From: gross@befvax.uchicago.edu
Subject: Re: Fraternities
Reply-To: gross@befvax.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago, Dept of Molecular Genetics
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:10:14 GMT

In article <1992Apr12.230738.29354@athena.mit.edu>, wdstarr@athena.mit.edu (William December Starr) writes:
>
>[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:
>
>> 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.)

That does not mean that the behavior is not abusive.  You have to
realize that their is social pressure coming from their own boyfriends/
dates.

>> 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.

Sorry, but I would warn my female friends about this kinda of behavior.
If she wants to go, and knows the risks, that is her perogative.  

>> 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?  

No, it's not 'willing'.  It's that they say "Have sex with me or you
can't be a little sister."  How different is that from "Have sex with
me or ______________ " where you can fill in the blank.  

>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.

That doesn't mean that it's morally or legally right to demand sex.
Repeated unwanted sexual attention does constitute sexual harassment.

>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?)

No, the situation is the same.  "If the person agrees to the sleep with
me or you won't get a promotion", then it's not harassment, right?
No, in each case, the person has to sleep with someone in order to
gain some status that is desired.  If one group of men on a team said to 
another male: "Have sex with one of team members, or you are off the team"
it is sexual harassment, even though no one has to be on a sports team.
(Assuming its for recreation, not for money).  I also think that its
morally wrong to say "Sleep with me, or I'll tell everyone you are a dyke."
This is sex by coersion of one kind or another.  I'm not going to call
it rape, but I'll call it coersive.

>> 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."

He didn't go into the living arrangment knowing that as the only
Jew, he would be treated that way.  And it's kinda hard to leave
in the middle of the quarter, given the personal, social, and financial
investment. (i.e. rent).

I don't buy the argument.  Would you tell a woman who went into an all
male field, or all male group, that if she gets harassed there that's her
problem, because she knew what she was getting into?  

>> > 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.

Yes, but 'consent' here is hard to define.  Does a person 'consent'
to drinking so much alcohol that he passes out, and is left out side
during hazing?  In such cases, the fraternities are held accountable
for the damage to people (if they OD, or die, etc.), so legally, the
'consent' doesn't matter.   There is social pressure, and sometimes
physical pressure.  (My friend, who was pledge master, had a paddle.
What do you think it was for?  What did it symbolize?)  Also, 
there is the question of what happens when people who are not yet 21
are provided alcohol.

>> 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.

No, not guilt by extension.  It's called social conditioning.  I'm 
asserting that there are causal relations between hazing and other kinds of 
abusive behaviors.  It is well known that children who are abused, or are
exposed to abuse, are more like to be abusive when they grow up.  Ted has 
shown that fraternities members ARE more likely to be abusive, that is a 
correlation.   I have provide a mechanism.  You can either say that frat
members are NOT more likely to be abusive, and dispute Ted, or you can
agree with him, but provide another mechanism and disagree with me.
But that does not mean that what I have done is a fallacy.

(Oh, and Ted, being a law student, can tell you what the law is in terms
of who is held accountable when people 'consent' to being killed or
raped when they drink too much at a fraternity funcction.  I, being a 
philosophy student, can tell you what a fallacy is). 

Actually Ted is on campus here.  Do you want to bet on what he'd say?

ObCollegeFolklore
There are people on this campus who I speak to by computer and phone,
on a regular basis, but I have no idea who they look like.

ObCollegeFolklore
4 out of the top 25 posters to UseNet in the last two weeks are at
the U of C.  Besides me, I have no idea what they look like, even though
I have corresponded with them.


>-- William December Starr <wdstarr@athena.mit.edu>

Leon Gross
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.