The announcement that new member fraternity pledging was to end by April 7 shocked and hurt the fraternity community. The decision was unforeseen and had to be hastily carried out. To organize an entire brotherhood in order to reshuffle plans for something so important as initiation is no small task. The University’s decision caused so much hoopla not because lazy fraternity brothers wanted to milk as much cleaning as they could out of new member pledges, but because it interfered with traditions that stretch back for years.
According to the Inter-Fraternity Council, fraternities have been a part of University life since 1852. While fraternity life changes as members graduate and new students pledge, brotherhoods have been in place here for more than a century and a half. At a school that values tradition as much as this one does, cutting down fraternity customs was inconsistent with the University’s image and unfair to the Greek community. While the administration did not say whether or not the mandatory initiation date would be permanently installed, it was willing to use it once, leaving the possibility of recurrence open. To make this mandatory initiation policy permanent, however, would be a mistake.
I do not mean to argue that new member pledging is a flawless process. Certainly, we have seen horrible examples of what can go wrong with pledging in recent years: hospitalizations for drinking and, most notably, sodium poisoning, have marred the perception of the University’s fraternity culture. But these mistakes do not exemplify fraternity life as a whole.
One of the ways fraternity brothers establish solidarity is through their individual pledge process traditions. Brothers use these traditions to teach new members what it means to be a part of a specific fraternity as opposed to merely being enmeshed in the University’s Greek system. Having an IFC-wide initiation date, without giving attention to the needs of specific fraternities, would prevent this teaching from happening.
Because fraternities are so individualized, a mandatory initiation date not only damages fraternity tradition across the IFC but also damages the particular new member routines of each house. It strips brotherhoods of one of their main methods of making themselves distinctive. If fraternities are meant to be philanthropic for the community and formative for their members, having a large number of chapters that cater to an eclectic range of personality types is crucial. This individuality is rooted in tradition.
A permanent mandatory initiation date would not remedy the problems it intends to. The administration’s decision came as a response to hazing investigations and inappropriate behavior perpetrated by some chapters. The University has a legitimate interest in stopping hazing, and it should. But to make a lasting policy requiring an end to new member pledging would not stop hazing behavior. It would simply shorten the amount of time in which hazing took place.
While the University’s move ended hazing for some of this year’s pledges, instituting the same deadline in 2014 will not protect next year’s pledges, as the chapters who participate in such degrading practices would presumably pack an entire semester’s worth into several weeks. A permanent IFC-wide initiation date would thus punish brotherhoods that use the pledging process appropriately — such as to teach tradition or build respect among new brothers — by taking away their ability to design it as productively possible, and it would not stop other brotherhoods from using the process manipulatively.
A better way to prevent hazing is to increase the presence of University Police around Rugby Road and force the IFC to adopt a more stringent no-tolerance policy. Although hazing occurs behind closed doors, an increased police presence would make hazing more difficult. And while the IFC is not aware of precisely what goes on in every fraternity, the body is more familiar with the brotherhoods than the University administration. These methods would thus place the burden of hazing prevention on bodies that could discern the behavior of individual fraternities more easily as opposed to having the administration step in with a blanket policy.
Fraternities accepted the uniform initiation date, however begrudgingly, but they should not have to again. Considering the alternative methods of hazing prevention that are available — not to mention the stress imposed on brotherhoods that had to arrange meaningful initiation ceremonies at the last minute, and the potential stunting of fraternities’ identities — the administration should not repeat its decision in coming semesters. While most fraternities keep their traditions secret to strengthen the bond between brothers, as a fraternity member I can attest to their meaningfulness. All and all, the problem with new member pledging lies in dangerous behavior associated with particular chapters, not with the individual customs associated with the initiation process’ duration.
Walter Keady is an Opinion columnist for The Cavalier Daily. His column runs Tuesdays.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 2 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 4 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | April 25, 2024Instead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
