From: aelman@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Adam Elman)
Subject: Re: Frats
Organization: CS Department, Stanford University, California, USA
Date:  6 Nov 92 05:18:30 GMT

tarra@skat.usc.edu (Tom) writes:

>>If women were allowed to join your fraternity, I can imagine that
>>there would be problems like that at the beginning.  But in the long
>>run, it would be accepted.  The Stanford Band was once a male-only
>>organization; now I can't imagine it as anything but coed.  Sure, we
>>don't have as strong traditions or as strong a feeling of
>>"brotherhood" as a fraternity, but I can't imagine that a fraternity
>>couldn't deal with that sort of thing the same way.
>>
>>Adam Elman

>And we have all seen what has happened to the Stanford band over the years.
>They are just as untalented, yet not nearly as funny.  Are you sure you are
>arguing in favor of allowing women?  Using examples like the Stanford band
>as a positive for coed organizations is like using Adolf Hitler as a positive
>example for strong leadership.:)

Actually, our decline has nothing to do with allowing women in -- most
would agree that the heights of the Stanford Band were in the mid to
late 1970's, AFTER the Band allowed women in.

Seriously -- the Stanford Band may have some problems getting funny
shows onto the field, but that's more due to a skittish athletic
department and conservativism in society than anything else.  We're
just not as willing to take risks as we were in the early '80's.

But actually, I would have to say that the Stanford Band as a
"fraternity-like" organization is a pretty damn good example.  Not
everybody in the Band loves everybody else, but there are some very
strong friendships and bonds formed in the organization.  I would, in
fact, put it as a _very_ positive example of a coed organization,
lack of recent funny shows notwithstanding. (hey -- our music is
improving, and we've actually had a couple of good shows in recent
weeks, though. :-)

>Seriously though you said it yourself, you lost much of the tradition formerly
>associated with the Stanford band.  Maybe that isn't important to the band,
>but tradition and history is important to most fraternities.  My house
>prides itself on its long rich history, but we also pride ourselves on our
>ability to change with society as long as we hold true to our values.

As a matter of fact, I did _not_ say that we "lost much of our
traditions" -- what I meant was simply that our traditions are not as
formalized and codified as those of a fraternity.  In fact, there are
some fairly strong traditions in the Stanford Band, and the female
members of the Band are as fully involved in those as anyone.  We
don't have any gender-specific traditions (well, maybe the Dollies,
but that's a whole 'nother issue. :-) 

Your last statement here is interesting -- just what do you consider
"holding true to your values?"  Is the separation of men and women one
of these "values"?  If not, then why are you so adamant against the
idea of allowing women into your organization?

>Perhaps if you knew how frats started you would be a little more tolerant.

Perhaps.  What exactly do you mean?  What I know is that many fraternities
in the _present_ have become unhealthy organizations in need of
reform.  I know I don't like the idea of selective single-sex
organizations.  I doubt you'll convince me to change my mind on that.

Note -- I don't _hate_ fraternities.  I have friends in fraternities
(mostly unhoused, though).  I just don't like the concept, and I don't
like the behavior of lots of fraternities.

>Tom
>-- 
>"Chicks dig me because I rarely wear underwear"  
>					Bill Murray 

Adam Elman
aelman@cs.stanford.edu