of Color, particularly Black/African American students (Harper & Harris, 2006; Jones, 2004), and have significant potential to improve graduation rates for Black males because they provide a positive place to feel represented as individuals who recognize they are underrepresented on their college campuses. NPHC organizations also provide an opportunity to voluntarily identify both as Black as well as accept “collective responsibility” (Harper, 2007, p. 106) as academic and community role models. Alpha Phi Alpha’s motto of “First of all, servants of all, we shall transcend all” is demonstration of this ownership of collective responsibility, as well as purpose. Likewise, Harper (2007) found that Black men who were actively involved in social organizations (e.g., Greek-letter organizations) on campus were more likely to graduate than Black men who were not as socially integrated. Omega Psi Phi’s Cardinal Principals of “Manhood, Scholarship, Perseverance, and Uplift” are examples of ways in which Black fraternities emphasize the masculine and communal aspects of NPHC brotherhood.

Intersectionality Black fraternities and sororities are exemplars of CRT’s tenet of intersectionality. Primarily established at History Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) with the exception of Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity (Cornell University), Kappa Alpha Psi Fraternity (Indiana University), and Sigma Gamma Rho (Butler University) at PWIs, predominantly Black fraternities and sororities are where “the intersectionality of race, ethnicity, class, gender, and sexual orientation often defines a member’s Greek-letter experience” (McCoy, 2012, p. 141). Beginning in 1908 with Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Black sororities were not only created to provide an avenue by which Women of Color could seek friendship through common bonds but also a place wherein the intersection of being Black and female could be mutually celebrated through a demonstration of respect and recognition in a culture of White dominance and privilege (Washington & Nuñez, 2005). Phi Beta Sigma’s stated mission as a fraternity is to “create an environment that respects the dignity and worth of each brother” and similarly, Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority’s stated desire is “to promote unity and friendship among college women, [and] to study and help alleviate problems concerning girls and women to improve their social stature” (Alpha Kappa Alpha, 2018). Both missions exemplify ways in which intersectionality

the divine nine in contempor ary higher education

149

for NPHC members is celebrated and enhanced by emphasizing the common bonds shared among members, including the shared sisterhood/brotherhood and collective identity as members of their organizations. However, these organizations also seek to help members identify unique ways in which each individual member comes together to contribute to the organization, and also ways in which their intersecting identities as Men or Women of Color, scholars, and community members can add value in each of their respective communities both on and off campus. NPHC organizations do not simply create an awareness of, or celebrate, intersectionality; they also provide tangible avenues by which they can each contribute to society. This is often accomplished through the organization’s philanthropic partnerships.

Social Justice, Activism, and Philanthropy Higher education has been criticized by CRT scholars for failing to meet the demands of social justice. Despite this criticism, NPHC organizations have risen to the occasion, not only in mission statements and vision-casting, but also through substantive actions on their respective campuses and communities. Research has indicated NPHC organizations enable members to act as role models, facilitate bonding networks locally and nationally, and provide avenues by which Students of Color can understand the importance of being both academic and community service leaders (Phillips, 2005; Schuh, Triponey, Heim, & Nishimura, 1992). McCoy (2012) identified that NPHC organizations “developed commitments to racial uplift, education, community service, and humanitarian initiatives which also became paramount to their missions and purposes” (p. 140). NPHC members have always been encouraged to be active members in their communities through activism and philanthropy, and have modeled social justice in their communities. NPHC members have a commitment to social activism. For example, Phi Beta Sigma’s motto is “Culture for Service, Service for Humanity” and Sigma Gamma Rho’s motto of “Greater service, greater progress” is followed by the mission to “give leadership, service, and resources toward removing barriers and inequalities so that all people of America may develop their potential and exercise full citizenship.” When Alpha Kappa Alpha (AKA) Sorority was established in 1908, not only was the focus on the emancipation and equality of People of Color, but also on community service and activism (Washington & Nuñez, 2005). AKA’s explicit mission is “to promote unity and friendship among college women, to study and help alleviate problems concerning girls and women in order to improve their social stature, to maintain a progressive interest in college life, and to be of ‘Service to All Mankind”. The founders and women of AKA acknowledged their positions in society as privileged due to their academic successes as college-educated Women of Color; however, their expressed desire was to serve those in the community who did not have access to the same resources or privileges as they possessed. AKA sought to disrupt racism in U.S. society by actively assisting in the creation

150

diversity and inclusion

and promotion of the Anti-Lynching Legislation of 1921 and prominent members of AKA were also actively involved in the civil rights movement. Even today, the call to activism is displayed as a primary purpose for NPHC organizations. Delta Sigma Theta Sorority’s website’s call to action for Separation of Immigrant Families at the Texas Border states in part that the sorority “has a long-standing policy on non-discriminatory, humane treatment of immigrants who come to our shores, as well as support for women and families fleeing from domestic violence and other forms of abuse” (Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, 2018). Other forms of activism are displayed among the NPHC organizations through calls to register to vote (i.e., Sigma Gamma Rho’s calls to social action), infant and childhood disease and cancer advocacy (i.e., Zeta Phi Beta’s community partnerships with the March of Dimes and the American Cancer Society), mental health advocacy (i.e., Iota Phi Theta’s partnership with the National Institute of Health’s All of Us Research Program), Black organization representation (i.e., the Divine Nine’s representation in the NAACP and Congressional Black Caucus), and numerous other initiatives.

Call for Future Research Much of the literature regarding the importance of the Divine Nine on college campuses does come from an historical perspective, as it should. However, it is equally as important that the contemporary values of NHPC organizations are explicated and explored through the lived experiences of its members, from a critical perspective, on predominantly White campuses. This scholarship could be explored through the utilization of a critical race methodology (Solórzano & Yosso, 2009) to determine, for example, in what ways the members of these organizations are committed to socially just initiatives through their fraternity/sorority philanthropic endeavors. Within higher education today there are some faculty, staff, and administrators who believe the United States is a postracial society and that a color-blind approach to campus life by eliminating NPHC and other Greek-letter organizations would benefit all students. However, the literature has evidenced neither the United States nor our colleges and universities have reached this status as a postracial society due to continued displays of racism, discrimination, and inequalities (Current & Tillotson, 2018; Howard & Flennaugh, 2011; Lee, 2012). Future studies could explore exactly how these organizations contribute to their respective campuses’ missions and values by intentionally addressing continued disparities in higher education, such as specific ways in which involvement in these organizations contribute to the engagement and retention of Students of Color. In addition, practitioner-educators should explore ways in which the intersectionality of these NPHC organizations’ members influence their perceived belongingness on campuses, decisions to become engaged and involved, as well as ways in which members’ intersectionality can be acknowledged and celebrated on campuses as a whole, rather than within the silos of NPHC organizations. Their experiences should be examined through

the divine nine in contempor ary higher education

151

a critical race perspective, which explicitly acknowledges racism within institutions of higher education.

Conclusion Practitioner-educators can take the experiential knowledge gained from fraternity and sorority members’ lived experiences and enhance the campus racial climate for Students of Color. This includes providing additional opportunities for engagement through involvement in campus organizations. In addition, the experiential knowledge that is shared with practitioner-educators can be used to create campus environments/ communities that are more inclusive and socially just, recognizing that most colleges and universities are always working to advance in these areas. Student affairs practitioner-educators should continue to strive to identify ways in which they can ensure students involved in these organizations are upholding the organizations’ commitments to the racial uplift of Black/African American communities moving forward.

References Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority. (2018). Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc. Retrieved from http:// www.aka1908.com/ Bell, D. A. Jr. (1992). Faces at the bottom of the well. New York, NY: Basic Books. Brown, K., & Jackson, D. D. (2013). The history and conceptual elements of critical race theory. In M. Lynn & A. D. Dixson (Eds.), Handbook of critical race theory in education (pp. 9–22). New York, NY: Routledge. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. In K. T. Bartlett & R. Kennedy (Eds.), Feminist legal theory (pp. 139–168). New York, NY: Routledge. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299. Current, C. B., & Tillotson, E. (2018). Hipster racism and sexism in charity date auctions: Individualism, privilege blindness and irony in the academy. Gender and Education, 30(4), 313–332. DeCuir, J. T., & Dixson, A. D. (2004). “So when it comes out, they aren’t that surprised that it is there”: Using critical race theory as a tool of analysis of race and racism in education. Educational Researcher, 33(5), 26–31. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2000). Critical race theory: The cutting edge. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York, NY: NYU Press. Delta Sigma Theta Sorority. (2018). Delta Sigma Theta Sorority, Inc. Retrieved from: https:// www.deltasigmatheta.org/

152

diversity and inclusion

Harper, S. R. (2007). The effects of sorority and fraternity membership on class participation and African American student engagement in predominantly White classroom environments. College Student Affairs Journal, 27(1), 94–115. Harper, S. R., & Harris, F. (2006). The role of Black fraternities in the African American male undergraduate experience. In M. J. Cuyjet (Ed.), African American men in college (pp. 128–153). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Harper, S. R., & Wolley, M. A. (2002). Becoming an “involving college” for African American undergraduate men: Strategies for increasing African American male participation in campus activities. Association of College Unions International Bulletin, 70(3), 16–24. Harris, J. C. (2017). Multiracial college students’ experiences with multiracial microaggressions. Race Ethnicity and Education, 20(4), 429–445. Hernandez, E. (2016). Utilizing critical race theory to examine race/ethnicity, racism, and power in student development theory and research. Journal of College Student Development, 57(2), 168–180. Hesse, B. (2007). Racialized modernity: An analytics of White mythologies. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30(4), 643–663. Howard, T. C., & Flennaugh, T. (2011). Research concerns, cautions and considerations on Black males in a “post racial” society. Race Ethnicity and Education, 14(1), 105–120. Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pedersen, A., & Allen, W. (1998). Enhancing campus climates for racial/ethnic diversity: Educational policy and practice. Review of Higher Education, 21, 279–302. Jones, R. L. (2004). Black haze: Violence, sacrifice, and manhood in Black Greek-letter fraternities. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Jones, S. R., Torres, V., & Arminio, J. (2014). Negotiating the complexities of qualitative research in higher education: Fundamental elements and issues (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Ladson-Billings, G. (2013). Critical race theory—What it is not! In M. Lynn & A. D. Dixson (Eds.), Handbook of critical race theory in education (pp. 34–47). New York, NY: Routledge. Lawrence, C., III (1987). The id, the ego, and equal protection: Reckoning with unconscious racism. Stanford Law Review, 39, 317–388. Laybourn, W. M., & Parks, G. S. (2016). Omega psi phi fraternity and the fight for civil rights. Wake Forest Journal of Law & Policy, 6(1), 213–301. Lee, C. (2012). Making race salient: Trayvon Martin and implicit bias in a not yet post-racial society. North Carolina Law Review, 91(5), 1555–1612. Lynn, M., & Adams, M. (2002). Introductory overview to the special issue critical race theory and education: Recent developments in the field. Equity & Excellence in Education, 35(2), 87–92. McCoy, D. L. (2012). Black men, fraternities, and historically Black colleges and universities. In R. T. Palmer & J. L.Wood (Eds.), Black men in college: Implications for HBCUs and beyond (pp. 138–147). New York, NY: Routledge. McCoy, D. L., Luedke, C. L., & Winkle-Wagner, R. (2017). Encouraged or “weeded out” in the STEM disciplines: Students’ perspectives on faculty interactions within a predominantly White and a historically Black institution. Journal of College Student Development, 58(5), 657–673.

the divine nine in contempor ary higher education

153

McCoy, D. L., & Rodricks, D. J. (2015). Critical race theory in higher education: Twenty years of theoretical and research innovations (ASHE Higher Education Report, Vol. 41, No. 3). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. McKenzie, A. (2005). In the beginning: The early history of the Divine Nine. In T. L. Brown, G. S. Parks, & C. M. Phillips (Eds.), African American fraternities and sororities: The legacy and the vision (pp. 181–210). Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky. Patton, L. D., Bridges, B. K., & Flowers, L. A. (2011). Effects of Greek affiliation on African American students’ engagement: Differences by college racial composition. College Student Affairs Journal, 29(2), 113–123. Phillips, C. M. (2005). Sisterly bonds: African American sororities rising to overcome obstacles. In T. L. Brown, G. S. Parks, & C. M. Phillips (Eds.), African American fraternities and sororities: The legacy and the vision (pp. 341–359). Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky. Schuh, J. H., Triponey, V. L., Heim, L. L., & Nishimura, K. (1992). Student involvement in historically Black Greek letter organizations. NASPA Journal, 29, 274–282. Scott, J. A. (2012). “Reaching out to my brothers”: Improving the retention of low-income Black men at historically Black colleges and universities—A critical review of the literature. In R. T. Palmer & J. L. Wood (Eds.), Black men in college: Implications for HBCUs and beyond (pp. 57–70). New York, NY: Routledge. Solórzano, D. G., Ceja, M., & Yosso, T. J. (2000). Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students. Journal of Negro Education, 69(1), 60–73. Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2001). Critical race and LatCrit theory and method: Counter-storytelling. Chicana and Chicano graduate school experiences. Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(4), 471–495. Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter storytelling as an analytical framework for educational research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23–44. Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2009). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an analytical framework for educational research. In E. Taylor, D. Gillborn, & G. Ladson-Billings (Eds.), Foundations of critical race theory in education (pp. 131–147). New York, NY: Routledge Taylor, C., & Howard-Hamilton, M. F. (1995). Student involvement and racial identity attitudes among African-American males. Journal of College Student Development, 36, 330–336. Taylor, E. (2016). The foundations of critical race theory in education: An introduction. In E. Taylor, D. Gillborn, & G. Ladson-Billings (Eds.), Foundations of critical race theory in education (2nd ed., pp. 1–11). New York, NY: Routledge. Washington, M. H., & Nuñez, C. L. (2005). Education, racial uplift, and the rise of the Greek-letter tradition: The African American quest for status in the early twentieth century. In T. L. Brown, G. S. Parks, & C. M. Phillips (Eds.), African American fraternities and sororities: The legacy and the vision (pp. 211–229). Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky. Winkle-Wagner, R., & McCoy, D. L. (2016). Entering the (postgraduate) field: Underrepresented students’ acquisition of cultural and social capital in graduate school preparation programs. Journal of Higher Education, 87(2), 179–205.

Chapter 13

Race and Privilege in Fraternity and Sorority Life: Considerations for Practice and Research Crystal E. Garcia and Zachary E. Shirley

Dating back to as early as 1776 with Phi Beta Kappa as the first Greek-lettered society in the United States, fraternities and sororities have played an important role in the cocurricular experiences of college students (Randall & Grady, 1998). To date, approximately 800 colleges and universities host fraternities and sororities on their campuses as institutions have recognized (sometimes reluctantly) the importance of these organizations in relation to the interpersonal development of students and the impact that membership plays in the collegiate experience (DiChiara, 2009; Shirley, 2014). Fraternities and sororities benefit individual students and campus communities in a number of ways, yet these organizations also face a number of challenges. It is no secret that recognition as part of the fraternity and sorority life (FSL) community offers members a source of power and status on campus as well as through broader networks that span the country and the globe; however, it is also no secret that this power is not available to everyone. Issues of race and privilege are multifaceted and entrenched aspects of FSL, yet as members of the community, these are often issues that we avoid confronting day to day. Research, however, has examined the experiences of Students of Color within fraternal organizations through various lenses, whether through the experiences of Students of Color within historically White fraternities and sororities (see Hughey, 2010; Park 2008, 2012) or of Students of Color who hold membership in

156

diversity and inclusion

culturally based fraternal organizations that exist on predominantly White campuses (Garcia, 2017; Ray, 2013; Ray & Rosow, 2012). This chapter will discuss ways that race and, by extension, racism and racial privilege manifest in FSL. We begin by outlining the historical context of FSL while highlighting the role that race has played in the development of culturally based fraternities and sororities, which are inclusive of the National Pan-Hellenic Council (NPHC), National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations (NALFO), National APIDA Panhellenic Association (NAPA), and National Multicultural Greek Council (NMGC) fraternities and sororities. We then discuss two primary areas in which race has played a role in the greater FSL community, including organizations within the National Panhellenic Council (NPC) and the Interfraternity Council IFC)—through the racial composition of its membership and the prevalence of racially charged incidents that contribute to the climate for racial and ethnic diversity within the community. It should be noted that two or more North-American Interfraternity Conference (NIC) fraternities within an institution form an Interfraternity Council (IFC) (North-American Interfraternity Conference, 2018). Although the NIC includes historically White fraternities as well as other culturally based fraternities, they are not typically included in IFC on college campuses. Thus, this chapter uses IFC in reference to historically White fraternal organizations. This chapter is concluded with implications for research and practice that hold promise for moving FSL toward more racially equitable and inclusive systems. When writing this chapter it was important for us, as a member of an NPC sorority and an NPHC fraternity, to reflect on our own bias and positionality in relation to this work. In addition to self-reflection, we engaged in many conversations with one another and colleagues about our experiences in FSL as well as the literature centered on fraternal organizations. We did not want to present a chapter grounded in a deficit perspective; rather, we recognized the need for a critical approach that elucidated the realities of systemic inequities that exist within FSL communities in order to make meaningful change on campuses. Therefore, instead of simply offering a description of reality, our goal was to “raise critical consciousness” (Carspecken, 2012, p. 44) of the role of organizational and institutional culture in shaping that reality.

The Emergence of Culturally Based Fraternities and Sororities Fraternal organizations were originally reserved for those students who were wealthy, Caucasian, Christian, and male, whereas students who did not meet these criteria were denied membership (Boschini & Thompson, 1998; DeSantis, 2007). Women sought after membership in the men’s fraternities and were often either denied or offered subpar membership status. Due to the limitations placed on membership, women established their own social organizations, influenced by the already established men’s groups, with

r ace and pr ivilege in fr ater nity and soror ity life

157

the earliest being established at Wesleyan College in Georgia in 1851 and 1852 (Ayers, 2007; Torbenson, 2012). As time progressed and campuses became more diverse with students interested in affiliating with the fraternity/sorority system, older Greek-lettered organizations began to institute exclusionary clauses, which became widespread in the early 20th century. By 1928, more than half of the national fraternal organizations had clauses that limited their membership on the basis of race and religious affiliation, with many governing councils of Greek-lettered organizations limiting their membership to White, Christian fraternities and sororities (Torbenson, 2012). Students of Color responded to these discriminatory practices by establishing fraternities and sororities that would cater to their needs. Culturally based fraternal organizations (CBFOs) were created in the early 20th century—for instance, Rho Psi, a Chinese fraternity; Sigma Iota, a Spanish American fraternity; and Phi Kappa Pi, a Canadian fraternity (Torbenson, 2012). The first African American fraternal organization for collegiate Black men, Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, established itself at Cornell University in 1906 (Kimbrough, 2003; Torbenson, 2012). With the establishment of eight additional fraternities and sororities for African American students, the NPHC was created as the umbrella organization for these groups. This umbrella organization allowed historically African American fraternities and sororities to mobilize their efforts on college campuses and within the community (Ayers, 2007; Shirley, 2014; Torbenson, 2012). With an increase in the Latinx student population in the early 1970s, a need for a fraternity/sorority community to support these students was necessary. Unlike earlier versions of Latino fraternities that served the needs of “wealthy international students” (Fajardo, 2015, p. 69), these organizations promoted “higher education attainment for Latinos, advocated for equal rights, and service to the community” (p. 79). The first of the new generation of Latinx fraternal organizations, Lambda Theta Phi Fraternidad and Lambda Theta Alpha Sorority were founded at Kean University in New Jersey (Ayers, 2007; Newsome, 2009). With immense growth occurring in the 1980s, Latinx fraternal groups created their own governing council in 1998, NALFO, which serves to provide guidance and policy suggestions to the organizations housed within it (Ayers, 2007; Newsome, 2009; Torbenson, 2012). As time progressed, fraternal organizations who were considered culturally based came to include fraternities and sororities who fall within the NMGC and NAPA councils.

Inequity Among Organizations Although it has been suggested that culturally based fraternities and sororities only further segregate students in FSL communities and exacerbate exclusion, these organizations serve students’ needs and identities in important ways such as maintaining ties to and lifting up Communities of Color (Delgado-Guerrero, Cherniack, & Gloria, 2014; Harper & Quaye, 2007), as a source of community cultural wealth (Perez, 2017), and

158

diversity and inclusion

as a platform for students to advocate for civil rights and social justice issues (Parks & Neumann, 2015). Yet although the existence of culturally based fraternities and sororities serves an important role within the FSL community, to say that these organizations possess equitable power and privilege as NPC and IFC sororities and fraternities on every campus is a fallacy. Research has pointed to inequity in terms of treatment on campus as well as access to resources and support for culturally based fraternities and sororities in comparison to NPC and IFC organizations (Bourke, 2010; Garcia, 2017; Ray, 2013; Ray & Rosow, 2012). For instance, in Bourke’s (2010) qualitative exploration of the experiences of Black students in cultural spaces at a predominantly White institution, members of NPHC organizations reflected on inequitable disciplinary responses for similar infractions committed by IFC fraternities. Similarly, Ray (2013) reported that, when compared to White fraternity members, “black fraternity men experience a heightened level of monitoring and sanctioning, and, in turn, perceive unjust treatment and discrimination” (p. 333). Ray and Rosow’s (2012) ethnographic study also found that in contrast to their White peers, Black fraternity members were found to experience a “hyper level of visibility” (p. 80) and a “hyper level of accountability” (p. 84) on campus. In contrast to White fraternity members’ description of FSL membership as “fun,” Black fraternity men “view the fraternity role to represent ‘the ideal black Greek’ to the black community and ‘the ideal black student’ to the white community and the administration” (p. 85). Even though participants in Ray and Rosow’s study perceived a sense of hypervisibility as a representative of an NPHC fraternity, they were simultaneously invisibilized by IFC fraternity members on campus. Of the 15 White fraternity men interviewed for the study, only 3 could name one NPHC fraternity on campus, whereas “all fifteen of the black fraternity men who participated . . . could name at least three white fraternities” (p. 84). This lack of recognition of culturally based fraternities and sororities by members of NPC and IFC organizations is not limited to the participants in this particular study. Results of Garcia’s (2017) qualitative study showed that members of culturally based fraternities and sororities were not only invisibilized by members of NPC and IFC, but also by the greater student population. When asked whether students on campus would be able to name a multicultural fraternity or sorority or even knew what that meant, all 14 participants did not think it would be likely. Furthermore, participants in Garcia’s study also reported that FSL professional staff dedicated less time and resources to culturally based fraternities and sororities than to NPC and IFC organizations—particularly during campus orientation and other FSL informational events. These findings underscore questions regarding whose voices are privileged within the FSL community and whether culturally based organizations are offered equitable resources and support.

r ace and pr ivilege in fr ater nity and soror ity life

159

The Role of Race in FSL Membership From the inception of fraternity and sorority life, race has played an influential role in terms of who is included and excluded from the community; the development of culturally based fraternities and sororities is only one component of this phenomenon. As previously discussed, exclusionary clauses permitted organizations to blatantly use race as criteria for membership, yet although fraternities and sororities were required to remove policies deemed as discriminatory from organizationally promoted documents in response to civil rights legislation, racial disparities in FSL membership have persisted (Hughey, 2009): The laissez-faire approach to racial separation only facilitates an already entrenched pattern of segregation that prevails through tradition, custom, and preference. The existence of the extreme racially homogenous character of fraternal organizations, which exist amid a campus climate that claims to have moved “beyond race,” presents a blatant contradiction. (p. 239)

The contradiction described by Hughey has not gone unnoticed among FSL communities. Although the general lack of racial diversity within NPC sororities and IFC fraternities alone may speak volumes, one problem that presents a barrier in addressing the root of these issues on college campuses is that racial disparities are often explained with reasons beyond race. This phenomenon was addressed in Park’s (2008) study, which used critical race theory to qualitatively examine ways women both within and outside of FSL perceived and explained racial inequities for Asian American women in sorority membership at a predominantly White institution. Despite the predominantly White makeup of Panhellenic sororities, many participants still believed the intake process was open to individuals from all backgrounds and often attributed racial disparities to individual “fit” (p. 116) within the organizations or individuals’ decisions not to join FSL. Park argued that this rationale “disregarded fears that women of color may have about being rejected from the system” (p. 117). In other words, although it could be challenging for a Person of Color to feel as though they belonged in an organization where they were visibly different from the majority, or even all other members, attributing the issue to the individual ignores the role of the organization and institution. Furthermore, Park (2012) asserted that privilege via “preferential treatment” and “insider knowledge” (p. 4) also contributes to patterns of racial homogeneity in historically White sorority life. In addition to attributing patterns of racial segregation to individuals, one participant in Park’s (2008) study espoused a reverse racism mentality by asserting that culturally based fraternities and sororities were in fact “more discriminatory” (p. 121) in their practices than Panhellenic sororities. The avoidance of recognizing racism in lieu of reactions such as minimizing experiences with racism and by turning the tables claiming racial victimization has been targeted in the literature on Whiteness (Cabrera,

160

diversity and inclusion

2014). Cabrera’s qualitative study of racial views and experiences of White men found that “heightened awareness of ‘reverse racism’ was relatively typical for participants who were fraternity members” (p. 48). This finding aligns with the perspective espoused by the participant in Park’s study and also points to a potential misconception that members of NPC and IFC organizations may have in relation to culturally based fraternities and sororities—an issue that FSL professionals can help community members to unpack. Rather than focusing on individual fit, in practice we should be assessing whether the climate of organizations as well as the greater FSL community are welcoming to Students of Color. Perhaps all too often reports regarding racially offensive incidents within the FSL community surface. For instance, following the emergence of a video featuring an Oklahoma fraternity’s racist chant, Clifton (2015) highlighted a dozen other racialized incidents that occurred on college campuses across the nation, including an MLK Day party where attendees wore sagging pants and drank from watermelon cups and a Mexican-themed party where members of a sorority donned sombreros and mustaches while holding signs with messages such as “Will mow lawn for weed + beer” (para. 8). Similar to responses to racial segregation within FSL membership, it is often easier to attribute racially offensive incidents to individual students, chapters, or institutions rather than recognize them as systemic patterns of racism and normalized expressions of microaggressions. However we must also face the reality that for every racially charged incident that is reported through the media, many others occur without recognition at the national or even local level. Thus, although it can be tempting to attribute particular incidents to individual institutions or organizations with reactions such as “Wow, racism must be really prevalent at X University,” it is imperative to remember that the role of race in FSL is not isolated to a single institution or organization. Although microaggressions and implicit bias certainly play an influential role in defining FSL membership, the prevalence of overt racism in FSL membership intake cannot be ignored. Although we may not be privy to all instances of overt racism that occur within organizations, a campus news story at the University of Alabama provided proof that these issues do exist (Crain & Ford, 2015). The 2013 report described the exclusion of a particular Black student who was an excellent prospect for membership but was not selected by any of the Panhellenic sororities because of her race. The report was confirmed by several sorority members, one describing that, beyond her race, the student possessed all of the qualities that the sororities looked for and it “would have been a dog fight between all the sororities if she were White” (para. 21). This particular incident was only a symptom of a much larger systemic issue of segregation in the FSL community at the institution as only one Black woman had joined a Panhellenic sorority in the history of the university by that time and had done so a decade earlier in 2003. Nevertheless, this report spurred protests on campus as well as a recognition of the issue in a statement released by the university president asserting that discrimination was unacceptable (Associated Press, 2013).

r ace and pr ivilege in fr ater nity and soror ity life

161

Although it was admirable that students and other campus community members, including the university president, organized in response to the issue, the lack of attention to racial disparities in FSL prior to this point in time begs the question: Why? Was the mere fact that only one Black woman had been accepted into membership in a Panhellenic sorority in the history of the institution not evidence enough of systemic racism or at least an indication that the FSL climate was unwelcoming to racial diversity? Despite the seemingly obvious ways we see racial divides manifest in FSL communities, we have also seen similar scenarios play out time and again in colleges and universities across the nation. In these situations, organizations and institutions often assume reactive measures rather than proactive responses to combat issues before they occur.

Implications for Practice and Research There are a number of implications for practice and research that may be drawn from this discussion. Although this chapter primarily addressed ways that race plays a role in FSL communities in terms of students, an important consideration for practice and research is to also examine ways these issues manifest among those who work as campus-based fraternity/sorority advisors. Approaching hiring decisions, for instance, with the mentality that members of culturally based fraternities and sororities can only be hired to work with culturally based organizations, or are expected to have a working knowledge of all councils, whereas members of IFC and NPC who lack knowledge of culturally based organizations are accepted, disservices the greater FSL community. FSL advisors play a crucial role in cultivating inclusive communities and should engage members of these communities in critical dialogues on race, privilege, power, and oppression. These topics can be challenging to address, particularly for students who have never been introduced to these concepts, but without targeted discussions of how overt racism and implicit bias shape FSL communities, we cannot expect lasting change to occur. Additionally, it is imperative to conduct frequent assessments on the FSL community climate holistically as well as within particular organizations in order to gain insight into the experiences of the students within those environments. Furthermore, although NPC and IFC organizations often outnumber culturally based fraternities and sororities on college campuses, all organizations still require support and should be treated as valued members of the greater FSL community. FSL professional staff can better serve students by intentionally reflecting on ways that the community is educated about the existence and purpose of culturally based organizations through FSL informational sessions, campus orientation, and marketing tools. Importantly, the power that FSL communities possess can be an influential tool for enacting change—both within organizations as well as across institutions and the larger landscape of higher education. Although large-scale systemic change may seem

162

diversity and inclusion

daunting, it all begins with recognizing that disparities exist and being intentional in addressing these inequities.

References Associated Press. (2013, September 18). University of Alabama: Hundreds protest Greek system racial segregation. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/ world/2013/sep/18/university-alabama-racial-segregation-greek-system Ayers, A. R. (2007). College student adaptability and Greek membership: A single institution case study (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3276420) Boschini, V., & Thompson, C. (1998). The future of the Greek experience: Greeks and diversity. New Directions for Student Services, 81, 19–27. doi:10.1002/ss.8102 Bourke, B. (2010). Experiences of Black students in multiple cultural spaces at a predominantly White institution. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 3(2), 126–135. doi:10.1037/ a0019025 Cabrera, N. L. (2014). Exposing Whiteness in higher education: White male college students minimizing racism, claiming victimization, and recreating White supremacy. Race Ethnicity and Education, 17(1), 30–55. doi.10.1080/13613324.2012.725040 Carspecken, P. F. (2012). Basic concepts in critical methodological theory: Action, structure and system within a communicative pragmatics framework. In S. R. Steinberg & G. S. Cannella (Eds.), Critical qualitative research reader (pp. 43–66). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Clifton, D. (2015, March 10). 12 incidents that prove fraternity and sorority racism isn’t just an Oklahoma problem. The Movement. Retrieved from https://mic.com/articles/ 112240/12-incidents-that-prove-fraternity-and-sorority-racism-isn-t-just-an-oklahomaproblem#.1w8vx4jxr Crain, A., & Ford, M. (2015, August 18). The final barrier: 50 years later, segregation still exists. The Crimson White. Retrieved from http://www.cw.ua.edu/article/2013/09/the-finalbarrier-50-years-later-segregation-still-exists Delgado-Guerrero, M., Cherniack, M. A., & Gloria, A. M. (2014). Family away from home: Factors influencing undergraduate women of color’s decisions to join a cultural-specific sorority. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 7(1), 45–57. doi:10.1037/a0036070 DeSantis, A. D. (2007). Inside Greek U. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky. DiChiara, A. N. (2009). Fraternal leadership: Differences in leadership practices among four governing Greek councils. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/ Sorority Advisors, 4(2), 16–29. Fajardo, O. (2015). A brief history of international Latin American student fraternities: A movement that lasted 86 years (1889–1975). Journal of Hispanic Higher Education, 14(1), 69–81. doi.10.1177/1538192714548928 Garcia, C. E. (2017). Latinx college student sense of belonging: The role of campus subcultures (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (ProQuest No. 10271563) Harper, S. R., & Quaye. S. J. (2007). Student organizations as venues for Black identity expression and development among African American male student leaders. Journal of College Student Development, 48(2), 127–144. doi.10.1353/csd.2007.0012

r ace and pr ivilege in fr ater nity and soror ity life

163

Hughey, M. W. (2009). Rushing the wall, crossing the sands: Cross-racial membership in U.S. college fraternities and sororities. In C. L. Torbenson & G. S. Parks (Eds.), Brothers and sisters: Diversity in college fraternities and sororities (pp. 237–276). Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses. Hughey, M. W. (2010). A paradox of participation: NonWhites in White sororities and fraternities. Social Problems, 57(4), 653–679. Kimbrough, W. M. (2003). Black Greek 101: The culture, customs, and challenges of Black fraternities and sororities. Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses. Newsome, K. D. (2009). Factors that influence the decision of Black males to seek membership in a historically White fraternity (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3385292) North-American Interfraternity Conference. (2018). About IFC. Retrieved from http:// nicindy.org/ifc/ Park, J. (2008). Race and the Greek system in the 21st century: Centering the voices of Asian American women. NASPA Journal, 45(1), 103–132. doi.10.2202/1949-6605.1909 Park, J. J. (2012). Asian American women’s perspectives on historically White sorority life: A critical race theory and cultural capital analysis. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity Sorority Advisors, 7(2), 1–18. Parks, G. S., & Neumann, C. (2015). Lifting as they climb: Race, sorority, and African American uplift in the 20th century. Hastings Women’s Law Journal, 27(1), 109–144. Perez, D., II (2017). In pursuit of success: Latino male college students exercising academic determination and community cultural wealth. Journal of College Student Development, 58(2), 123–140. doi.10.1353/csd.2017.0011 Randall, K., & Grady, D. L. (1998). The Greek experience and critical-thinking skills. New Directions for Student Services, 81, 29–37. doi:10.1002/ss.8103 Ray, R. (2013). Fraternity life at predominantly White universities in the US: The saliency of race. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36(2), 320–336. doi.10.1080/01419870.2012.676201 Ray, R., & Rosow, J. A. (2012). The two different worlds of Black and White fraternity men: Visibility and accountability as mechanisms of privilege. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 41(1), 66–94. doi:10.1177/0891241611431700 Shirley, Z. E. (2014). Declining participation in fraternity and sorority life: A comparison of perceptions of Greek-lettered organizations between affiliated and non-affiliated students (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3691194) Torbenson, C. L. (2012). The origin and evolution of college fraternities and sororities. In T. L. Brown, G. S. Parks, & C. M. Phillips (Eds.), African American fraternities and sororities: The legacy and the vision (2nd ed., pp. 33–61). Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky.

Part five: research



Chapter 14

The State of Fraternity/Sorority Research James P. Barber, J. Patrick Biddix, Grahaeme A. Hesp, Eric Norman, and Daniel A. Bureau

Over 50 years ago, Baciq and Sgan (1962) wrote, “Only an increase in the factual data about fraternities will raise the level from the emotional and anecdotal to the rational and logical” (p. 95). In their introduction to The Impact of College on Students, Feldman and Newcomb (1969) noted that the periodic assessment of scientific endeavor is essential for any profession. Practitioners often reflect on and discuss the nature of research in their chosen field, but generally only during conferences or in other informal ways. Feldman and Newcomb believed, however, that the reflection on research in a profession such as fraternity and sorority life should be more systemic. Despite these warnings, Finegan and Hines (1967) reported in American Fraternities: An Agenda of Needed Research, “Nowhere, so far as we know has anyone undertaken a ‘research program’ with college fraternity life as its focus” (p. 3). Love and Yousey (2001) defined discourse as “the expression of thoughts or feelings and the exchange of thoughts or feelings through speech, writing or other forms of communication” (p. 431). One of the ways in which professional discourse occurs is through literature—namely, research journals. Barritt (1992) believed that the role of research literature “has become so pervasive and expected that it has become a ritualized part of the written and spoken discourse” (p. 234). Literature plays a critical role in the student affairs profession and in fraternity and sorority life, as evidenced by professionals “who cite what ‘we know’ on the basis of what is known via ‘the literature’” (p. 236).

168 r esearch

Fast-forward to the 21st century and Martin and Hevel (2014) argued that there is now a large divide between “researchers” and “practitioners” that has made research on student populations more complex, but often less connected to on-the-ground advising experiences. Student affairs practitioners often find difficulty with research articles in terms of clarity and understanding. Researchers likewise struggle making their findings accessible to a wide audience, despite the increased focus on producing learning outcomes by applying newly generated knowledge in the practical realm (Love & Estanek, 2004; NASPA & ACPA, 2004). As Boyer (1987) highlighted, out-of-class experiences such as fraternity/sorority involvement are most meaningful when they complement the formal education of the individual student. It is only by practitioners working with substantial data, applications in reality, and through effective partnerships that undergraduate fraternity and sorority members, their chapters, and the host institutions can ensure a quality educational environment. Molasso (2005) concluded, “The implications for the field of student affairs, and particularly those focusing their time in professional positions that support the fraternity/sorority community, relate to increasing the range, frequency, and depth of research related to fraternities/sororities” (p. 7).

Evolution of Fraternity/Sorority Life (FSL) Research As noted previously, a push for research programs on the college fraternity experience occurred in the 1960s, as membership was at a high point post–World War II. Although the public call for research on the fraternity experience became louder in the 1960s, research and writing on the fraternity and sorority experience has taken place for much longer, and involved not only North-American Interfraternity Conference (NIC) fraternities, but sororities as well. For example, Barbara Robson (1933) published an early study on university support for fraternity and sorority facilities management. This study was funded by the Chi Omega Foundation. However, historically Black organizations now affiliated with the National Pan-Hellenic Council (NPHC) and other culturally based fraternities and sororities were often excluded from these early publications. For example, Levere’s (1915) book detailing a who’s who of national leadership of fraternities and sororities, as well as honorary and professional Greek-letter organizations, leaves out groups including Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity and Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, which had both been in existence for more than five years at the time of publication. It would be nearly a century before scholarly work showcasing the history and modern relevance of Black Greek-letter organizations would gain wide publication—for example, Lawrence Ross’s (2000) Divine Nine: The History of African American Fraternities and Sororities, Walter Kimbrough’s (2003) Black Greek 101: The Culture, Customs, and Challenges of Black Fraternities and Sororities, and

the state of fr ater nity/soror ity r esearch

169

African American Fraternities and Sororities: The Legacy and the Vision, edited by Tamara Brown, Gregory Parks, and Clarenda Phillips (2005). In 1965, NIC, along with the Fraternity Executives Association (FEA), established the Commission on Fraternity Research (CFR). This was the first organized effort to advance a research agenda related to the American college fraternity. The commission published two works: a pamphlet detailing a research agenda in 1967 and an annotated bibliography (CFR, 1970) of studies from 1950–1970. Although there is a section of the bibliography on “Fraternities and Minority Groups” (pp. 18–21), the focus of the 12 studies listed is exclusively on attitudes of White groups on the admission or exclusion of Jewish, Black, and Asian students. The American college fraternity celebrated its bicentennial in 1976, marking the founding of Phi Beta Kappa at William and Mary in 1776. To recognize this milestone and discuss the future of the fraternal movement, the FEA, Indiana University, and NIC sponsored the American College Fraternity Bicentennial Commission, which met in Bloomington, Indiana, July 12–16, 1976, and again in Williamsburg, Virginia, November 30–December 1, 1976. The more than 70 participants in these meetings included fraternity executives, alumni, undergraduate students, and university faculty and administrators (Schreck, 1976). The Center for Fraternity/Sorority Research (originally the Center for the Study of the College Fraternity) was founded at Indiana University in 1979 by Robert H. Shaffer and Herman B. Wells to centralize efforts to study the fraternity experience. The establishment of the center at IU also served to legitimize research on fraternity and sorority issues by providing an academic home and access to the resources and staff of a research university. The center transitioned to the Timothy J. Piazza Center for Fraternity and Sorority Research and Reform at Penn State University in 2019. However, the initial center at IU was a major figure in shaping the fraternity/sorority research landscape in the early 1980s. Its publication, the CSCF Update, created a place where scholars and administrators could seek out (and publish) research related to the fraternal experience. In 1986, the University of Minnesota Greek Experience Survey was acquired by CSCF and became a foundation for what is now the Fraternity and Sorority Experience Survey (FSES), discussed in greater detail in Chapter 15. In 1992, the center published a monograph titled Brotherhood and the Bottle (Arnold & Kuh, 1992) that encouraged using a cultural lens to study the underlying reasons for alcohol use and abuse in fraternity/sorority communities. This study was controversial at the time, in part because it documented a negative side of the fraternal experience. The report fueled fears within the fraternity and sorority movement that research might expose additional detrimental outcomes of membership and served to slow support for fraternity/sorority research over the next decade. In the late 1990s the center became relatively dormant in terms of publishing monographs or other research due to a lack of funding and volunteer support (Bureau & Hesp, 2015). Even as the center moved away from publishing original research, it served

170 r esearch

a crucial role in gathering research on the fraternal experience, compiling occasional annotated bibliographies of related research every 5–10 years. The CSCF annotated bibliographies go back to the 1950s; the most recent update was in 2014. The annotated bibliographies document a sustained interest in the fraternal experience over decades, demonstrated by a steadily increasing number of research journal articles, scholarly books, master’s theses, and doctoral dissertations. The 2000–2005 Strategic Plan of the then-called Association of Fraternity Advisors (AFA) set out to professionalize their organization (2005). One outcome of the strategic plan was a survey administered by AFA and EBI (Educational Benchmarking, Inc.) to learn more about fraternity/sorority program effectiveness in terms of student learning outcomes and satisfaction (Long, 2010). This survey was first launched in 2004 and continued for several years. Also in 2004, the AFA Executive Board empowered a team of fraternity/sororityfocused researchers, administrators, and campus leaders to investigate the desire for and possibility of publishing a peer-reviewed fraternity/sorority-focused research journal. Thus, the first forum for publishing research specific to fraternities and sororities was launched. In 2005, Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors published its first issue under Editor Grahaeme Hesp and Associate Editor Daniel Bureau. Featuring studies on fraternity/sorority scholarship; elements of credible research; the experiences of gay, lesbian, and bisexual fraternity/sorority members; and understanding ritual, the inaugural issue signaled a more inclusive research agenda than past efforts at the national level. During the next 13 years, Oracle published 22 times, showcasing almost 100 articles on a range of topics including alcohol misuse and abuse, membership selection practices, identity development in the context of FSL, student learning within the context of FSL, and a number of historical articles focused on summarizing existing research. Biddix, Matney, Norman, and Martin (2014) published a critical analysis of research related to the fraternity/sorority experience from 1996–2013. They distinguished fraternity/sorority-focused research from fraternity/sorority-included research, modeled after Pascarella and Terenzini’s 2005 methodology. This distinction merits attention when considering the current body of research. Much of the fraternity/sorority-focused research has consistently appeared in few venues beyond Oracle. Primarily, these are student affairs venues such as the Journal of College Student Development (JCSD) and The College Student Affairs Journal (CSAJ) or collected New Directions editions and occasional books that allow for a focus on specific curricular experiences or their administration. Aside from these venues, much of the focused research is on detrimental effects such as alcohol use or hazing. The fraternity/sorority-included research can be more difficult to identify in student affairs venues, as it is often characterized by the inclusion of fraternity/sorority membership as a demographic variable from a survey or descriptor in a qualitative study. More commonly, these are found in higher education

the state of fr ater nity/soror ity r esearch

171

venues such as Research in Higher Education or in the broader fields that consider membership as an influence on behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes in psychology, sociology, or (more recently) business research. Although the focused research provides a useful emphasis, the included research is often more revealing because membership is used as a control variable, or group test for an intervention. In 2015, Indiana University acquired the Carroll L. Lurding Library of College Fraternity and Sorority Materials, an archive of more than 2,300 books, photographs, and other historical materials related to fraternities and sororities. This is to date the largest collection of fraternity/sorority artifacts; an inventory is available publicly online through Indiana’s Lilly Library (www.indiana.edu/~liblilly/lilly/mss/index.php?p=lurding). The research agenda in the late 2010s is in large part driven by local and national headlines regarding fraternities and sororities. Hazing behaviors and alcohol use and abuse receive a great deal of attention in FSL research, in response to a series of high-profile tragedies in 2017, in which students died in incidents involving fraternity hazing and excessive alcohol consumption. As will be described in Chapter 15, the Fraternity/Sorority Experience Survey has expanded greatly in recent years; since 2015 more than 70,000 students have completed the survey. In 2016–2017 alone, 18 campuses across the country participated in the study. In recent years, a more diverse sample of students from different types of organizations and higher education institutions have been included. The representation of students from culturally based organizations affiliated with NPHC, NALFO, and MGC is a welcomed change and adds a new perspective to fraternity/sorority research, which historically has focused on the experiences of majority-White groups in the NIC and NPC. Oracle continues as the only peer-reviewed journal dedicated strictly to examining the fraternity/sorority experience. Other higher education journals periodically include an article that either focuses on fraternity and sorority life or includes the population in the analysis.

Future Directions This chapter has provided an overview of trends in research beginning with the summary works of Baciq and Sgan (1962) and then Finegan and Hines (1967) and extending to the more recent analyses completed by Molasso (2005) and Biddix et al. (2014). These studies revealed several trends in the published research, which largely has focused on alcohol abuse and educational outcomes, with a secondary attention to leadership development. Notably and continually absent are studies of hazing interventions, leadership programming, and developmental outcomes. However, these are very broad generalizations. Like much college student research, the trends identified reflect external factors that influence what researchers study. A continual and increasing media focus on the detrimental aspects of fraternity membership, for example, coupled with an emphasis

172 r esearch

on activities that contribute (or do not) to retention and graduation, have resulted in more and broader research exploring connections to involvement. A recent example highlights this observation. Economics researchers at Miami University (Even & Smith, 2018) published a study that resulted in an interview in the Chronicle of Higher Education calling into question the long-held claims of better grades and higher paying jobs as the result of fraternity/ sorority membership. Although the researchers included only a single institution, the findings came at a time when the purpose of higher education and the role and need for fraternities and sororities are under scrutiny. The researchers found minimal effects on grades (affiliation reduced grades by 0.1–0.3 standard deviations), but no evidence of a salary premium or even modest positive effects on starting salary of recent affiliated graduates. Digging deeper, the researchers found delayed or deferred membership (joining in the second semester) had a positive effect on salary. The point of highlighting this example is to demonstrate that there remains both an interest in and need for research on fraternities and sororities. Although there is a growing body of fraternity/ sorority-focused research in the primary fields (student affairs, higher education) and increased included research in the secondary fields (psychology, sociology, and to a much lesser extent economics), those few that gain attention are not representative of the larger body of scholarship on the fraternity and sorority experience. This section revisits a list of research topics published a decade ago and considers the status of those topics. A supplemental list of critical areas for research is provided. This is followed by recommendations for reforming fraternity/sorority research to enhance its relevance and applicability. Next is a call for intentionality in future research, focused on a need for precision and caution. Finally, we consider the importance of prioritizing rigor over perspective and bias.

Deficiencies in the Research Past AFA president and Oracle associate editor Dan Bureau (2007) has published a list of 10 fraternity/sorority-related research topics intended to be a roadmap for practitioner-scholars. The list was intended to both charge fraternity and sorority professionals to “accept their responsibility to support research” and to “counter widely held perceptions about fraternities and sororities or at least confirm the speculation about these groups and provide a roadmap to shape programs to improve the fraternity and sorority experience” (p. 16). Following is listing of those topics, with our view of the status of those topics over a decade later. In our view, there are a number of areas in the field of fraternity and sorority life which would benefit from more research. Using Bureau’s (2007) suggestions in Table 14.1 the authors have identified four distinct statuses that describe each suggested topical area: (a) deficient or lacking in terms of presence and scope of such articles; (b) less prioritized indicating that there has been a reduced interest in the topic since it was

the state of fr ater nity/soror ity r esearch

173

originally proposed; (c) underdeveloped, suggesting progress has been made but continued research is necessary, particularly focused on historically marginalized groups; and (d) satisfactory. Table 14.1 Fraternity/Sorority-Related Research Topics and Current Status Bureau Suggested Topics (2007)

Status of Research (2018)

Impact of Culturally Based Organizations on Retention of Students of Color Character Building and Leadership Development Outcomes Assessment of Leadership Programs Identity Development and Membership Deferred Recruitment/Intake Practices Examining Hazing Culture Sophomore Year Experience Senior Retention Fraternity and Sorority Community Risk Management Mission and Values Congruence

Deficient Satisfactory Deficient Underdeveloped Deficient Deficient Less prioritized Less prioritized Deficient, but developing Satisfactory

Considerations of the status of each topic is informed by our familiarity with the fraternity/sorority research published in the decade since Bureau (2007) listed each topic. Many of the priority areas remain important and undeveloped areas of inquiry. Although the original list was geared toward evidencing opportunities and challenges related to practice, many of the topics continue to be relevant for fraternity/sorority administration and viability. Each area listed as “deficient” should be considered a continued priority. To update this list, we would also add the following topics: • Graduation rate and effect of fraternal membership on college completion • Philanthropic and community contributions (empirical data on chapter philanthropic impact) • Recruitment timing (effects of fall versus spring or sophomore year recruitment) • Recruitment practices (incoming factors that influence member behaviors and chapter culture such as prior alcohol and hazing experiences) • Fraternity and sorority housing (on or off campus, as linked to alcohol use and sexual assault) • Evaluation of interventions (for example, alcohol, sexual assault, and leadership training) • Alumni giving and institutional attachment (how membership relates to giving and stewardship) The deficiency in the current topics can be explained by three persistent challenges. First, accurately and precisely researching fraternities and sororities can be challenging

174 r esearch

without access to member records, as Biddix, Singer, and Aslinger (2018) and Biddix, Singer, Bureau, Nicholson, and Ishitani (in press) found. Second, one of the most significant topics, hazing, is also the most challenging to research due to access, lack of a commonly accepted definition, and an inability to collect measures beyond perceptions and self-reported data. Third, several of the topics have notable policy and financial implications, such as deferred recruitment, the role of housing, and alumni giving. There has traditionally been a reluctance on the part of fraternity leaders to research these topics and publish the results.

A Need for Reform Biddix et al. (2014) closed their monograph with recommendations for future research. These were based on their review and synthesis chapters of behavioral effects related to alcohol, other behavior effects, psychosocial effects, and educational effects. Rather than highlight specific areas for inquiry, they observed the need for accuracy in the research, based on their observations of sparsity of coverage in some areas as well as an overall lack of specificity that limited claims that might be made about research outcomes. The breadth and variety of experiences within the fraternity/sorority community can have a profound influence on student experiences, yet researchers seldom if ever account for these differences. Instead, involvement is treated as a singular experience. Biddix et al. illustrated this limitation with the following critique: It is difficult to evaluate adequately the value of fraternities and sororities with the lack of accurateness and comprehensiveness in the present research. The most conclusive finding this volume uncovered was the need for a more exact and contextual understanding of student involvement. Much research about aggregating the experience. . . . [and] precision, over expediency, can inform better practices to enhance student experiences and promote more accurate knowledge of associated outcomes and policy considerations. (pp. 120–121)

This significant limitation has long persisted in the research. In most cases, a single survey item asks a student if they are a member of a fraternity or a sorority, which fails to account the detail and depth needed to understand diverse (and multiplistic) organizational perspectives. The principal problem this creates is an inability, even with the most rigorous study design, analysis, and faithful reporting, to make accurate recommendations. Following are three minimal recommendations for reforming research, followed by an expanded, ideal list. First, because gender has been one of the few common ways of disaggregating membership, this practice should be implemented in all studies that include a question about fraternity/sorority affiliation. A surprising number of studies do not even include this

the state of fr ater nity/soror ity r esearch

175

difference, which can have profound effects on outcomes research—in particular, alcohol studies (see Biddix et al., 2014). Second, although there is considerable variability in organizing councils, adding this categorization would help account for variation in policies, practices, culture, and support that can affect member experiences. Finally, understanding type of involvement, either through a scale or set of experience questions, would add a much-needed and more precise indicator of organizational engagement that could allow for more accurate links between involvement and outcomes. Students also do not all participate in organizations in the same way (Barber, Espino, & Bureau, 2015). An expanded list of questions or variables could add needed precision to the research: • Membership status (new member, “pledge,” or “associate,” versus active member) • Leadership status (never a chapter officer, currently chapter officer, former chapter officer) • Years as a member (1 or less, 2, 3, 4 or more) • Involvement in other groups and organizations • Hours per week of involvement, per group

Interpreting Research With Caution Beyond the necessity for additional research in deficient areas coupled with a requirement for accuracy and precision in measurement, there is the need for caution when interpreting research. Experimental design research, where specific interventions, experiences, or environments can be isolated through random assignment and control (yielding more accurate association), is not possible with existing student groups. This limitation applies to most research on college student involvement. The alternative approach, quasi-experimental designs that implement random selection with large-scale samples or rigorously conducted interviews, still seldom accounts for dispositions, prior experiences, and environmental and psychosocial factors that affect outcomes either in tandem with membership or separate from it (Biddix et al., in press). Research consumers should closely evaluate and scrutinize research designs before jumping to findings and recommendations. For quantitative designs, look for representative samples of the population under study. When researchers add precision by implementing additional questions such as council or membership status, the sample needs to grow accordingly as each characteristic added to a statistical calculation can result in smaller group sizes. For qualitative research, samples need to be intentionally selected for similar and shared membership characteristics and experiences. Rigorously conducted interviews situated within narrative designs or case study procedures following these guidelines could substantially contribute to accuracy.

176 r esearch

Additionally, fraternity/sorority research consumers should be mindful of the predisposition of much of the work. A persistent barrier to “good” research in any field is bias and this is especially problematic with fraternities and sororities, which engender strong opinions fueled by the exclusive nature of membership, media coverage, and individual experiences (positive and negative). Apologists framing studies or results to ensure positive outcomes compete alongside antagonists who intentionally seek and report on the ills of membership. These perspectives often extend to journal editors and reviewers. As a result, it can be challenging for researchers who take a neutral or “disinterested researcher” approach to find venues for their work. Consider the Even and Smith (2018) study, which is limited to a few cases at a single institution, yet merited Chronicle attention. A myriad of other studies, many with much larger samples and longitudinal in nature, have found similar or in some cases counterresults (much of the outcomes-based research is mixed), but have not garnered such attention. This bias was a concern early in the development of Oracle, when a board member voting on whether to establish the journal noted he would only do so if the focus was neutral—meaning rigor would supersede perspective and both “good” and “bad” findings would be published. This has been a stern commitment of the editors and editorial board since its inception.

Using FSL Research in Practice In this dynamic higher education environment, staying ahead or abreast of current issues and trends is of great value. Hevel and Bureau (2014) detailed some of the ways in which research-driven practice can be implemented in fraternity/sorority programs. Research should be used to examine services, practices, resource distribution, and staffing. Programmatic impact and measured learning outcomes are now necessary for accreditation, and linkages to curricular programming can be used to enhance learning opportunities for all involved. Research obtained can guide institutional philosophy, practices, and policy. With fraternity and sorority membership being one of the largest identifiable campus populations, analysis provides perspective on the student experience. Membership of chapters, councils, and prospects are tracked through institutional coding, which makes it unique (outside of athletics). With a larger footprint on campus, this is a fruitful sample to understand the expectations, satisfaction, and overall student experience, especially as they relate to demographics, attitudes, behaviors, and trends. This is critical for professional staff who work in and outside of fraternity and sorority life. In a larger sense, research can be used to improve graduation and retention rates, as well as student development. Demographic data provides a snapshot of membership. Taken over a span of time, it may indicate changes in populations, involvement, and affiliations. Quantitative data can track GPA (semester and cumulative), involvement, engagement, donations, hours

the state of fr ater nity/soror ity r esearch

177

dedicated to studying and service, conduct activity, and cosponsorships. This can be used to modify practices, such as recruitment efforts, to increase or diversify membership. Of equal or greater value, research can also be used to help capture who is not participating or where there may be attrition. Efforts can be made to address and shore up students who are not seeking membership, or who have stopped out. Qualitative data provides perspective on membership and involvement. Attitudes on the fraternal experience are of great value because they help predict or explain student engagement. Students who do not recognize the value of active involvement are less likely to engage in chapter activities, which will diminish the potential positive impact of the fraternal experience. Students who enter with expectations of involvement and active and meaningful engagement are more likely to invest the time and talent that can result in a positive and developmental experience. Trend analysis helps determine where the field exists in its current state. Depending on the length of study, the historical construct can provide context for how issues and choices have developed over time. If the data is longitudinal, cycles can be identified to target programming to address or enhance the student experience. Comparative analysis is helpful to examine how different chapters, councils, and communities cluster or diverge. If positive outcomes are being derived from one institution and the same program initiative is enacted at a different institution, what are the outcomes? Behaviors, as a result of choices, when tracked, indicate the experiential landscape that exists on a college campus. How are they parallel and/or unique to other student groups? Are there differential interests or overlap? Are the profiles of students more likely to be engaged and is there information that can indicate how to attract a larger, more diverse population? Are there differing types of engagement? What are the differences between chapters and councils? Are there any inter and intra comparisons across institutions? What are the differentials as they relate to mission? Are there any behavioral differences that correlate to specific demographics? Any analysis available can be used to help develop programs, interventions, and recruitment activities, as well as in the design and renovation of spaces and places. Needs of students shift over time and adjustments should be made to reflect current student behaviors.

Conclusion For the fraternity and sorority experience to remain a relevant part of the American college experience, researchers must continue to systematically investigate its effects on students. Faculty, administrators, undergraduates, alumni, and other stakeholders should seek out researchers’ findings as they work to assess and improve the outcomes of fraternity/sorority membership. The link between FSL research and practice must be

178 r esearch

strengthened in order to make advances in terms of student safety, learning outcomes, and college completion.

References Arnold, J. C., & Kuh, J. D. (1992). Brotherhood and the bottle: A cultural analysis of the role of alcohol in fraternities. Bloomington, IN: Center for the Study of the College Fraternity. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED352890 Association of Fraternity Advisors. (2005, January). 2004 AFA Annual Meeting strategic planning feedback executive summary. Retrieved from http://www.fraternityadvisors.org/ pdf/SP_01_2005_summary.pdf Baciq, T., & Sgan, M. (1962). A ten year fraternity membership study. Journal of College Student Personnel, 4, 95–101. Barber, J. P., Espino, M. M., & Bureau, D. A. (2015). Fraternities and sororities: Developing a compelling case for relevance in higher education. In P. Sasso and J. DeVitis (Eds.), Today’s college student (pp. 241–255). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Barritt, L. S. (1992). The literature in the crafting of a profession. Phenomenology + Pedagogy, 10, 233–242. Biddix, J. P., Matney, M. M., Norman, E., & Martin, G. L. (2014). The influence of fraternity and sorority involvement: A critical analysis of research (1996–2013). ASHE Higher Education Report, 39. doi.10.1002/aehe.20012 Biddix, J. P., Singer, K. I., & Aslinger, E. (2018). First-year retention and National Panhellenic Conference (NPC) sorority membership: A multi-institutional study. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory, & Practice, 20(2), 236–252. Biddix, J. P., Singer, K. I., Bureau, D. A., Nicholson, N., & Ishitani, T. T. (in press). The influence of National Panhellenic Conference (NPC) sorority membership on graduation and time-to-degree. NASPA Journal About Women in Higher Education. Boyer, E. (1987). Life Outside the Classroom. In J. L. Bess & D. S. Webster (Eds.), Foundations of American higher education (2nd ed., pp. 7–22). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom. Brown, T. L., Parks, G. S., & Phillips, C. M. (Eds.). (2005). African American fraternities and sororities: The legacy and the vision. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky. Bureau, D. (2007, Fall). Ready for research but don’t know where to start? 10 fraternity/sorority related research topics. Association of Fraternity Advisors Perspectives, 2007(3), 16–17. Bureau, D., & Hesp, G. (2015). Five lessons learned from ten years of Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 10(2), vii–xii. Commission on Fraternity Research. (1970). Annotated bibliography: Research studies and articles. Retrieved from https://www.afa1976.org/resource/resmgr/CFSR/CFSR_ Biblio_1950-1970.pdf Even, W. E., & Smith, A. (2018). Greek life, academics, and earnings. SSRN. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.10.2139/ssrn.3257025 Feldman, K. A., & Newcomb, T. M. (1969). The impact of college on students. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Finegan, T. G., & Hines, P. A. (1967). American fraternities: An agenda of needed research—An annotated bibliography of empirical research relating to the American college fraternity,

the state of fr ater nity/soror ity r esearch

179

1950–1970. New York, NY: Commission on Fraternity Research of National Interfraternity Conference and College Fraternity Secretaries Association. Retrieved from https:// files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED065021.pdf Hevel, M., & Bureau, D. A. (2014). Research‐driven practice in fraternity and sorority life. In G. Martin and M. Hevel (Eds.), Research-driven practice in student affairs: Implications from the Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts Education (New Directions for Student Services, No. 147, pp. 23–36). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. doi.10.1002/ss.20098 Kimbrough, W. M. (2003). Black Greek 101: The culture, customs, and challenges of Black fraternities and sororities. Lantham, MD: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. Levere, W. C. (1915). Leading Greeks: An encyclopedia of the workers in the American college fraternities and sororities. Evanston, IL. Available from https://hdl.handle.net/2027/ uc1.$b23933 Long, L. D. (2010). AFA/EBI fraternity/sorority assessment summary report 2010. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/3129251/AFA_EBI_Fraternity_Sorority_Assessment_Summary _Report_2010 Love, P. G., & Estanek, S. M. (2004). Rethinking student affairs practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Love, P. G., & Yousey, K. (2001). Gaps in the conversation: Missing issues in the discourse of the student affairs field. Journal of College Student Development, 42, 430–446. Martin, G. L., & Hevel, M. S. (2014). Research-driven practice in student affairs: Implications from the Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts Education (New Directions for Student Services, No. 147). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Molasso, W. R. (2005). A content analysis of a decade of fraternity/sorority scholarship in student affairs research journals. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity Advisors, 1(1), 1–9. NASPA (Student Affairs Professionals in Higher Education) & ACPA (College Student Educators International). (2004). Learning reconsidered: A campus-wide focus on the student experience. Washington, DC: Authors. Robson, B. R. (1933). House management problems of fraternities and sororities: An investigation of the supervision or assistance given by educational institutions to fraternities and sororities in their house management problems. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University. Ross, L. C. Jr. (2000). The Divine Nine: The history of African American fraternities and sororities. New York, NY: Kensington Publishing. Schreck, T. C. (Ed.). (1976). Toward the year 2000: Perspectives on the American fraternity movement (ERIC Document No. ED 132 502). Bloomington, IN: American College Fraternity Bicentennial Commission.

Chapter 15

Development and Use of the Fraternity and Sorority Experience Survey Cynthia A. Cogswell, Kevin Fosnacht, Dawn M. Maynen, Steven Veldkamp, and Gary R. Pike

The missions of American fraternities and sororities closely align with the goals of higher education for student learning and development. Although fraternities and sororities tout the development of practical and intellectual skills, personal and social consciousness, and the ability to integrate skills learned in life situations, concerns for student safety and welfare have caused campuses to rethink fraternities and sororities. All too often, the gap between member behavior and espoused fraternity/sorority values leads fraternities and sororities to work at cross-purposes to the missions of colleges and universities. As a consequence, some higher education scholars suggest that fraternities and sororities have outlived their usefulness and should be banned from college campuses (see Biddix, Matney, Norman, & Martin, 2014). Calls for the end of Greek life are not new. More than 40 years ago, at the bicentennial of the founding of Phi Beta Kappa in 1776, Indiana University’s chancellor, Herman B. Wells, and the chair of the Department of Higher Education, Robert H. Shaffer, created the American College Fraternity Bicentennial Commission to address the lack of congruence between the espoused and enacted values of fraternities and sororities on college campuses (Schreck, 1976). Although they grappled with pressing issues related to housing, programming, diversity, student conduct, and student learning and development, the members of the commission generally viewed fraternity and sorority life

182 r esearch

positively. Summarizing the views of the 80-member commission, Schreck noted that by the year 2000 “the American fraternity movement will indeed flourish as a vital force in higher education, enabling its members to enrich the quality of their own lives and preparing them to serve society to the very best of their abilities” (p. 36). Despite the optimism of the American College Fraternity Bicentennial Commission’s members, fraternities and sororities today face many of the same issues they confronted in 1976 (Bureau, 2012). A subsequent review of empirical studies published between 1996 and 2013 by Biddix et al. (2014) revealed continuing problems with alcohol and drug use, hazing, illegal gambling, and academic dishonesty. In response to the challenges faced by fraternities and sororities, college and university presidents and fraternity and sorority executive directors, through the American Association of State Colleges and Universities discussed the future of American college fraternities and sororities. The meeting produced A Call for Value Congruence, a report that stressed the importance of congruence between fraternity/sorority values and member behavior (Franklin Square Group, 2003).Moving forward, the Franklin Square Group expected that college campuses and Greek-letter organizations would develop methods and processes for assessing value congruence (Veldkamp & Bureau, 2012). It was anticipated that assessing value congruence and using the results for improvement would produce greater alignment between the goals of fraternities and sororities and the goals of higher education (Shaak, 2012). The remainder of this chapter profiles one approach for assessing fraternity/sorority value congruence−the Fraternity Sorority Experience Survey (FSES). Initially, the chapter examines the rationale underlying the survey. This discussion is followed by a brief history of the survey and a description of the current instrument. Next, selected national results from the most recent survey administration are presented, and examples of use from campuses as well as national organizations are described. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the future for assessing and improving values congruence.

Conceptual and Historical Background Research on outside-of-the-classroom learning by student affairs professionals has sought to understand the impact of student involvement (Schuh & Gansemer-Topf, 2010). Astin’s (1985, 1993) research shows that student involvement is one of the best predictors of persistence, achievement, satisfaction, career advancement, and educational development. Similarly, Kuh (2007) noted that engagement in educationally purposeful activities leads to higher levels of satisfaction with college, improved learning outcomes, and increased retention and graduation rates. Regarding the effects of student interaction, Astin (1993) wrote that “the strongest single source of influence on cognitive and affective development is the student’s peer group” (p. 126). As fraternities and sororities are among the most cohesive peer groups on campus, it is likely that fraternity and

the fr ater nity and soror ity exper ience survey

183

sorority peer groups strongly influence members’ cognitive and affective development. As a result, the study of how fraternities and sororities impact students is of critical importance to identify the influence higher education has on students. Empirical research on fraternity and sorority outcomes can counteract popular narratives on the negative effects of fraternities and sororities. Molasso (2005) noted “sound empirical research is needed to successfully address the negative aspects of affiliation with the community and accentuate and extend the positive influences of this experience” (p. 7). To date, much of the research on outcomes associated with fraternity and sorority membership has focused on relatively low-level learning outcomes (Shaak, 2012). Using Astin’s (1985) theory of involvement, the field can begin to more fully understand other essential learning outcomes such as integrative learning, problem-solving, teamwork, ethical reasoning, and intercultural competency (Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2007). However, without a significant expansion of research on fraternities and sororities, professionals working on college campuses and with inter/ national organizations will not have adequate information to guide the movement of fraternities and sororities to a more positive future (Molasso, 2005). A central element in the American College Fraternity Bicentennial Commission’s strategy for improving the congruence of college/university and fraternity/sorority values was the creation of a national research center, focused on the American college fraternity, that would help guide improvement efforts (Veldkamp & Bureau, 2012). As a result of the efforts of Wells and Shaffer, the Center for Fraternity and Sorority Research was established at Indiana University (Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, n.d.). In 1986, the University of Minnesota’s Greek Experience Survey, developed by Dr. Roger Harold, was transferred to the Center for Fraternity and Sorority Research and formed an important part of the original survey used by the center. The original survey also utilized items from C. Robert Pace’s (1984, 1985) College Student Experiences Survey, which was housed at the Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research, along with questions from the University of Southern Illinois Core Institute’s Alcohol and Other Drug Survey (Core Institute, 2018). In 2012, the Center for Fraternity and Sorority Research revised and updated the survey, which became the Fraternity and Sorority Experience Survey. Revisions were based on an extensive literature review and validation project that included beta testing and focus groups. The literature review explored historical trends, emerging issues, and significant gaps in the literature on fraternity and sorority life. The results of focus groups were used to fill in gaps in the literature, as well as to validate the survey instrument. Validation efforts concluded in 2015, and since 2015 approximately 72,000 student members of fraternities and sororities have completed the survey.

184 r esearch

The Fraternity and Sorority Experience Survey The Fraternity and Sorority Experience Survey (FSES) is a 33-item survey administered to fraternity and sorority members utilizing the online Qualtrics survey platform. The FSES utilizes skip logic to ensure that the appropriate questions are asked for active and new members, different housing options, and leaders and nonleaders. Display logic is used to personalize the survey for the participants. The FSES is organized around five main thematic areas: “Learning,” “Values,” “Alcohol/Social Issues,” “Operations,” and “Community.” The survey also contains a variety of questions concerning respondents’ demographic characteristics and concludes with an open-ended text question. Within the five central survey themes, subthemes are included to provide a multilayered perspective on fraternity and sorority life. For example, the “Learning” theme includes questions focusing on academic experiences, educational programming, mentoring, and leadership. Similarly, the “Values” theme examines the integration of members into fraternity/sorority life, personal growth and development, and civic/community engagement. The “Alcohol/Social Issues” theme contains questions dealing with alcohol and drug use, social and sexual misconduct, and intervention behaviors. The “Operations” theme explores chapter activities, advising, alumni/ae involvement, and the membership intake process. Finally, “Community” examines members’ sense of belonging, the impact of chapter housing on fraternity/sorority experiences, and relationships outside the chapter. Segmenting the data by chapter, council, and community for new and active members, as well as leaders and nonleaders, provides colleges and universities an opportunity to compare their results to those of peer institutions. For fraternity or sorority headquarters clients, survey results are segmented by chapter, region, and organization for comparison purposes. Both perspectives provide fraternity and sorority professionals a comprehensive picture of the health of their communities and provide the necessary data to improve and transform fraternity/sorority life. The first national aggregate data set was compiled in June 2016 from surveys administered during the 2015–2016 academic year. In 2015–2016, almost 25,000 fraternity and sorority members participated in the FSES from 17 institutions and 3 fraternity/sorority headquarters organizations. In terms of the number of fraternity/sorority chapters, 2 of the institutions had small Greek life programs (less than 20 chapters), 7 of the institutions were medium-sized (21–50 chapters), and 8 of the institutions were large (more than 50 chapters). The headquarters organizations ranged in size from 4,500 to 18,000 members. According to the Carnegie Classification of Institutions, 11 institutions were classified as Doctoral Universities: Highest Research Activity, 1 institution was classified as a Doctoral University: Higher Research Activity, 2 institutions were classified as Doctoral Granting: Medium Research Activity, 1 institution was classified as a Master’s College and University: Larger Programs, and 2 institutions were classified as Master’s Colleges and Universities: Medium Programs.

the fr ater nity and soror ity exper ience survey

185

In 2016–2017, approximately 22,500 fraternity and sorority members participated in the FSES from 18 institutions and one sorority headquarters organization. Nine of these institutions had small Greek life programs, seven institutions were medium-sized, and two of the institutions were large. The Carnegie Classification of Institutions identified 12 institutions as doctoral universities, four institutions were classified as master’s colleges and universities, and two institutions were classified as baccalaureate colleges.

FSES Results for 2016–2017 As previously noted, more than 22,500 college students responded to an invitation to participate in the FSES. Of these respondents, 77% were members of a sorority and 22% were members of a fraternity. Approximately 1% of the respondents belonged to a coed Greek organization. Over half of the students who responded to the survey had a leadership role in their Greek organization, 22% were new members, and 22% were active members who did not have a leadership role.

Becoming Greek and Profiles by Membership Type The most commonly cited reason for joining a Greek organization was for friendships (81%), followed by social opportunities (45%), leadership development (41%), and philanthropy and community service opportunities (39%). However, the reasons for joining a fraternity or sorority were different for fraternity and sorority members. Fraternity members were more likely than sorority members to cite social opportunities and leadership. In contrast, sorority members identified friendships and philanthropy/ community service opportunities more frequently than fraternity members as the main reasons for joining their chapters. In general, a greater percentage of new members gave their chapters higher ratings than other active members. New members were more likely to give their chapter a rating of “excellent” for every educational program/workshop. They were also more likely than other active members to agree that the chapter has good relationships on campus (e.g., with campus administration, alumni, nonfraternity/sorority peers), performs a variety of services (e.g., holds members accountable, participates in philanthropy), and has had a positive impact on them (e.g., commitment to serve the community, commitment to social justice, academic success). However, the same percentage (~58%) of new members and active members reported that fraternity/sorority life has been “very valuable” to their overall college experience.

186 r esearch

Values On average, two of three students stated that their chapter always upheld organizational values, and three of four students believed their chapter promoted brotherhood/ sisterhood. Four of five survey respondents stated that their chapter always or usually dealt with conflicts between members and that their chapter helped them to be a better student. Nearly 90% of fraternity members received mentoring from older chapter members, but the percentage was somewhat lower for sorority members (82%). Similarly, a higher percentage of fraternity members indicated they received mentorship from chapter alumni, professors, and chapter advisors than did sorority members. For both fraternity and sorority members, mentorship most commonly focused on assuming leadership roles (internal and external to the Greek organization), participation in other campus activities, and being academically successful in college. Fraternity and sorority members indicated that their fraternity/sorority experience had a host of positive impacts. Most respondents reported that their experiences positively impacted their sense of personal values, integrity, confidence, sense of campus community, academic success, coping abilities, ability to develop positive relationships, intercultural competence (race, religion, and sexual orientation), and their commitment to serve the community and to social justice.

Programming There was some difference in the percentages of students who gave “excellent” ratings to educational programs/workshops between members of multicultural fraternities and sororities (NPHC & MGC) and members of traditionally White fraternities and sororities (IFC & PHA). NPHC/MGC members were more likely to give a rating of “excellent” to education programs about “Multicultural Awareness” and “Founding Values,” whereas IFC/PHA members were more likely to give a rating of “excellent” to education programs about “Alcohol and Drug Awareness,” “Sexual Misconduct,” and “Bystander Intervention.” Additionally, NPHC/MGC members were more likely to report that they “agree” that their chapter experience has had a positive impact on them in a variety of ways, including “sense of justice,” “comfort with people of a different sexual orientation,” and “sense of integrity.” NPHC/MGC members were also more likely to agree that they felt empowered to stand up against behavior they did not think was right (77% compared to 65% IFC/PHA members). However, the same percentage (~59%) of NPHC/MGC members and IFC/PHA members reported that fraternity/sorority life has been “very valuable” to their overall college experience.

the fr ater nity and soror ity exper ience survey

187

Alcohol Use and Interaction A majority of fraternity and sorority members reported that “most” or “all” of their chapter’s members used alcohol. However, few students indicated that “most” or “all” chapter members used recreational or nonprescription drugs (4%), although it should be mentioned that a large percentage of the respondents answered “unsure” as to the questions about drug use, suggesting that these activities might be hidden from their chapter members. Roughly similar percentages of fraternity and sorority members stated that alcohol (16%) as well as recreational (7%) and nonprescription (4%) drug abuse were problems in their chapters. However, a substantial number of sorority members indicated that body image (39%), eating disorders (23%), and mental health (33%) were significant problems in their chapters. Relatively few students believed that discrimination, hazing, harassment of other members, sexual harassment, dating violence, sexual assault, and physical assault were problems in their chapters. The survey indicated that there are factors that mediate binge drinking. For example, groups that reported receiving regular advising (e.g., from alumni, parents, administration, campus fraternity and sorority life staff) reported fewer incidents of binge drinking, with the largest impact being seen with advising from campus fraternity and sorority life staff and campus administration. Of students who reported “always” receiving advising from campus administration, 5.5% reported binge drinking 3–5 times per week, whereas for students who reported “never” receiving advising from administration, 17% reported binge drinking 3–5 times per week. Advising from campus administration acting as a mediator in this way is good news for campuses that wish to cut down on incidents of binge drinking related to Greek life. Incidence of alcohol abuse also varied between types of fraternities and sororities. Members of multicultural fraternities and sororities (NPHC & MGC) reported fewer incidents of binge drinking and alcohol abuse than members of traditionally White fraternities and sororities (IFC & PHA); 53% of NPHC and MGC members reported that they did not have any incidents of drinking 4 or more drinks during the week, whereas only 28% of IFC and PHA members reported no incidents of drinking 4 or more drinks during the week. Additionally, a greater number of IFC/PHA than NPHC/MGC members reported that their chapter had a problem with alcohol abuse (17% compared to 7%) and recreational drug use (7.5% compared to 3.5%). Nearly all respondents reported they believed that their organization would intervene against problematic behaviors. Most students felt empowered to stand up against behavior they believed was not right at chapter functions, thought they had the skills to intervene in such situations, and would respect an individual who intervened in a problematic situation. Furthermore, 84% and 77% of fraternity and sorority members, respectively, believed that their brother or sister would confront them if their behavior needed to be addressed. Nearly all students wanted to be a member of a chapter that would intervene on someone’s behalf (88%).

188 r esearch

Among students who belonged to a chapter providing housing, most respondents reported they believed that their house/residence was a good place to live (87%). About half of the students reported their house was a good place to study. Large majorities of respondents indicated their houses were a good place to hold meetings, socialize, have meals, and feel safe. However, about 7 in 10 students indicated that substance use among the chapter members negatively influenced their sleep. Most students believed that substance use did not negatively impact their studying, personal safety, class attendance, or personal well-being.

Differences Between Leaders by Council Some of the differences between the groups may be related to the makeup of the leadership within the chapters. Leaders of NPHC/MGC are more likely to be upperclassmen (80% compared to 58% of IFC/PHA leaders), first-generation college students (71% compared to 9%), Pell Grant recipients (43% compared to 14%), and non-White (62% compared to 12%). IFC/PHA leaders, on the other hand, are more likely to have immediate family members in a fraternity/sorority (41% compared to 25%) and have parents who have earned a master’s degree or higher (41% compared to 26%).

Responding to the Data The following paragraphs highlight how FSES participants have responded to FSES results. Examples are drawn from Kent State University, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, and Gamma Phi Beta Sorority. This is followed by a discussion of next steps and concluding reflections.

Using Survey Results for Improvement Although virtually all FSES participants have indicated they intend to use FSES results for improvement, three examples are notable. Kent State University is taking action to bring the FSES data to fraternity and sorority communities. Staff members are engaging the Greek councils at Kent State to look at, ask questions of, and respond to their 2016–2017 FSES data. Panhellenic Council leadership noticed that responses to questions dealing with eating disorders and body image suggested opportunities for improvement. Responses to the question “Is body image a problem for members in your chapter?” have led to action. Specifically, the council is planning to hold a campus conference for all sorority women to address mental health and body issues in 2018. Next steps include combining FSES results with student academic data to gain a better understanding of where chapters are having issues with retention and graduation.

the fr ater nity and soror ity exper ience survey

189

The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign participated in the 2009 and 2016– 2017 administrations of FSES. When they received their FSES report, campus leaders convened to discuss the issues on which they wanted to focus, key items to celebrate, and results they wanted to explore further. For example, one area of concern was leadership development within the fraternity/sorority community. The FSES results revealed that the campus was lower than anticipated, and campus leaders decided to tackle the issue over the course of the next year. Thus far, the Office of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs has partnered with the on-campus Leadership Center to deliver collaborative programming for leadership development within fraternities and sororities. The program takes place over the course of the spring semester and involves campus alumni and faculty, along with students. Gamma Phi Beta Sorority, an international sorority, has participated in FSES on three occasions. Gamma Phi Beta decided to participate in FSES because their in-house survey was not meeting their needs. When the sorority reviewed the FSES, the leadership immediately envisioned how the results could be used, responded to, and shared. In addition, they were intrigued by the possibility of obtaining long-term benchmarking data. Currently, Gamma Phi Beta uses FSES results at every layer of the organization. For example, each year new staff receive access to and training about FSES data. The training includes how to read FSES reports, how to choose what to focus on in the data, and incorporating data in conversations with local chapters. For example, when a consultant is preparing to visit a chapter to discuss new member education, the consultant reviews the chapter’s FSES results, focusing on questions related to new member education and the new member experience. Each year, Gamma Phi Beta staff prepare a presentation about the organization at large for the board. FSES results inform and are included in this discussion, highlighting what is important, what trends are emerging, and describing the experiences of new and initiated members. At a recent conference for volunteers, FSES results were used to initiate a discussion about the types of students joining the organization in comparison to the national profile of all sorority respondents.

Concluding Thoughts About Assessment and Improvement Although much of the historical research on fraternities/sororities has been limited, shallow, or highly contextualized, the FSES offers a promising new data set. This chapter sought to provide some insights into the Fraternity Sorority Experience Survey. With a broad and large sample, the 2016–2017 survey results offer insights into current fraternity/sorority membership, behaviors, and outcomes. In addition, the results • offer promising insights on members’ perceptions of their experiences;

190 r esearch

• provide a new baseline into what we know about fraternities and sororities; and • suggest areas for further investigation. These results can be used to strengthen data-informed discussions, planning, and decision-making. We hope these results will lead to more confident assessment practice and strides in improving fraternity/sorority communities. Developing a culture that promotes data-based decision-making requires strong leadership from campus administrators and headquarters leaders.

References Association of American Colleges and Universities. (2007). College learning for the new global century: A report from the national leadership council for liberal education and America’s promise. Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities. Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors. (n.d.). The Center for Fraternity and Sorority Research. Retrieved from http://www.afa1976.org/page/AboutCFSR Astin, A. W. (1985). Achieving educational excellence. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Biddix, J. P., Matney, M. M., Norman, E. M., & Martin, G. L. (Eds.). (2014). The influence of fraternity and sorority involvement: A critical analysis of research (1996–2013) (ASHE Higher Education Report, Vol. 39, No. 6). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Bureau, D. (2012, Summer). From where we sit. Perspectives. Retrieved from https://issuu. com/afa1976/docs/summer_12_full. Core Institute. (2018). Surveys. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Core Institute. Retrieved from https://core.siu.edu/surveys/ Franklin Square Group. (2003). A call for values congruence. Washington, DC: American Association of State Colleges and Universities. Kuh, G. D. (2007). Student engagement in the first year of college. In L. M. Upcraft, J. N. Gardner, & B. O. Barefoot (Eds.), Meeting challenges and building support: Creating a climate for first-year student success. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Molasso, W. R. (2005). A content analysis of a decade of fraternity and sorority scholarship in student affairs research journals. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity Advisors, 1(1), 1–9. Pace, C. R. (1984). Measuring the quality of college student experiences. An account of the development and use of the College Student Experiences Questionnaire. Los Angeles, CA: Higher Education Research Institute. Pace, C. R. (1985). The credibility of student self-reports. Los Angeles, CA: Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California, Los Angeles. Schreck, T. C. (Ed.). (1976). Toward the year 2000: Perspectives on the American fraternity movement (ERIC Document No. ED 132 502). Bloomington, IN: American College Fraternity Bicentennial Commission.

the fr ater nity and soror ity exper ience survey

191

Schuh, J. H., & Gansemer-Topf, A. M. (2010). The role of student affairs in student learning assessment (Occasional Paper No. 7). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois and Indiana University, National Institute for Learning Outcomes Assessment. Shaak, N. (2012, Spring). Using scholarly research to enhance academic achievement. Perspectives. Retrieved from https://issuu.com/afa1976/docs/summer_12_full Veldkamp, S., & Bureau, D. (2012, Summer). Call for values congruence reflection: Together forward 2012. Perspectives. Retrieved from https://issuu.com/afa1976/docs/summer_ 12_full

Chapter 16

Contributing to Learning and Development? Exploring the Impact of Fraternity and Sorority Membership Georgianna L. Martin, Brian Garsh, and Michael S. Hevel

Fraternities and sororities are under increased scrutiny on college and university campuses, in the media, and in society (Bruni, 2017; Flanagan, 2014). Incidents of hazing and student deaths have flooded news outlets in recent years. Many of these occurrences have resulted in institutionally implemented indefinite suspensions on fraternity and sorority events and operations, including at Florida State University, Ohio State University, Indiana University, Texas State University, and the University of Michigan, to name a few (Corey, 2017a, 2017b; Gray, 2017; Levenson & Hassan, 2017; Rosenblatt; 2017). These suspensions are evidence of the microscope that is being placed on fraternity and sorority involvement nationwide. In contrast to the negative behavior highlighted in the media and adjudicated through university judicial and discipline processes, the values and ritual ceremonies of fraternal organizations traditionally include high standards for members (National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations, 2017; National Multicultural Greek Council, n.d.; National Panhellenic Conference, 2014; North-American Interfraternity Conference, 2018). These high standards are rooted in the values of the organization. In fact, one of the key common characteristics across all fraternal organizations is an

194 r esearch

emphasis on holding members to high standards in regards to scholarship, sisterhood/ brotherhood, leadership, and integrity. However, members often lose sight of the high expectations placed upon them or do not understand the values and ideals upon which their organizations and ritual ceremonies are based (Callais, 2005; Mendez, Witkowsky, Allee, Christensen, & Stiles, 2017). When tragedies, such as student deaths, occur in the fraternity and sorority community, the value of the entire system comes into question, including the ideals upon which the organizations claim to be based. It is critical, particularly during times of increased scrutiny, for professionals who work with fraternal organizations to be able to show evidence of the value added to higher education through students’ participation in fraternal organizations. Further, all individuals who work with fraternity/sorority members either as campus-based professionals, chapter alumni advisors, or as inter/national headquarters staff should be asking critical questions about the impact these organizations have on college students. For example, how do fraternities and sororities contribute to curricular and cocurricular learning? What benefits do students experience as a result of their membership? How can professionals assess student learning and development? How do the mission and purposes of fraternity and sorority life align with those of higher education as a whole? In this chapter, we use findings from the Wabash National Study to explore the impact of fraternity and sorority membership on college students’ learning and developmental outcomes and offer suggestions for further consideration of the value-added aspects of these organizations.

How College Affects Students College affects students along a number of developmental domains, including cognitive, intellectual, psychosocial, and moral (Mayhew, Rockenbach, Bowman, Seifert, & Wolniak, 2016). When students attend college, they expect to achieve some or all of these developments to a degree, even though they may not be able to name learning and development domains or realize that these developments occur as a result of dissonance and challenges (Patton, Renn, Guido, & Quaye, 2016). As student affairs professionals and educators, fraternity and sorority advisors should be equipped with skills to promote the learning and development of members, including intellectual, physical, emotional, social, spiritual, ethical, civic, and career development (Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education, 2012). Fraternity and sorority members do not face a shortage of experiences and opportunities to develop their capacities along these domains; fraternal organizations are rich with an abundance of opportunities for development, both within the community specifically as well as the greater landscape of higher education.

contr ibuting to lear ning and development?

195

The Wabash National Study on Liberal Arts Education In the broader field of higher education and student affairs, only a handful of longitudinal, national studies inform the ways educators think about and work with college students’ learning and development of key college outcomes. This type of research, commonly referred to as college impact research, is often considered a gold standard among quantitative educational researchers because of the rigor, time, thoughtfulness, cost, and robust methods and data collection associated with such studies. The Wabash National Study on Liberal Arts Education (WNS) is the most recent longitudinal, national study exploring the outcomes, or impact, college has on its students. The original goal of the WNS was to explore the conditions on college and university campuses that contribute to a liberal arts education (Pascarella, 2007). The WNS identified seven key college outcomes that scholars have long associated with a well-rounded liberal arts education and sought to explore the impact that in-class and out-of-class experiences have on students’ development along these outcomes. These outcomes included critical thinking, moral reasoning, intercultural effectiveness, socially responsible leadership, inclination toward lifelong learning, psychological well-being, and integration of learning (King, Brown, Lindsay, & Vanhecke, 2007). The first wave of data collection began for the WNS during the fall 2006 semester. At that time, first-year students were sampled at 17 four-year institutions and 2 twoyear institutions as they began college. The same students were again sampled at the end of the first year of college in spring 2007 and near the end of their fourth year of college in spring 2010. After the first cohort entered the study, two additional cohorts participated in the study beginning in fall 2007 and fall 2008, respectively. A total of 49 institutions participated in the WNS over the 3-year data collection period (Center of Inquiry, n.d.). Institutions varied in location, control (e.g., public vs. private), emphasis (e.g., women’s colleges, historically Black colleges and universities, religious institutions, and an all-male institution), and type (e.g., research university, regional university, liberal arts college). Since the study first began, over 100 articles and book chapters have been published using findings from the WNS. The collective results of this national study have greatly contributed to the body of knowledge in the field of higher education and student affairs. Although the focus of the WNS was much broader in scope than only exploring fraternity and sorority life, several articles have emerged from the WNS findings that specifically center on this area of involvement. Approximately 10 publications focused on fraternity/sorority membership have been published in leading student affairs journals during the last seven years using data from the WNS. More specifically, this body of research has focused on the unique contribution of fraternity/sorority membership on a number of key college outcomes. In the next section, we highlight key findings from these studies on the impact of fraternity/sorority membership that have emerged from the WNS.

196 r esearch

What We’ve Learned From the Wabash National Study In their review of over 15 years of research on the fraternity and sorority experience, Biddix, Matney, Norman, and Martin (2014) highlight the propensity for fraternity and sorority members to demonstrate higher levels of involvement and engagement than their unaffiliated peers in numerous studies. Leadership is an important aspect of campus engagement and has traditionally been touted as a key pillar of the fraternal experience. Much of the research on leadership and fraternities/sororities explores positional leadership conceptually limiting the development of leadership skills to those who have been elected into a few positions. However, there is an emergent body of research that explores socially responsible leadership. The WNS included socially responsible leadership as one of its key college outcomes to be assessed. Socially responsible leadership, based on the social change model of leadership, has a rich array of literature to support its use in higher education (see, for example, Dugan, 2008; Higher Education Research Institute, 1996; Martin, Hevel, & Pascarella, 2012; Tyree, 1998). Using WNS data, Martin et al. (2012) found early gains on the citizenship subscale of socially responsible leadership for both fraternity and sorority members compared to their unaffiliated peers at the end of the first year of college. Additionally, fraternity members revealed significantly higher scores on the change subscale compared to unaffiliated students, and sorority members showed significantly higher scores on the common purpose subscale compared to their unaffiliated peers. These findings pointed to a positive influence of fraternity/sorority membership on students’ socially responsible leadership development; unfortunately, these findings dissipated after the first year of college. In the four-year follow-up study, Hevel, Martin, and Pascarella (2014) found no significant differences, positive or negative, of the impact of fraternity/sorority membership on socially responsible leadership. The WNS is one of very few studies to explore students’ critical thinking using an objective measure of this important college outcome. Examining the impact of membership on critical thinking using data from the WNS yielded no differences between fraternity/sorority members and unaffiliated students at both the end of the first year of the study (Martin, Hevel, Asel, & Pascarella, 2011) or at the follow-up during the fourth year of college (Hevel, Martin, Weeden, & Pascarella, 2015). Similarly, an exploration of the impact of membership on moral reasoning revealed no significant differences between members and nonmembers both at the end of the first year in college (Martin et al., 2011) and at the end of the fourth year (Hevel, Martin, et al., 2015). Taken together, the overall meaning of these findings is that fraternities and sororities don’t seem to be harming students when it comes to critical thinking skills or moral development, but they aren’t helping members grow in these areas, either. A valuable question for educators and those heavily invested in fraternities/sororities ought to be whether growth in critical thinking and moral reasoning ought to be expected given the emphasis on scholarship, integrity, and character touted by Greek-letter organizations.

contr ibuting to lear ning and development?

197

Regarding diversity-related outcomes, scholars have previously found fraternity and sorority members to be lower on intercultural competence measures than their unaffiliated peers (Antonio, 2001; Pascarella et al., 1996). Similarly, Williams and Johnson (2011) demonstrated that fraternity/sorority members tend to be less open-minded than nonmembers. In contrast, however, WNS findings reveal no differences between members and nonmembers during the first year of college (Martin et al., 2011) or at the end of the fourth year (Martin, Pascarella, Parker, & Blechschmidt, 2015). At best, we can say that the research on the impact of membership on intercultural competence is inconclusive. This finding should lead educators to ask what these organizations are doing to support and attract an increasingly diverse student body. And, perhaps more importantly, what are these organizations doing to create inclusive spaces for individuals who have not traditionally made up much of their membership, such as Students of Color, students from lower income families, or students who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender? These questions will need to be considered if fraternities and sororities are to remain relevant in higher education moving forward. As Hevel and Bureau (2014) indicated in their synthesis, “to a certain extent, no news is good news. . . . However, this (absence of significant findings) does not allow advocates to promote these organizations as a value-added experience at least in terms of these educational outcomes” (p. 29). There is a long history of college impact research exploring the effect of fraternity/ sorority membership on students’ political views (e.g., Longino & Hart, 1973) and WNS data has been used to provide a more contemporary picture of this long line of research. In almost every instance, previous researchers have found that fraternity/sorority membership has a conservatizing influence (e.g., Astin, 1977, 1993), whether the studies simply asked for participants’ political orientation (e.g., Delucchi, 1993; Fay & Middleton, 1939), explored issues that had responses that represented conservative or liberal views (e.g., Kalof & Cargill, 1991; Segal, 1965; Young, Clore, & Holtzman, 1966), or used a scale that measured political orientation (e.g., Wilder, Hoyt, Doren, Hauck, & Zettle, 1978; Wilder, Hoyt, Surbeck, Wilder, & Carney, 1986). Participants in the WNS highlighted that the conservative nature of fraternities and sororities remains the case in the early 21st century. Students who joined these organizations were more conservative than those who remained independent, and they became significantly less liberal than their unaffiliated peers over four years in college (Hevel, Weeden, Pasquesi, & Pascarella, 2015). However, fraternity/sorority membership did not have an effect on attitudes toward social or political activism. Fraternities and sororities may reinforce conservative values for a couple of reasons. First, members are often privileged in terms of socioeconomic status. If one way of conceptualizing political orientation is that conservatives wish to maintain the status quo and liberals wish to change it, individuals from wealthier backgrounds have incentives to maintain the status quo. Second, previous research has suggested that fraternity and sorority members were more heavily influenced by peers than other students (e.g., Baier & Whipple, 1990; Wilder et al., 1986), suggesting that grouping conservative students

198 r esearch

heavily influenced by their peers may dampen any liberalizing effects of the larger higher education experience. The conservative character of fraternities and sororities can create a conundrum for educators. Given the liberal viewpoint of many faculty and university staff members, the conservative nature of fraternal organizations may contribute to their controversial presence on campus. But devising strategies to make fraternities and sororities more liberal may not be educationally appropriate. Fraternities and sororities may provide important spaces for conservative students who feel unwelcome within the larger campus. At the same time, conservatism is not an espoused value of these organizations. And with their history of discrimination, attracting more liberal members can expose all members to diverse political views and make these organizations less insular. In the end, educators must strive to create campus experiences that foster students’ exploration of political issues, engagement in civil dialogue, and involvement in the larger democracy. The most recent—and perhaps some of the last—research to use WNS data in relation to fraternity/sorority membership explored potential institutional influences on students’ experiences. Whereas most studies using WNS data attempted to statistically control for institutional characteristics, Hevel, Martin, Goodman, and Pascarella (in press) conducted an exploratory study to examine whether institutional type, selectivity, and geographic location influenced the effect of fraternity/sorority membership on students’ socially responsible leadership in the fourth year of college using data from all three WNS cohorts. First, they found fraternity/sorority membership had a positive direct effect on five of the eight SRLS subscales (consciousness of self, collaboration, common purpose, citizen, and change). This direct effect finding countered the earlier study using the first two cohorts from the WNS that found fraternity and sorority membership did not have a significant influence on socially responsible leadership in the fourth year of college (Hevel et al., 2014). This earlier study had a higher response rate, but fewer institutions and participants. The more recent study had higher statistical power but was also more susceptible to nonresponse bias. In terms of the interactions between institutional characteristics and fraternity/ sorority membership on socially responsible leadership, students who joined these organizations and attended liberal arts institutions, more selective institutions, and institutions in the East and West areas of the United States demonstrated moderate advantages in terms of their leadership skills. It is important to note that the WNS—although national in scope—was not a nationally representative sample, with liberal arts institutions being overrepresented, for example. Moreover, institutional characteristics only influenced 8 out of a possible 40 outcomes. Yet findings nonetheless suggested that institutional settings could influence the effect of fraternity/sorority membership and that future studies should explore these potential interactions. All studies exploring fraternity/sorority membership using the WNS have recommended future college impact studies to more deeply and sophisticatedly understand the influence of these organizations. Although the pretest/posttest design and large

contr ibuting to lear ning and development?

199

sample size made the WNS the best data set to understand the effect of fraternity/sorority membership in the first two decades of the 21st century, many suggestions for subsequent research were made considering the limitations of using the WNS to study fraternities and sororities. The biggest limitation was that the type of fraternal organization was not collected. It was unknown if participants belonged to a historically Black, traditionally White, or emerging multicultural fraternity or sorority. Indeed, Hevel, Martin, et al. (2014) encouraged scholars to conduct “rigorously designed studies that provide insights into the influence of specific types of fraternal organizations,” noting that such “investigations . . . may be the most important to further our understandings of the educational influences of fraternities and sororities, especially as our campuses become increasingly diverse, host increasingly diverse types of fraternal organizations, and more diverse members join historically segregate organizations” (p. 468). In addition, future studies might strive to provide a more nationally representative institutional sample, enabling more thorough investigations into the potential interactions between institutional characteristics and fraternity/sorority membership. This remains a virtually uncharted area of research. Even as we encourage future researchers to design studies that enable deeper and more current understandings of the effect of fraternity/sorority membership, we implore them to maintain the most important feature of the WNS—its pretest/posttest design. Given that those students who join fraternities and sororities often differ meaningfully from those who do not, longitudinal studies remain an effective way to distinguish any differences between fraternity/sorority members and their unaffiliated peers from those who joined the organizations in the first place and the unique effect of belonging to these organizations. As noted previously, a key limitation to the WNS findings was the inability to distinguish which council or which organization participants belonged to. This limitation, unfortunately, has made it impossible to neatly identify the impact of membership in one of the many multicultural fraternal organizations on key college outcomes. Other scholars, however, have articulated some of the impact of these organizations on students’ learning, growth, and development during the college years and beyond. A key area for future research on the outcomes of fraternities and sororities ought to be related to dimensions of identity development. This is an area where historically and predominantly White organizations can learn from scholars conducting research on multicultural fraternal organizations. Not only should scholars be exploring how fraternities and sororities contribute to identity development related to race, but also exploration into identity dimensions such as gender, social class, religion/spirituality, and sexual orientation is also warranted and needed.

200 r esearch

Concluding Thoughts Overall, what have we learned from the WNS about the effect of fraternity/sorority membership? Not much, to be honest. Across multiple articles exploring various educational outcomes in both the first and fourth years of college, fraternity and sorority membership seldom has had a significant effect. This is not to say that fraternity/sorority members are not different from their unaffiliated peers in terms of their educational outcomes, but rather that differences appear to be more attributable to the individuals who join the organizations rather than membership itself. At best, fraternity/sorority membership appears to contribute to modest gains in socially responsible leadership skills. The overarching finding of the minimal influence of fraternity/sorority membership provides support to and challenges for both proponents and opponents of these organizations. Proponents may celebrate the dearth of negative findings. However, given their espoused value of scholarship and the resources devoted to these organizations, proponents would be justified in expecting positive educational outcomes from membership. Likewise, the criticism that these organizations have a negative effect on the education of members seems mitigated by the WNS’s relatively large sample across multiple institutions. Opponents of fraternities and sororities may have more of an issue with the type of students who join these organizations than the actual organizations. This suggests that simply ridding campuses of these organizations would eliminate the negative traits often associated with fraternities and sororities. Given the long-lasting nature of fraternities and sororities within American life and the somewhat ambivalent findings from the WNS, proponents and opponents of these organizations might be encouraged to work collaboratively to maximize the positives and minimize the negative impacts of membership in fraternities and sororities.

References Antonio, A. (2001). Diversity and the influence of friendship groups in college. Review of Higher Education, 25, 63–89. Astin, A. W. (1977). Four critical years: Effects of college on beliefs, attitudes, and knowledge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Baier, J. L., & Whipple, E. G. (1990). Greek values and attitudes: A comparison with independents. NASPA Journal, 28(1), 43–53. Biddix, J. P., Matney, M. M., Norman, E. M., & Martin, G. L. (2014). The influence of fraternity and sorority involvement: A critical analysis of research (1996–2013) (ASHE Higher Education Report, Vol. 39, No. 6). San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Bruni, F. (2017, November 17). Their pledges die. So should fraternities. New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/17/opinion/pledges-fraternitiesviolence-deaths.html

contr ibuting to lear ning and development?

201

Callais, M. A. (2005). Helping fraternity and sorority members understand ritual. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity Advisors, 1(1), 32–37. Center of Inquiry. (n.d.). Overview: Wabash National Study 2006–2012. Crawfordsville, IN: Center of Inquiry. Retrieved from http://www.liberalarts.wabash.edu/study-overview/ Corey, D. (2017a, November 10). University of Michigan fraternity council cancels all Greek life activities. NBC News. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ hazing-in-america/university-michigan-fraternity-council-cancels-all-greek-lifeactivities-n819746 Corey, D. (2017b, November 28). Indiana University fraternity council suspends Greek life events. NBC News. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/hazing-in-america/ indiana-university-fraternity-council-suspends-greek-life-events-n824561 Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education. (2012). Fraternity and sorority advising programs (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Delucchi, M. (1993). Collegiate residential experiences and political orientation. College Student Journal, 27(1), 32–40. Dugan, J. P. (2008). Exploring relationships between fraternity and sorority membership and socially responsible leadership. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity Advisors, 3(2), 16–25. Fay, P. J., & Middleton, W. C. (1939). Certain factors related to liberal and conservative attitudes of college students: Sex, classification, fraternity membership, major subject. Journal of Educational Psychology, 30, 378–390. Flanagan, C. (2014, March). The dark power of fraternities. The Atlantic. Retrieved from https:// www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2014/03/the-dark-power-of-fraternities/357580/ Gray, M. (2017, November 17). Ohio State University suspends fraternity activities. CNN. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/us/ohio-state-suspends-fraternityactivities/index.html Hevel, M. S., & Bureau, D. A. (2014). Research-driven practice in fraternity and sorority life. In G. L. Martin and M. S. Hevel (Eds.), Research-driven practice in student affairs: Implications from the Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts Education (pp. 23–36). San Francisco, CA: Wiley. Hevel, M. S., Martin, G. L., Goodman, K. M., & Pascarella, E. T. (in press). An exploratory study of institutional characteristics, fraternity and sorority membership, and socially responsible leadership. College Student Affairs Journal. Hevel, M. S., Martin, G. L., & Pascarella, E. T. (2014). Do fraternities and sororities still enhance socially responsible leadership? Evidence from the fourth year of college. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 51, 233–245. Hevel, M. S., Martin, G. L., Weeden, D. D., & Pascarella, E. T. (2015). The effects of fraternity and sorority membership in the fourth year of college: A detrimental or value-added component of undergraduate education? Journal of College Student Development, 56, 454–468. Hevel, M. S., Weeden, D. D., Pasquesi, K., & Pascarella, E. T. (2015). The conservative corner of the liberal academy? Fraternity/sorority membership, politics, and activism. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 52, 121–133. Higher Education Research Institute. (1996). A social change model of leadership development: Guidebook version III. College Park, MD: National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs. Kalof, L., & Cargill, T. (1991). Fraternity and sorority membership and gender dominance attitudes. Sex Roles, 25(7–8), 417–423.

202 r esearch

King, P. M., Brown, M. K., Lindsay, N. K., and Vanhecke, J. R. (2007). Liberal arts student learning outcomes: An integrated approach. About Campus, 12, 2–9. doi:10.1002/abc.222 Levenson, E., & Hassan, C. (2017, November 7). Florida State University suspends all Greek life after pledge dies. CNN. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/07/us/ florida-state-fraternity-greek-suspension/index.html Longino, C. F., & Hart, S. (1973). The college fraternity: An assessment of theory and research. Journal of College Student Personnel, 14(2), 118–125. Martin, G. L., Hevel, M. S., Asel, A. M., & Pascarella, E. T. (2011). New evidence on the effects of fraternity and sorority affiliation during the first year of college. Journal of College Student Development, 52(5), 543–559. doi:10.1353/csd.2011.0062 Martin, G. L., Hevel, M. S., & Pascarella, E. T. (2012). Do fraternities and sororities enhance socially responsible leadership? Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 49, 267–284. Martin, G. L., Pascarella, E. T., Parker, E., & Blechschmidt, S. (2015). Do fraternities and sororities inhibit intercultural competence? Findings from a four-year longitudinal study. Journal of College Student Development, 56(1), 66–72. Mayhew, M. J., Rockenbach, A. N., Bowman, N. A., Seifert, T. A., & Wolniak, G. C. (2016). How college affects students: 21st century evidence that higher education works (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Mendez, S. L., Witkowsky, P., Allee, A., Christensen, B., & Stiles, C. (2017). Sorority ritual participation and self-efficacy. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 12(1), 1–19. National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations. (2017). About NALFO. Retrieved from http://nalfo.org/. National Multicultural Greek Council. (n.d.). About. Retrieved from http://nationalmgc.org/. National Panhellenic Conference. (July 2014). National Panhellenic Conference standards. Retrieved from https://npcwomen.dynamic.omegafi.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/ 2037/2017/09/npc_standards_2017.pdf North-American Interfraternity Conference, Interfraternity Council. (2018). About IFC. Retrieved from http://nicindy.org/ifc/ Pascarella, E. T. (2007). Methodological report for the Wabash National Study of Liberal Arts Education. Iowa City, IA: Center for Research on Undergraduate Education. Pascarella, E. T., Flowers, L., Whitt, E. J., Nora, A., Hagedorn, L. S., & Terenzini, P. (1996). Cognitive effects of Greek affiliation during the first year of college. NASPA Journal, 33, 242–259. Patton, L. D., Renn, K. A., Guido, F. M., & Quaye, S. J. (2016). Student development in college: Theory, research, and practice (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Rosenblatt, K. (2017, November 15). Texas State University suspends Greek life activity after frat pledge dies. NBC News. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/ hazing-in-america/texas-state-university-suspends-greek-life-activity-after-fratpledge-n820946 Segal, B. E. (1965). Fraternities, social distance, and anti-semitism among Jewish and non-Jewish undergraduates. Sociology of Education, 38(3), 251–264. Tyree, T. (1998). Designing an instrument to measure socially responsible leadership using the social change model of leadership development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland-College Park, College Park, MD.

contr ibuting to lear ning and development?

203

Wilder, D. H., Hoyt, A. E., Doren, D. M., Hauck, W. E., & Zettle, R. D. (1978). The impact of fraternity or sorority membership on values and attitudes. Journal of College Student Personnel, 19, 445–449. Wilder, D. H., Hoyt, A. E., Surbeck, B. S., Wilder, J. C., & Carney, P. I. (1986). Greek affiliation and attitude change in college students. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27, 510–519. Williams, C. T., & Johnson, L. R. (2011). Why can’t we be friends? Multicultural attitudes and friendships with international students. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(1), 41–48. Young, R. K., Clore, G., & Holtzman, W. H. (1966). Further change in attitude toward the Negro in a southern university. In D. Byrne & M. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Personality research: A book of readings (pp. 212–219). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

References

Barefoot, B. O. (2001). National survey of first-year curricular practices: Summary of findings. Brevard, NC: Policy Center on the First Year of College. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32(7), 513. DeBard, R., Lake, T., & Binder, R. S. (2006). Greeks and grades: The first-year experience. NASPA Journal, 43(1), 56–68. De Donato, A., & Thomas, J. (2017). The effects of Greek affiliation on academic performance. Economics of Education Review, 57, 41–51. Drake, K. E. (2010). An analysis of sorority women’s perceptions of recruitment in a deferred and non deferred setting (Unpublished master’s thesis). Eastern Illinois University, Charleston, IL. Fernandez, M., & Perez-Pena, R. (2015, March 10). As two Oklahoma students are expelled for racist chant, Sigma Alpha Epsilon vows wider inquiry. New York Times, 10. Fouts, K. S. (2010). Why undergraduates aren’t “Going Greek”: Attraction, affiliation, and retention in fraternities and sororities. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 5(1), 24–33. Franklin Square Group. (2003). A call for values congruence. Retrieved from http://www. afabackup.com/Portals/0/documents/CallForValuesCongruence.pdf Hartley, M. J., & Eberly, C. G. (2016). Perceptions of new member academic engagement: A mixed methods case study. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/ Sorority Advisors, 11(1), 48–61. Ingraham, C. (2015, March 9). A decade of bad press hasn’t hurt fraternity membership numbers. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/ wp/2015/03/09/a-decade-of-bad-media-attention-hasnt-hurt-fraternity-membershipnumbers/?utm_term=.8428122184f6 Kennedy, K. (2009). The politics and policies of parental involvement. About Campus, 14(4), 16–25. Long, L. (2012). Unchallenged, professed core values. College Student Affairs Journal, 30(2), 15–30. Martin, G. L., Hevel, M. S., Asel, A. M., & Pascarella, E. T. (2011). New evidence on the effects of fraternity and sorority affiliation during the first year of college. Journal of College Student Development, 52(5), 543–559. doi:10.1353/csd.2011.0062 Matthews, H., Featherstone, L., Bluder, L., Gerling, A. J., Loge, S., & Messenger, R. B. (2009). Living in your letters: Assessing congruence between espoused and enacted values of

206 r efer ences

one fraternity/sorority community. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 4(1), 29–41. Musulin, K. (2014, December 17). Voices: The positive, underreported aspects of Greek life. USAToday College. Retrieved from http://college.usatoday.com/2014/12/17/opinionthe-positive-underreported-benefits-of-greek-life/ National Panhellenic Conference. (n.d.). 2016–17 Annual Survey Highlights: Fast Facts. Retrieved from nicindy.org/press/fraternity-statistics/http://nicindy.org/press/ fraternity-statistics/ Nelson, S. M., Halperin, S., Wasserman, T. H., Smith, C., & Graham, P. (2006). Effects of fraternity/sorority membership and recruitment semester on GPA and retention. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity Advisors, 2(1), 61–73. North-American Interfraternity Conference. (2017). Fraternity stats at a glance. Retrieved from http://nicindy.org/press/fraternity-statistics/ Perkins, A. B., Zimmerman, J. D., & Janosik, S. M. (2011). Changing trends in the undergraduate fraternity/sorority experience: An evaluative and analytical literature review. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 6(1), 57–73. Pike, G. R. (2000). The influence of fraternity or sorority membership on students’ college experiences and cognitive development. Research in Higher Education, 41(1), 117–139. Pike, G. R. (2003). Membership in a fraternity or sorority, student engagement, and educational outcomes at AAU public research universities. Journal of College Student Development, 44(3), 369–382. Rickes, P. C. (2016). Generations in flux: How Gen Z will continue to transform higher education space. Planning for Higher Education, 44(4), 21. Reisberg, L. (2000, January 7). Fraternities in decline. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from https://www.chronicle.com/article/Fraternities-in-Decline/34961 Schutts, J., & Shelley, K. (2014). Modeling a values-based-congruence framework to predict organization constructs in fraternities and sororities. Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, 9(1), 33–53. Seemiller, C., & Grace, M. (2016). Generation Z goes to college. New York, NY: Wiley. Sigma Alpha Epsilon. (2016). Diversity & inclusion position statement. Retrieved from http:// www.sae.net/home/pages/about/about---our-position-statements---diversity--inclusion Svrluga, S. (2015, January 20). Despite scandals and bad ink, more and more students want to go Greek. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/ grade-point/wp/2015/01/20/despite-scandals-and-bad-ink-more-and-more-studentswant-to-go-greek/?utm_term=.0288cf29d34e Svrluga, S. (2015, March 27). OU: Frat members learned racist chant at national SAE leadership event. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/ wp/2015/03/27/ou-investigation-sae-members-learned-racist-chant-at-national-leadershipevent/?utm_term=.52ae20def20c Turner, A. (2015). Generation Z: Technology and social interest. The Journal of Individual Psychology, 71(2), 103–113. Whipple, E. G., & Sullivan, E. G. (1998). Greek letter organizations: Communities of learners? New Directions for Student Services, no. 81, 7–17. Zamudio-Suaréz, F. (2017, November 14). Texas State U. is the latest campus to suspend Greek life after a fraternity death. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com

Contributors

Bilal Badruddin is a doctoral student in the Higher Education Leadership & Policy Studies (HELPS) program at Howard University. Prior to pursuing his doctoral degree, Badruddin worked as a student affairs practitioner at Eastern Washington University (2013–2015) and Colgate University (2015–2017). In addition to his work on college campuses, Badruddin serves as the national president and CEO of Delta Epsilon Psi Fraternity, which is a South Asian interest fraternity, and has served on the NAPA Board. He earned a BA in advertising research from Temple University (2011) and an MEd in higher education from Loyola University Chicago (2013). James P. Barber is the Clark G. and Elizabeth H. Diamond Associate Professor of

Education at the College of William and Mary. He is an expert in the areas of college student development, assessing student learning, and integrative learning. His research has been published in the American Educational Research Journal, Journal of College Student Development, Journal of Higher Education, Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, and Change. He is currently writing a book, Integration of Learning, about how college students learn across contexts. Prior to his faculty appointment, he worked in student affairs administration for nearly a decade, specializing in fraternity and sorority affairs, residence life, and student activities. He currently serves as the editor of Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors. He is also on the Board of Directors for the Center for Fraternity/Sorority Research and is faculty fellow for Sigma Phi Epsilon Fraternity at William and Mary. Dr. Mark Bauman has worked professionally in student affairs for approximately 14 years—mostly in the areas of residence life and judicial affairs. He’s currently a program coordinator for educational leadership programs at Bloomsburg University. He recently coordinated the Living and Learning programs and the Sophomore Success program. His goal as a teacher is to balance the theoretical/philosophical/empirical

208 contr ibutors

underpinnings of student affairs with real-time, real-world scenarios. In that student affairs and higher education are constantly evolving, opportunities for such applications are limitless. Dr. Fran Becque earned her MS and PhD at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Her dissertation, Coeducation and the History of Women’s Fraternities 1867–1902, ends with the formation of the National Panhellenic Conference and chronicles the growth of the women’s fraternity system across the country. She has written histories of individual Greek Letter Organizations chapters for the Society for the Preservation of Greek Housing and she writes about the history of GLOs on her blog at fraternityhistory.com. She is a member of Pi Beta Phi and currently serves as its archivist/historian. Dr. J. Patrick Biddix is professor of higher education and associate director of

the Postsecondary Education Research Center (PERC) at the University of Tennessee. His research and teaching focus is on research design and assessment, student engagement and involvement, and postsecondary outcomes. Biddix is the author of Research Methods and Applications for Student Affairs (Jossey-Bass, 2018) and coauthored the second edition textbook of Assessment in Student Affairs (Jossey-Bass, 2016). He serves as the associate editor for books for the Journal of College Student Development (JCSD). In 2015, he received a Fulbright Scholar Award to study in Montreal, Canada. Biddix is a recognized expert in fraternity and sorority research. He has authored numerous publications and reports on membership correlates and has appeared in national media, including National Public Radio (NPR). In 2014, he coauthored The Influence of Fraternity and Sorority Involvement: A Critical Analysis of Research (1996–2013) (ASHE, Jossey-Bass, 2014). He has completed grant-funded research with the National Panhellenic Conference (NPC) and is currently working with North-American Interfraternity Conference (NIC) to evaluate their new Health and Safety Initiative (HSI). From 2010–2013, Biddix served as editor of Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors. Dr. Dan Bureau is the Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs at the University of Memphis. He has worked in higher education for 22 years in a range of roles and has consulted on fraternity and sorority life matters for over 35 campuses. He received his PhD in Higher Education and Student Affairs from Indiana University in 2011. He is past president of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors and is widely recognized for his research on the fraternity/sorority experience. Dr. Cynthia A. Cogswell is Director of Strategic Planning and Assessment at

Ohio University was formerly a postdoctoral fellow for assessment and evaluation at the Dartmouth Center for the Advancement for Learning at Dartmouth College. She is also a survey research consultant for the Center for the Study of the College Fraternity,

contr ibutors

209

which is a national survey of fraternity and sorority student behavior housed at Indiana University. Dr. Denise L. Davidson is an associate professor in the Educational Leadership and

College Student Affairs program at Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania. She completed her BA in biology at Clark University, MS in college student personnel services at Miami University (Ohio), and PhD in higher education administration at Bowling Green State University. Davidson has 20 years of experience with residence life, student conduct, academic advising, student financial aid, student activities, fraternity/sorority affairs, and alumni affairs. The recipient of two awards for outstanding teaching and one for research, Davidson’s research interests include new professionals’ job satisfaction and turnover, student affairs work at for-profit institutions, students with disabilities in campus housing, and the scholarship of teaching and learning. Dr. Bryan Dosono earned his PhD in Information Science and Technology from Syracuse University in 2019. His research seeks to understand how Asian Pacific Islander Desi Americans (APIDA) construct and express their identity in online communities and his dissertation research uncovers the ways in which APIDAs negotiate collective action in the context of online identity work. He holds a Bachelor of Science degree with honors in Informatics (Human-Computer Interaction) from the University of Washington. Dosono is an initiated member of Phi Beta Kappa Society, Lambda Phi Epsilon International Fraternity, and has served on the NAPA Board. Dr. Kevin Fosnacht is associate research scientist at the Indiana University Center

for Postsecondary Research and a research analyst for the National Survey of Student Engagement, the largest survey of undergraduates in North America. Through his research, Fosnacht seeks to identify ways colleges and universities can improve the college experience holistically. Topically, Fosnacht’s research has focused on a range of programs and practices, like advising, democratic engagement, information literacy skills development, learning communities and precollege programs, with the potential to improve both student success and students’ learning and development. Fosnacht’s research has been published in outlets like the Journal of Higher Education, American Journal of Education, and Review of Higher Education. Kevin Fosnacht holds PhD and MA degrees in education from the University of California, Los Angeles, and a BA degree in political science from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Dr. Crystal E. Garcia is an assistant professor in the Administration of Higher Ed-

ucation program within the Department of Educational Foundations, Leadership, and Technology at Auburn University. She completed her PhD in educational studies specializing in educational leadership and higher education at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. She received her bachelor’s degree in communications and master’s degree

210 contr ibutors

in higher education administration from Texas A&M University, Commerce. Garcia began her career in education as a high school teacher before transitioning to higher education and working in campus activities at Texas A&M University, Commerce. She is a member of Chi Omega and served as a chapter advisor for five years. Her research agenda encompasses two areas. The first critically examines the interplay of institutional environments and the experiences of racially minoritized college students, specifically in relation to campus climates, inclusivity, and individual sense of belonging. The second focuses on the learning, development, and socialization of graduate students in higher education programs. Keith D. Garcia currently serves as an assistant director of fraternity and sorority

life at Northwestern University in Evanston, IL. In his role he advises the Multicultural Greek Council and its chapters. He also advises chapters across the Interfraternity Council, National Pan-Hellenic Council, and Panhellenic Association. In addition to his advising he is primarily responsible for harm reduction education within the fraternity and sorority community on campus. His education includes a bachelor’s of business administration from the City University of New York’s Bernard M. Baruch College and a master’s of arts in educational administration-student affairs from the University of Nebraska, Lincoln. He is a member of La Unidad Latina, Lambda Upsilon Lambda Fraternity, having served in various capacities from the chapter to the national levels. Most recently he served as the fraternity’s representative to the National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations. Brian Garsh is a coordinator of student involvement at North Carolina State Univer-

sity. In this role, Brian supports the 700+ student organizations at NC State and serves as the primary advisor to student government. Prior to joining the Wolfpack, Brian received his MEd degree in college student affairs administration from the University of Georgia and his BS degree in chemistry secondary education from The College of New Jersey. Justine Grace is an academic advisor in the John V. Roach Honors College. Justine

earned her MEd in educational leadership with an emphasis in higher education from Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. She has a BA in journalism and political science from Texas Christian University in Fort Worth, Texas. She is originally from Gulf Breeze, Florida and is a member of Gamma Phi Beta Sorority. Dr. Dennis E. Gregory currently serves as Associate Professor of Higher Education

at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia. He has more than 75 articles, book chapters, book reviews and other publications, and over 250 speeches, presentations, co-presentations, research paper presentations and key note addresses. He is a sought after speaker on the Clery Campus Safety Act, the First Amendment, Title IX, and other

contr ibutors

211

legal issues. He served as a Fulbright Fellow to Portugal in 2014 and as a member of a Fulbright Regional Selection Committee from 2015-2017. His book, The Administration of Fraternal Organizations on North American Campuses: A Pattern for the New Millennium, was published in 2003. Prior to becoming a full-time faculty member in 2000, Dr. Gregory served as a student affairs administrator for almost 25 years. He has extensive international experience and travels broadly doing research and speaking. Dr. Juan R. Guardia is a scholar-practitioner and has been in the field of student

affairs for over 18 years in various administrative roles. He is currently the assistant vice president for student affairs and dean of students at the University of Cincinnati. His current portfolio includes Residence Education and Development, Student Conduct and Community Standards, Bearcat Bands, Ethnic Programs and Services, LGBTQ Center, African American Cultural and Resource Center, Parent and Family Programs, and Assistant Dean of Students programs and services. He has served as adjunct faculty in the higher education programs at Loyola University, Chicago, and Florida State University and is currently adjunct faculty in the College of Education, Criminal Justice, & Human Services at the University of Cincinnati. Guardia is past chair of the National Association of Latino Fraternal Organizations and is a member of Phi Iota Alpha Fraternity. He earned his PhD in educational leadership-higher education administration and a graduate certificate in community college teaching from Iowa State University, a master’s degree in higher education, a bachelor’s degree in communication from Florida State University, and an associate in arts degree from Miami-Dade College. Dr. Grahaeme A. Hesp is a member of NAFSA (Association of International Edu-

cators) and a longtime and active member of NASPA (Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education), the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, and Sigma Phi Epsilon Fraternity. Hesp has also served as the director of educational programs for the Association of Fraternal Leadership and Values. He has published multiple articles and book chapters investigating various aspects of sexual orientation within fraternities and sororities and has been honored with several awards from ACPA (College Student Educators International), the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, and the National Order of Omega. Grahaeme is a member of the U.S. team for FIE (Foundation for International Education), a London-based not-for-profit international education organization. Dr. Michael S. Hevel is associate professor of higher education and department

head at the University of Arkansas. He has studied the effect of fraternity and sorority membership on educational outcomes and the history of higher education. His research has appeared in the Handbook of Higher Education, History of Education Quarterly, Journal of College Student Development, and Journal of Higher Education.

212 contr ibutors

Micahh Kamrass is an attorney at Manley Burke, LPA, in Cincinnati, Ohio. His

practice focuses on higher education law and he represents numerous international fraternities and sororities. Kamrass serves as the editor of the Fraternal Law Newsletter, monitors the National Anti-Hazing Hotline, and organizes, hosts, and presents at the annual National Fraternal Law Conference. He also serves as an adjunct professor at the University of Louisville, where he teaches a graduate-level course on higher education law. Kamrass attended the Ohio State University for undergraduate, graduate, and law school. While there, he served as student body president, where he represented 40,000 students. He was also president of the Ohio State University chapter of Alpha Epsilon Pi and served as a member the Alpha Epsilon Pi international Supreme Board of Governors. Kamrass is also currently a doctoral student at Vanderbilt University, where he is studying higher education leadership and policy. Vigor W. H. Lam is the assistant director of the Asian & Asian American Center within

the Office of the Dean of Students at Cornell University. He has worked for departments including academic affairs, campus activities and life, and residential life. He is currently conducting research, examining the experiences of members in Asian American Greek Letter Organizations (AAGLOs) and how their Asian American identity shapes their experiences within their chapter/organization. He has held leadership positions and presented at ACPA, AFA, NACA, and NASPA. He holds an MEd in postsecondary administration and student affairs from the University of Southern California and a BS in landscape architecture from the Ohio State University. He is a member of Pi Delta Psi Fraternity, and has served on the National Asian Pacific Islander Desi American PanHellenic Association (NAPA) Board. Shirdonna Lawrence serves as the coordinator for fraternity and sorority life at

Mississippi State University while pursuing her PhD in educational leadership with a concentration in higher education administration. Through a poststructural epistemological lens, Lawrence’s research investigates deficit thinking regarding diversity and the social systems that perpetuate disparity for marginalized individuals within higher education. Dr. Robert Jason Lynch is an adjunct professor in the Department of Educational Foundations and Leadership in the Darden School of Education at Old Dominion University. He received his PhD in higher education from Old Dominion University, master’s in higher education administration from North Carolina State University, and bachelor’s in biology and psychology from the University of North Carolina, Wilmington. He has over eight years of experience as a college student affairs professional, including experience advising fraternities and sororities. In 2010 he received the Order of Omega William J. Brennan and Jacque Placette Chapman Graduate Student Fellowship, was well as the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors Foundation Research

contr ibutors

213

Grant to fund his master’s thesis entitled Hidden Voices: Narratives of Religious/Worldview Minorities in Historically Christian Fraternities and Sororities. Currently his research interests center on mental health issues in U.S. higher education, spirituality and worldview diversity in U.S. higher education, and K–16 perspectives in education. Dr. Georgianna L. Martin is an assistant professor of counseling and human de-

velopment services at the University of Georgia (UGA). Her primary research interests are on the social class identity and college experiences of low-income, first-generation students; the impact of college students’ out-of-class experiences on key learning outcomes such as critical thinking and socially responsible leadership; and social/political activism. The out-of-class experience Martin has primarily focused on in her research is the impact of fraternity and sorority membership on college outcomes. She has contributed to both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal on the state of fraternity/ sorority life on college campuses. Martin has published over 30 articles and book chapters and 6 books in the field of higher education and student affairs. She is a past editor for Oracle: The Research Journal for the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors and is also a member of Chi Omega Fraternity. Dawn M. Maynen currently works as the FSES project director, research analyst for

the Center for Fraternity and Sorority Research (CFSR) at Indiana University, Bloomington. She is a certified Qualtrics survey administrator responsible for the Fraternity and Sorority Experience Survey (FSES) that measures behaviors and satisfaction with the experiences of fraternity and sorority members. Dr. Dorian L. McCoy is an associate professor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville (UTK) within the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies (ELPS). He is the program coordinator for the college student personnel (CSP) master’s program. McCoy’s research centers on the experiences of People of Color in higher education, with an emphasis on their access and socialization to graduate education. His research is typically framed in critical race theory (CRT) or social reproduction theory (SRT). He is a life member of Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity, one of the Divine Nine National Pan-Hellenic Council organizations (NPHC). Mónica Lee Miranda is the current Director for the Center of Student Involve-

ment at the University of South Florida and is a doctoral candidate at the University of Rochester. As Director she provides leadership, strategic planning, assessment, and direct coordination for campus wide programming and student involvement that enhances student learning and engagement. She is also the first person of color to serve as President for the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors. Monica is also one of the leaders within the Latinx fraternal movement.

214 contr ibutors

Dr. Roger “Mitch” Nasser Jr received his PhD in higher education administra-

tion from Saint Louis University (2016) and also completed a master’s in college student personnel from Western Illinois University and a BA in psychology and communication from Saint Louis University. Nasser is an experienced professional with 18 years of administrative experience in higher education administration prior to becoming a faculty member at Lindenwood University in 2016. He served in residence life capacities at Florida International University, Miami University, University of Dayton, and McKendree University. Nasser has also served in career services, academic advising, orientation, judicial affairs, and Title IX capacities. He developed significant research interests in social justice education, supervision, men’s issues, and campus safety during his professional career. His interest in men’s issues led to the publication of two conference articles and a collaborative national presentation. He has taught courses on student transition to college, leadership, service learning, group dynamics, public policy, comparative education, history of higher education, educational foundations, and student development theory. Colin Nelson-Pinkston is Coordinator for Fraternity and Sorority Life at The

University of the South. He earned his MEd student in the Educational Leadership at Southern Methodist University. He is a graduate of the University of Iowa, member of Lambda Chi Alpha, former fraternity staff member, and current volunteer for multiple fraternal organizations. Dr. Jenny Nirh works with communication and outreach efforts within the Office of Student Success and Retention Innovation at the University of Arizona. Previously, Jenny worked in fraternity and sorority life for 9 years at the University of Arizona and has volunteered in the fraternity and sorority world for 13 years. Jenny has a PhD and MA in higher education from the University of Arizona and a BA in political science from the University of New Mexico. Dr. Eric Norman serves as the vice president for student affairs at Austin Peay State

University. Norman is the former editor and associate editor for Oracle: The Research Journal of the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors, and he remains on the Editorial Board. He was also a contributor to the ASHE Higher Education Report The Influence of Fraternity and Sorority Involvement: A Critical Analysis of Research (1996–2013). He is also the former vice chancellor for student affairs and dean of students at Purdue University, Fort Wayne, the associate dean of students at Louisiana State University, the director for fraternity and sorority life at Virginia Tech, and the assistant director for fraternities, sororities, registered student organizations, and leadership development at the University of Delaware.

contr ibutors

215

Dr. Gary R. Pike is professor of higher education and student affairs and program director of Higher Education Student Affairs at Indiana University. He is also the editor-in-chief of the Review of Higher Education. In 2014, Pike was elected vice president of the Association for Institutional Research. He served as AIR president in 2015–2016 and as the immediate past president in 2016–2017. Pike is a seven-time recipient of the Best Paper Award from the Association for Institutional Research, and he received the Outstanding Assessment Research Award from the American College Personnel Association in 1998. He was named a Senior Scholar by the American College Personnel Association in 2000. In 2010, Pike received the Sidney Suslow Award from the Association for Institutional Research for his lifetime contributions to higher education and institutional research. Pike has written more than 50 refereed articles and a dozen book chapters. He had delivered more than 100 presentations and workshops at professional meetings throughout the United States, Canada, Europe, and the Middle East. His principal areas of research are the relationships between student engagement and student learning and success, as well as the evaluation of programs designed to improve student access, learning, and success. Dr. Pietro A. Sasso is Assistant Professor and Program Director of College Student

Personnel Administration at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville. He has published over 40 scholarly articles and book chapters. He is the editor and author of 6 other texts, including Today’s College Students (2014), Higher Education and Society (2016), Colleges at the Crossroads: Taking Sides on Contested Issues (2018), and The Dynamic Student Development Meta-Theory: A New Model for Student Success (2018), and Student Activism in the Academy: Its Struggles and Promise (2019). His research interests include identity construction of traditional undergraduates (college student development), alcohol misuse in higher education (student health outcomes), the impact of the college fraternity experience, and masculinity in higher education. Dr. Zachary E. Shirley currently serves as the assistant dean for sorority and fra-

ternity life at Indiana University, Bloomington, where he oversees the operations for a sorority/fraternity community of more than 8,000 members across 69 chapters. A native of Dallas, Texas, Shirley graduated with his BS in secondary education/English from Paul Quinn College (2005), his MS in higher education administration from Texas A&M University, Commerce (2006), and his PhD from the University of North Texas (2014), with his dissertation research centered on the perceptions of fraternities and sororities from the perspective of a single institution and its community. Shirley has worked as a student affairs professional for more than 10 years, with previous experiences from Texas Woman’s University, the University of Texas at Dallas, Texas A&M University, Commerce, and the University of Cincinnati in areas such as fraternity and sorority life, student activities, orientation, student government, volunteer services, and

216 contr ibutors

mentorship programs. He is an active member of Phi Beta Sigma Fraternity and the fraternal organization of Prince Hall Masonry. Shanna E. Smith is currently a doctoral candidate at the University of Tennessee,

Knoxville (UTK) within the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies (ELPS), pursuing a doctorate in higher education administration. She also serves as an assistant professor of psychology and program coordinator of the behavioral sciences in the Department of Natural and Behavioral Sciences at Pellissippi State Community College in Knoxville. Smith’s research agenda focuses on historically underrepresented student populations and their access to and through higher education. More specifically, her research examines issues related to retention, persistence, and experiential learning engagement for Students of Color utilizing a critical race theory perspective. Dr. Leonard Taylor Jr. is an assistant professor of educational leadership at Mis-

sissippi State University. His research focuses on how institutions enhance their student success efforts using research knowledge, institutional data, and best practices. He is also focused on advancing the dialogue about power and systems of oppression in leadership education, to inform current and future efforts for social change. Dr. Ashley Tull serves as a clinical associate professor and director of the EdD

Program in Higher Education at Southern Methodist University. Tull earned a BS with honors in social and rehabilitation services and a master’s of education in college student personnel services from the University of Southern Mississippi. He received a graduate certificate in human resource development and a PhD in higher education administration from Florida State University. Tull is a member of Lambda Chi Alpha. Dr. Steven Veldkamp is the assistant dean of students and director of student

life and learning at Indiana University, Bloomington, and the executive director of the Center for Fraternity and Sorority Research. In his role as assistant dean and director, Veldkamp supervises four areas of student life encompassing student organizations and student government, fraternities and sororities, leadership programs, and community engagement programs. He is a member of the Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education (NASPA), the Association of Fraternity Advisors (AFA), and past director of the Interfraternity Institute. In his role as executive director of the Center for Fraternity and Sorority Research, he works with researchers as well as leads the Fraternity and Sorority Experience Survey project. Dr. Thea Zunick has been in the student affairs professionA for more than 10 years,

managing multiple functional areas including fraternity and sorority life and orientation, leadership, local and global service programs, social justice education, and crisis response teams. She is a longtime volunteer and presenter for various professional

contr ibutors

217

associations and a multitude of fraternities and sororities. She has published a number of blogs and scholarly articles. Her dissertation, which she completed from Rutgers University in the spring of 2017, assessed academic and personal outcomes of men engaged in the Sigma Phi Epsilon Residential Learning Community. She holds a master’s degree from the University of Florida and a bachelor’s degree from The College of New Jersey. Zunick also has taught in the Montclair State University Student Affairs Master’s Program in Montclair, New Jersey. She is inspired by the potential of the fraternity and sorority community nationwide and believes that when it is done right, it can be a powerful thing.