From: es2q+@andrew.cmu.edu (Erik Warren Selberg)
Newsgroups: soc.college
Subject: Re: Generalizations (was: Fraternities)
Date: 17 Apr 92 18:08:05 GMT
	<1992Apr17.020915.1113@midway.uchicago.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Junior, Math/Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> This isn't prejudice, it's a policy decision.  Is it [unjustified] prejudice 
> for a college to prefer to select from the set of students with 1510 SAT's
> rather than from the set of 810 SAT's?  I guarantee that you can look
> out there and find an 810 and a 1510 that are the exception and the 810
> will outperform the 1510.  But there are information costs to getting
> this perfect read.  It's not prejudice to say "We would rather that
> the students on our campus organize themselves in such a way that does
> not perpetuate attitudes that foster rape" any more than it's prejudice
> against people who don't lock their doors at night to point out that
> they'd be much safer if they did, or that drunks shouldn't drive.

It is prejudice when you can't confirm that membership in a fraternity
causes attitudes that foster rape (please see my previous post for a
discussion on that).  

> A lot of the controversy comes from thinking that the purpose of what
> me and others have been saying is "Fraternities are bad."  That's not
> the purpose.  That's the conclusion.  Believe it or not, I can be
> convinced the other way.  All I've seen though in the other direction
> is anecdotal evidence that is inherently self-serving.  If someone
> can come up with a coherent explanation why fraternities have these
> problems with rape while, say, student government or environmentalists
> don't, I'd be happy to hear it.  All I've heard in response to these
> studies are personal insults, though.

As I said in my previous post, the same inner psychological
motivations for committing rape might be the same that cause people to
join a fraternity.  And, as members of a fraternity tend to rush
members who share their same idealogy and beliefs, it's really easy
for animal houses to emerge; by the same token, it's also a simple
matter for a house to be upstanding and well-respected amoung the
community and university.

> Many women who've been raped at these fraternity parties never got the
> chance to make that decision.  I've seen case study after case study of
> women drinking punch spiked with grain alcohol and waking up with a man
> on top of her.  I have nothing against judging individuals individually.
> But what we have here is a corrupt institution that takes people who
> normally wouldn't rape and provides them with the mutual support and
> peer approval/pressure (and ability to get away with it) where the end
> result is an increase in the number of rapes.  I haven't been attacking
> fraternity members, I've been attacking the fraternities that made them
> that way.

It isn't the system that turns happy people into rapists, that's our
point.  I've seen several instances of women drinking to excess and
going home with some random guy.  Often, the random guy is just as
smashed.  Very often, the two aren't associated at all with the
fraternity, they just went to the party for dance & free drink & goof
off with someone they did know.  I can verify that the system at CMU
does tend to be aware of people blatantly taking advantage of drunk
people.  My house in particular makes sure that are brothers aren't
acting like schmucks, and I know that several other houses also do the
same.  This isn't to say that there aren't any houses on campus who
revel in the sexual feats of brothers; however, I'd state that it is
not the system being the causal factor, but rather the attitude of the
people who make up the fraternity.


for a good time, call                       _____            __   ___ 
(412) 268-5534 (CMU-5-KEG)                 /__    /   /  /  /_/  /__
$5.00 / min., $25 minimum                 /      /_  /__/  /    ___/ @cmu.edu