From: wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr)
Subject: Re: Fraternities
Organization: Northeastern Law, Class of '93
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 23:07:38 GMT


[I'm still not sure why this is in alt.folklore.college, but to be
honest I'm sort of (selfishly) glad it is, since I don't read
soc.college and I know that if I started I'd just end up sinking
even _more_ time into the net than I can afford.  If someone out
there wants to start up alt.fraternity.argue. feel free.  Anyway, on
with the debate...]

In article <1992Apr12.213149.19421@midway.uchicago.edu>, 
gross@befvax.uchicago.edu (Leon Gross) said:

> > Sounds to me as though all the participants, male and female, in
> > these activities were there voluntarily.  (The girlfriends
> > didn't have to ride in the bus, or even remain girlfriends, and
> > nobody _has_ to become a little sister.)  So what's the big
> > problem?  [wdstarr]

> Hazing is 'voluntary', but it's still abusive and harmful.  Not
> all the women knew about the fraternity's bus tradition.  And in
> both cases it's the men who are in power, and the women who are
> not.  The point is that the fraternity, as an institution, has
> practices that are abusive to women and show lack of respect for
> them.

Okay... but as long as the women in question are willing
participants, there's still no problem that I can see.  ("Not all
the women knew about the fraternity's bus tradition" may be true,
but they sure as heck found out about it when they got on the bus,
and there wasn't anything in your article that indicated that they
couldn't have just gotten off the bus right then and there.)

> Look at the attitude towards women indicated by the stories above,
> and then tell me whether you would want female friends of yours to
> go to any of their frat functions, and whether you think they
> would be treated with respect.

Oddly enough -- since I'm arguing the traditionally male sexist pig
side of things while you're being progressive and anti-harassment --
I have enough faith in my female friends' intelligence and wisdom
that I don't feel any need to cast myself, even hypothetically, in
the role of their protector, chaperone or social coordinator.  If a
female friend of mine wants to go to a function at a frat that
treats women abusively, that's her prerogative.  Different squids
for different kids and all that.

> If they call some women names, why not all?  If they demand that
> certain women sleep with them, why not all?

Ouch.  "If they have sex with women who are willing to have sex with
them, why won't they rape women who don't want to have sex with
them?"  Isn't that a little bit like calling someone a car thief
because he sometimes buys cars?  (Yeah, I know, that's a fairly
feeble analogy, but this "guilt by extension" idea is so weird that
it's got me stumped...)  Look, let's be realistic here... anybody
can "demand" sex from anyone, but unless the demander can offer
something the demandee wants, he/she isn't going to get any action.
If a woman is willing to accept the sex-for-little-sister-membership
exchange offer, I still see no problem.

(And yes, I _do_ recognize the very real problem of "sleep with me
or you won't get the job/a good grade/whatever" sexual harassment in
the workplace, the teacher-student relationship, etc., but that's
hardly the situation here.  People can need jobs, and have the right
to the grades they earn academically, but who _needs_ to be in a
fraternity's little sister program?)

> You also deleted the other story.  My friend did not 'voluntarily'
> have the rest of his frat pretend that they were in Aushwitz they
> were in the frat's shower.  But on your argument, he could have
> left and he joined voluntarily so it's OK, right?

Pretty much so, yes.  He chose his living arrangement and his
friends.  As a friend of mine was fond of saying, "You've buttered
your bread, now lie in it."

> > Why does anyone have to "make up" for the kind of behavior they
> > practice among themselves?  [wdstarr]

> Because some of the behavior that people do among themselves is
> illegal, harmful, abusive, and in violation of the schools
> disciplinary code.  The cases I gave are cases of sexual and
> ethnic harassment.

"Harmful" and "abusive" are relevant factors only when they involve
non-consenting participants.  I personally find "illegal" to be
dubious as well when the purpose of the laws is other than to
protect people's rights (and, to state the obvious, when you
voluntarily waive a right, it is not violated).  And as for the
school's disciplinary codes, well, I have some questions about the
morality of codes that extend into the students' private lives.

(Not that colleges and universities don't, in most cases, have the
legal right to impose their rules; I just find the morality of it a
bit dubious.)

> Furthermore, if they behave that way among themselves, they are
> more likely to behave that way to non members, and then it does
> become an issue of "making up for it."

Again, guilt by extension, with a little probability theory thrown
in.  I'm sure that even Ted Frank, who is not known for his sympathy
towards fraternities, would agree that this argument is fallacious.

-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.college