Fraternity and Freedom

I’ve heard it said that when America was formed, it was held as a grand experiment in man’s ability to govern himself.  Models of self-government were mostly theoretical at the time, and so this country became the first to really test that idea.  Although there have been many stumbles along the way, I think the experiment has worked pretty well.

I’ll let the politicians and pundits debate whether or not we’re drifting closer to, or further away, from that ideal.

Nonetheless, if America can be judged as an experiment in self-government, then I believe that the American fraternity or sorority can be judged as the same - albeit on a smaller level.  Our earliest forms were established by men and women without the permission of the colleges they were attending.  Back then, students did not have to submit paperwork to a campus office in order to gain “recognition.”  If they felt something was important enough to establish, then they went forward without apologies.  Now, it’s fair to say that our earliest groups also didn’t want or expect anything from the colleges.  We weren’t looking to compliment the mission of those institutions back then.  We wanted to be left alone.  We wanted to govern ourselves.  That spirit remains, but is being challenged.

I wrote an essay once that argued that fraternities and sororities (and thus their members) have defiance in their DNA.  There is a natural and embedded distrust between the fraternity man and his/her national headquarters and/or campus Greek Life office.  That goes all the way back to our founding.  And it’s proper to be skeptical of the institutions to which we are connected.

I believe that one of the chief reasons for the longevity of the fraternity/sorority movement is the spirit of self-government.  Not only have our organizations been a place for young people to find enduring friendships, service opportunities, academic support, and great memories - they have also been a place for young people to find freedom.  

Freedom and self-governance go together.

The benefits of self-governance can be profound.  Our society needs more individuals who can act upon their convictions, who will question authority when necessary, and who can simply manage their own problems and concerns.  Our world needs the strength that comes from individuals who are unwilling to let others control their destiny.  Self-government creates personal responsibility and nobody I know thinks we have enough of that in our world today.  

And so, we arrive at yet another reason why the fraternity and sorority is an absolutely relevant organization today: we create generations of responsible citizens through the practice of self-governance.  Our society should be cheering our ability to inspire young people to contribute more than they take.

Yet, we are not embracing this.  Because, we are not embracing self-governance.

Is fraternity/sorority self-governance under attack?  Possibly.  Colleges and universities seem to be laying out more and more requirements on student organizations.  Think about the following trends and developments, which many of you will see as progress.  When viewed through a lens of self-governance, and all the benefits of that principle, maybe that assessment should be reconsidered:

• Colleges/Universities choosing to move fraternity and sorority dwellings on-campus, in new facilities that can be managed by the institution.
• More requirements on groups with housing needing to have live-in advisors.
• Headquarters and universities requiring reports on minimum expectations/criteria to be recognized.
• Academic requirements for members to affiliate or organizations to be recognized.
• Service hour requirements from HQ or the university.
• More and more mandates on when a person can join, when they can live in the house, etc.

In an era when the relationship between universities and fraternities is more seamless than ever, it can be justified that colleges and universities have the right to do all of the things mentioned above.  However, for the sake of student learning, efficacy, and empowerment, justifying that they should do these things is not as easy.

Just because fraternities and sororities have allowed entities such as their headquarters and campuses to exert more control over their destiny doesn’t mean it’s the right thing to do.  In my opinion, it certainly cannot be described as progress.

We were meant be organizations that allowed young people a chance to build something together. They were able to learn from experience, achievements, and mistakes. Now, we are trying to build the experience for them and asking them to just ride along. 

For professionals who work in this industry - we were all once collegiate members.  We likely learned tremendous life skills from the autonomy of that experience.  I invite you to wonder (as I have on many occasions) why then we spend so much of our time now thinking about ways to limit that autonomy? How many of us quickly jump to policy when trying to solve an issue?  How many of us have spent a Friday night driving around Greek row looking for rule-breaking behavior? 

Comparisons between a campus chess club and a college fraternity are often made in jest and as a way to show to unique significance of the fraternity/sorority experience.  If we’re not careful, the day when the chess club has more self-governance to speak of than we do, is not too far away.

 

Who Owns the Future of Fraternity?

The recent issue at Harvard, with the university essentially choosing to sanction any student that affiliates with a single-gender organization, has revealed a truth about modern Greek life that cannot be ignored by fraternity supporters: colleges and universities still own our future.

For as large as the fraternity and sorority industry has become, for as big as the education industry for fraternity and sorority members has become, for all the talk about trade associations, freedom of association, and all the rest, it’s still up to colleges and universities as to whether or not we exist.

And that’s becoming an increasingly precarious position to be in.

Yet it seems to be one that we’re embracing more and more.  And we’re preparing less and less for any result other than what we getting from the likes of Harvard.  In this day and age, national fraternities and sororities are trying to outrace each other in terms of who most nicely and neatly fits within the mission of higher education.  We each want to be the one they love the best. We work hard to “speak their language” with learning outcomes that sound like they fell out of a masters thesis. Our educator and consultant class (me included) comes from higher education and tends to only know how to help Greek organizations within that realm.

In a way, we have sold out to the idea that for us to be relevant and consequential, we need our friends in higher education to tell us that we are. 

For a long time, we’ve been focused on the idea of relevance. We want to ensure that Greek life continues to be a relevant force today and into the future.  The problem is that we usually think about relevance only in terms of our host institutions.  This means that we judge our success only by if colleges and universities think we’re okay.

But to be a relevant organization, we first need to answer the question: relevant to whom?  Yes, host institutions are one of those answers, but are they the only one?  Are they even the most important one?  In my opinion, it is more important to be relevant to two other audiences: our members, and society at large.

If we determine that we are no longer relevant to host institutions, or if they determine it for us (more likely), then is it over?  I don’t think it should be.  We may still be VERY relevant to the lives of our individual members who will achieve great things because of their involvement.  Greek-letter organizations may still be VERY relevant to the growth of our society – particularly American society and its need for values-based leaders and organizers.

If tomorrow, all host institutions decided to cut their ties with Greek-letter organizations, what would we do?   We could adapt.  For instance, we might transform into more community-oriented organizations, much like Kiwanis or Freemasons.  We could find a way to carry on and still focus on instilling values in young men and women.

Just because we were founded at institutions of higher education doesn’t mean our destinies need to be intertwined.  But the sense I’m getting is that this is a very minority opinion.

I’m not making the case that we ignore our relationship with our host institutions as it stands today.  In all possible ways, we need to nurture that relationship, because it’s the business model we’ve chosen.  We should be actively concerned with how we impact the academic success of our members.  If we house students on a particular campus, we should ensure that we are creating safe and secure living environments.  Overall, we should act as good partners to these institutions, because partners are what we are.

We should pay attention to our present reality, but at the same time, imagine a future where a college or university isn’t the foundation of our existence, so that we’re ready if that day comes.  Whether or not we exist for our grandchildren relies more on innovative rather than subservient thinking.

Which fraternity or sorority out there will figure this out?  Wait – maybe NPHC groups already have.  NPHC alumni chapters, which you can join without being an undergraduate member, are often larger than their campus groups. 

I understand the need to play nice with our “hosts.”  But, I fear that in philosophical and tangible ways, we are handing over our right to exist to institutions of higher education – most of which never really wanted us to exist in the first place. And some, like Harvard, are finding creative ways to get rid of us.

The frenzy over trying to assert that we are relevant to colleges and universities has to be tempered with the following question: were we ever meant to be?  Were we ever really meant to compliment the mission of the campuses where our founders happened to meet up?  I admit that I am not a “Bairds Manual” aficionado that can speak to fraternity history with precision.  However, my understanding of the founding of our movement is that individuals were looking for something that wasn’t provided in their college experience.  They wanted shared values, camaraderie, spirited debate, and fun.  I doubt they took much time wondering how these new organizations fit into the missions of their college or university.  My interpretation of our beginnings is that we were borne out of defiance to the host institutions, not in seamless companionship with them.  So while we should care about that relationship now, should it really define our right to exist?

Constantly kowtowing to higher education also puts us on the defensive.  We are always stuck responding to someone else’s needs.  We are always reacting by issuing statements about why actions by Harvard or Princeton or Dartmouth or Colorado are wrong.  But the actions continue.  In the end, it’s a one-way relationship, with colleges and universities holding all the cards.  We fool ourselves into thinking we’re on equal footing.  Is it finally time to worry about that, and respond in a substantive and innovative way?

Until that time, have your statements ready.  Who knows what’s coming next.


 

It's Time to Leave Washington DC

There is a great analogy used to describe the differences between the logical/rational part of our brain and the emotional part. The emotional side is like a large elephant and the rational side is a man riding that elephant. On occasion, the man can steer the elephant where he wants it to go. But, should that elephant get riled up and start charging, there is nothing the man can do to stop it.

And that is the primary reason why the fraternity groups pushing to pass the Safe Campus Act should withdraw, lick their wounds, and find a new initiative. The elephant is running wild.

There are some logical reasons why the Safe Campus Act makes sense (or at least portions of it). Rape is second only to murder in terms of egregious crimes (think of how often you hear “murderers and rapists” used as a blanket term for the worst of our society). And so, to think that such a crime committed on a college campus might not have to involve the police or legal representation is strange at a minimum.

Now – if reading that paragraph made your blood boil, then notice the elephant running wild in your mind. You probably thought to yourself, “why would he give a flip about the accused, what about the victims?! Why protect the rapists?!”

Being concerned for those falsely accused of a crime that egregious, having empathy for victims of rape, and having hatred for those who actually commit the heinous act are ideas that can all live in the same space.

There are great arguments on the other side of this issue as well (found amidst the moral self-righteousness that has become a bit suffocating). It’s a contentious issue with strong points on either side and we should be careful to not assign evil motives to those holding a position different than ours.

Oh wait, it’s 2015. We do that all the time now.

The fact of the matter is, the emotion in this debate has won and supporters of the Safe Campus Act have lost the ground to make their case. It’s time to make it go away.

Let’s think about our whole presence in Washington.

We don’t need to be in Washington DC to influence or advocate for an issue. It’s not the only place where change happens (in fact, it may be the place change goes to die). I believe that the allure of the congressional offices, the swanky receptions and dinners, and the ability to feel like the levers of government were moving by our gentle hands seduced us into a bad and dysfunctional relationship.

We’ve spent over a decade lobbying with no significant legislation enacted to improve the state of the fraternity/sorority industry. Millions have been raised for the Fraternity and Sorority Political Action Committee (unfortunately dubbed the Frat Pac).  Millions that could have been raised instead for efforts to grow the fraternity industry or provide education to our members.

This controversy over the Safe Campus Act is a gift. It’s a way for the industry to say that it’s time to regroup on these legislative initiatives.

In fact, it’s time to go on hiatus and leave Washington DC altogether.

There is an argument that a presence in Washington is always needed because our single-gender status and right to freely associate is always in jeopardy. It’s hard to believe that if those core issues were ever truly in serious danger we couldn’t ramp up an effort to advocate and fight for our rights quickly.

Just ask yourself how many attorneys are on your national board right now. Multiply that by a factor of one-thousand. We’ll be okay.

Leaders in the NIC and NPC: you shouldn’t be blamed or called nefarious for trying to be a champion of Greek life and our members in the halls of government. Don’t be too proud, however, to close this current saga for now. Whether these newest efforts are just or not, the emotional charge is too great to overcome. Soon the damage to our reputation might be as well.

If this is an issue we really have passion for, let’s take it back to the grassroots and have them help us figure out a way forward.

Let’s start doing again what we do best, which is not shaking hands with and embracing congressional staffers, but rather, shaking hands with and embracing our own members.

Don't Judge Institutions For Having Flaws, But For How They Respond To Them

The response to Pope Francis’s recent visit to the U.S. was heartwarming for many reasons. He’s a true servant leader who has inspired so many and his gentle leadership makes him a person easy to admire. It was especially nice to see the reaction of Catholics, who are presently living through a very positive moment in the life of their institution. 

It hasn’t always been positive. In fact, the Catholic Church has been in a pretty steady swirl of controversy for a long time. I am not Catholic, although I attend mass with my very-Catholic wife and our kids, so it’s the closest thing to a religious affiliation I have. Certainly, I’ve watched the child abuse scandals in the church with concern and compassion for the victims. Many Catholics have left the church because of it, and yet many others remain loyal. I’m convinced that most who left didn’t leave because of the child abuse incidents themselves (as sickening as those were), but rather because of the church’s perceived weak response to the incidents, or total lack thereof. 

How we engage with the institutions in our lives is an interesting study in human nature. There are moments in which we are proud of our institutions, and moments in which we are embarrassed by them. 

It is impossible for an institution to be perfect. Discomforting headlines about the Catholic Church, your Alma mater, your favorite sports team or league - and yes, fraternity and sorority life, will always be there.   
 
In any institution, there will be bad actors. In any institution, there will be dramatic and traumatic incidents that move the ground beneath our feet. All institutions are flawed. No one should hastily jump on a bandwagon of disdain towards other institutions lest the ones they believe in become immersed in hot water as well. And they will.

Where we can be judgmental, and where we can show disdain, is in how an institution reacts and responds in those critical moments when their flaws emerge. 

Embarrassing moments within our institutions can shake our pride. If an institution doesn’t respond to those moments responsibly…that can shake our faith. 

Here’s an example from politics: Republicans have long been branded as the party of family values – marital fidelity, child welfare, pro-life positions, etc. And so, when a Republican is found to have cheated on his/her spouse, or engaged in criminal behavior, or caught doing something “sinful,” it’s a common hue and cry to say Republicans are hypocrites for preaching family values. 

Not necessarily. The individual engaged in the behavior is most certainly a hypocrite. However, the institution can still carry its values and beliefs and promote them through their response. If a Republican is found to have run afoul of the institution's values, and yet he/she holds on to their position or basically feels no serious ramifications, then the institution indeed deserves a label of “hypocrite.” 

But, if the institution forcefully responds and serious ramifications are felt by the individual, then isn’t that actually a powerful statement of credibility and alignment with values and purpose? Shouldn’t that actually strengthen the institution’s position? Shouldn’t that be cause to celebrate the institution? 

In our world, that would mean we would collectively cheer every time a member or chapter is held accountable.  But, that doesn't happen very often because we're still smarting from whatever incident led to that action.  Instead of focusing on "did you see how Alpha responded to that situation," we say "did you see what happened to Alpha?"

In today's fraternity and sorority industry, we are being held hostage by the next headline-grabbing incident. Because, what comes next is a media barrage of outrage to dismantle the whole movement.  A group of immature imbeciles chant racist statements on a bus, and there is a call to take down the entire institution. Some fools hang sexist banners from their fraternity house balcony and the institution is judged to be dangerous place for all women. Some sorority girls make a bikini-laden recruitment video that goes viral and the response is that the institution is homogeneous and regressive. 

It seems like the world judges us for the behavior of a few. (Just as we do for other institutions so we shouldn’t be surprised). 

Somewhere in your network of chapters is at least one chapter that hazes its new members. That’s a fact that cannot be ignored. Having some chapters that haze does not make your national fraternity a hazing organization. Just as having some child predators in their midst does not make the Boy Scouts an organization of pedophiles. It’s how we respond that defines us. 

We can battle back against this by not falling for it ourselves. We have become hyper-sensitive to every negative story about Greek life and are constantly running scared. Bad stuff is going to happen folks – it always has. Yes – let’s try to reduce the number of incidents, but living and dying on each one is no way to thrive. It only feeds the beast. 

What matters most is not the first story. It’s the second one. It’s the one that describes how a national organization, or chapter leaders, or campus officials plan to respond. 

Is your national fraternity cracking down on hazing like it should? Or any other plague on the fraternity/sorority system? Or, does it feel more wishy-washy and heavy on “super secret double probations” that don’t mean anything? 

Are we really serious about values-alignment, or not? 

Is your IFC or Panhellenic imposing consequences on chapters that do not observe community standards? Or, do we wink and turn the other cheek. If it’s the latter, then our institutions deserve every criticism we’re receiving. 

Of course, it’s not that simple. The church believes in redemption. We believe in learning moments. How do we square that with a desire to be tough on those who violate our values? One way is to ensure that there is no question about what is considered right and wrong. Hazing is wrong – always. Sexual assault is wrong – always. Our members start their journey at the age of 18 or 19 and that means they are adults who should understand these issues. They just need to be told once and then they should be expected to understand the consequences of their actions. 

If you want to be proud of this greater fraternity/sorority institution again, it starts with being proud of what happens when our own members step outside of the values we hold dear. Are you proud of how your national organization reacts? Or your campus? 

Or do they too often shake your faith? 

This is a call for us all to start judging our fellow organizations and campuses by what matters - not the fact that incidents occur - but rather how they respond.  

Is the Era of Big Greek Government Upon Us?

I wonder which of the following feels more like progress to you:  the day in which the fraternity movement relies on a strong centralized power structure to keep it accountable to what it promotes and stands for,  or the day in which all fraternity organizations are committed and responsible enough to manage their own affairs and hold their own chapters accountable to their own values and ideals?  Which of those scenarios lie closer to your ideal? 

And, based upon your ideal, how would you assess this moment in our history?

For me, I come from the Ayn Rand school that teaches that if every individual lived to their highest potential, everything else takes care of itself.  It’s a lofty ideal, but I choose to support initiatives that bring us closer to that, not push us further away.

If every national fraternity lived to its own highest ideal, then our movement is healthy and progressive.  We’re not there yet, but let’s take actions with the assumption that we want to get there.

What are some signs that we’re moving away from this ideal?  The creation of bigger

unifying structures, for one.  It’s a natural inclination in times of crisis to want some big overarching structure to take the wheel.  For example, during the Great Depression, government grew substantially because we trusted it would make things better.  When we are fearful, we put too much trust in heroes.  Our belief that a crisis is too big to handle causes us to place irrational faith in institutions. 

Fraternity and sorority life could be in a crisis moment.  It’s hard to tell.  Membership doesn’t seem to be affected yet, but public perception continues to sink faster than my beloved Browns playoff hopes (yes I do realize it’s only the preseason).  At the minimum, many fraternity and sorority national leaders believe this to be a crisis moment.  This has led to increased involvement in Washington DC, leadership changes in umbrella organizations like the North American Interfraternity Conference (NIC), and talk of a new organization to supplant the NIC.

It’s a great tradition in fraternity and sorority life that when all else fails, let’s just make another organization.

“Big government” in fraternity life is not a new phenomenon.  I  heard a speech from Jeff Cufaude many years ago in which he quipped that most fraternity board members are probably small-government conservatives in their political ideology but more than willing to let their national organizations become centralized and controlling institutions.  Chapter shenanigans over the years have led to the policy manuals getting thicker, not slimmer.  The NIC unified around standards that member organizations were tasked to enforce.  For better or worse, these standards imposed a way of being on these groups.

If we were choosing three words to describe the last 3 decades of fraternity life, I nominate “Thou Shalt Not.”

Fraternity leaders are exploring a new initiative – possibly a new trade association – called the Interfraternal Collaboration Effort, or ICE.  There are many new strategies being discussed in this effort and many smart people involved.  I’m far enough removed to pass proper judgment on if ICE has the right approach.  As an observation, ICE is different from the NIC is a very apparent way.  It’s more. 

It wants to do more, staff more, involve itself on campuses more,  spend more, and cost more. 

Thus, here we are in a moment of crisis and one answer seems to be to consolidate at the top.  To put more into the tip of the pyramid.  To put money behind probably the biggest centralized effort in the history of our movement.   

Hey – this could work.  But do you know what else could?

How about national fraternities having the guts to hold their own chapters accountable to their own standards.  To have the courage to pull more charters, even from those elite institutions with the influential alumni.  To take a stand about what it means to be a member of the organization and stick with it even when it hurts the bottom line to do so.  

Before the leaders of our national organizations put even greater resources into a unified structure, they ought to ensure that their own house is in order as much as possible.  After all, a unifying structure shouldn’t exist to clean up your fraternity’s mess. 

Outsourcing the individual responsibility each fraternity has to manage the behavior and experience of its own members is about as far away from progress as I can imagine.  I suppose you could say we’ve already been moving down that road by expecting campus personnel to enforce our own standards.

I’m not naïve.  I understand that there is frustration in the Greek world and it’s searching for a solution.  And there are some central efforts needed to protect fraternities and sororities from dangers like campus’s enacting all-Greek suspensions.

I would favor a solution in which the vast majority of responsibility falls to individual national groups to address their own issues, complimented by a small and lean association that does a few things very well.  In any discussion about new or renewed umbrella organizations going forward, I hope someone is advocating for that ratio.

Fraternity and sorority chapters should understand a very important thing: your Interfraternity Council and Panhellenic Council are not there to solve your problems.  That’s why you are there.  Handing the keys over to an umbrella entity to make your experience safe, healthy, and significant is like expecting your church to make you holy.  The church can provide a forum for education and reflection, but it’s ultimately your decision to behave in the appropriate way.

Your personal experience, your chapter’s success, and your organization’s destiny still lie in your hands.  Seize it.  And don’t give it away.

Fraternal Relevancy that Matters

The word “relevance” seems to be all the rage right now.  I’m reading it and hearing it much more often, and I’ve spoken with many Greek Advisors who incorporate that term frequently into their discussions with undergraduates.  Many Alumni programs seem to grapple with the idea of relevance as well.  I have a few observations on that term and its use towards Greek-letter organizations.

When examining fraternal relevance we need to add the question, “relevant to what?” A thing cannot just be relevant on its own.  It needs to be relevant to something else.   

 

Greek-letter organizations can ask if they are relevant to any of the following:  host colleges/universities, individual members’ lives, and/or the growth of society as a whole.  I think most people are considering colleges/universities when they speak of fraternal relevance.  In other words, when asking about the relevance of college fraternities and sororities, they are questioning whether or not they are still pertinent to the host institution.  That’s fine – but we shouldn’t use that as our only measure.  If we determine that we are no longer relevant to host institutions, then is it over?  No. We may still be VERY relevant to the lives of our individual members who will achieve great things because of their involvement.  Greek-letter organizations may still be VERY relevant to the growth of our society – particularly American society and its need for leaders and organizers.

If tomorrow, all host institutions decided to cut their ties with Greek-letter organizations, would we go the way of the dodo?  I doubt we would.  Instead, we would adapt.  For instance, we might transform into more community-oriented organizations, much like Kiwanis or Freemasons.  We would find a way to carry on.

I’m not making the case that we ignore our relationship with our host institutions.  In all possible ways, we need to nurture that relationship.  We should be actively concerned with how we impact the academic success of our members.  If we house students on a particular campus, we should ensure that we are creating safe and secure living environments.  Overall, we should act as good partners to these institutions, because partners are what we are.

I understand the need to play nice with our “hosts.”  I value the perspectives and call to action brought forth by the Franklin Square group.  But, I fear that in philosophical and tangible ways, we are handing over our right to exist to institutions of higher education – most of which never really wanted us to exist in the first place. 

In other words, the frenzy over trying to regain relevance to colleges and universities has to be tempered with the following question:  were we ever meant to be relevant?  Were we ever really meant to compliment the mission of the campuses where our founders happened to meet up?  I admit that I am not a “Bairds Manual” aficionado that can speak to fraternity history with precision.  However, my understanding of the founding of our movement is that individuals were looking for something that wasn’t provided in their college experience.  They wanted shared values, camaraderie, spirited debate, and fun.  I doubt they took much time wondering how these new organizations fit into the missions of their college or university.  My interpretation of our beginnings is that we were borne out of defiance to the host institutions, not in seamless companionship with them.  So while we should care about that relationship now, should it really define our right to exist?

Focusing on our relevancy to higher education also puts us on the defensive.  We are always stuck responding to someone else’s needs.  This results in a one-way relationship, with colleges and universities holding all the cards.  Simply by asking the question of whether or not we are relevant to our host institutions, we are positing the possibility that we are not.  We are falsely expressing that we might not matter.

We do matter.  We do make a difference - ask almost any person who has had a fraternal experience.  We
have a story to share, and lessons to teach.  Our values are timeless, and every man or woman who passes through our organizations can be better off by having learned them.  If we are to dissolve, it will not be because we stopped being relevant to a university or a college – it will be because we stopped being relevant to those who are yet to join.