COLUMN: The end of the brotherhood

From: Amar Kosaraju's, "And Justice For All," Fall '97 From: Amar Kosaraju's, "And Justice For All," Fall '97 I really don't understand how anyone can join a fraternity. Who in their right mind would ever would want to be a part of a fraternity? What kind of people join these "fraternities?" The answer is you. Whether you want to believe it or not, we are all a part of some kind of fraternity. In applying to Penn, you hoped for admission (or a bid) to the University. Once you decided to come here, you were required to spend the next four years killing yourself to get that valuable degree and membership to the Penn brotherhood. You were judged by an admissions committee to gain acceptance and then followed school guidelines -- whether you liked it or not -- in order to graduate thereby completing your pledging at the University. As students, we are a part of the Penn brotherhood. The professors here also have their unique fraternity. First, they are offered a job as an associate professor and then spend six stressful years trying to prove themselves so they can get tenure. They are constantly under the scrutiny of the full professor brotherhood who guide and advise them on their journey toward tenure. After the six years of pledging, the associate professor is judged by full professors for tenure and if so chosen, and given the status of full professor. The reality is we each have our own specific "fraternities" with separate guidelines and rituals defining each of the organizational and social groups we are a part of. Members of social fraternities are constantly seen on campus wearing their letters. The students of this University wear the same sweatshirts with the letters P-E-N-N sprawled on the front designating their membership to this University. The South Asian Society is as much a fraternity as the Hillel Student Association, in they each have a certain membership and exclusiveness associated with them. While we drive to live in this p.c. world, it is natural to associate with certain people and set guidelines for membership in different organizations among members who share common interests. However, for some reason, people do not have a problem wearing a Penn sweatshirt, advertising their Ivy League heritage, but will readily condemn and detest fraternity members for wearing their letters and being proud of their organizations. If you turn on the television or read the newspaper you consistently hear random authorities talking about the ills of fraternities. If you are a fraternity member, you have heard it all before. It is the same rhetoric that comes out of these people who can so easily judge and condemn on the basis of some higher virtue, without actually knowing the nature of fraternities. Fraternities are not based on hazing or drinking, but have a rich history based on brotherhood, loyalty, and responsibility. The fraternity I was a part of believed in the simple words, "Honor Super Omnia" -- meaning "Honor Before All Things." If you check the handbooks of every fraternity, you will see similar ideals expressed because the birth of fraternities were pure in thought and desire. They offered an alternative to students who wanted to have an enriched and meaningful college experience outside of the classroom. Unfortunately, the end of fraternities seems to be near. Universities across the country are systematically getting rid of fraternities. If one fraternity brother assaults a women or gets drunk, then every fraternity brother is a drunk and criminal. Even though society is not perfect, fraternities are expected to maintain this high standard and are continuously judged on the actions of a few. When a professor is convicted of sexual harassment, does that mean every professor is a sex offender? Fraternities do not exist in a vacuum, but are reflective of the society we live in. There is no denying that excessive amounts of alcohol are consumed at fraternities, but I will also bet that I can go to every off-campus apartment and find enough alcohol to fill University President Judith Rodin's wet bar adequately. The University targets fraternities because they are visible and can easily be manipulated. Every freshmen has the freedom to join any activity they want to on campus, but has to wait for the second semester to join a fraternity. This policy is completely discriminatory, but is viable because it is based on the logic that the grades of freshman will go down if they join a fraternity. I agree. However, I'm sure I can also prove that freshman will do substantially better academically if they did not play sports, were active in campus organizations or participated in any other extra-curricular activity. It would be different if the University did not allow any first-semester freshman to participate in activities, but they simply target fraternities and create a double-standard. Fraternities have to constantly justify their existence, when they should have the same freedom to exist as other organizations. In 20 years, the fraternities of this country will be no more. The administrators of universities will systematically get rid of fraternities one by one, imposing more regulations and creating a double standard of treatment that will eventually kill each fraternity. It is unfortunate, because the value of a college education is not only found in the classroom but consists of the experiences, memories, and friendships developed outside of the classroom. For over 100 years fraternities have provided that "life experience" for countless students. Let students who choose fraternities to have the freedom to create their own future brotherhoods.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.