At the request of the Editor, Miss Edith Rickert, a graduate of Vassar College, recently undertook an investigation of the character and influence of the fraternities in women's colleges. The results of this impartial study were then sent in advance-sheets to the heads of several prominent colleges for women, whose comments on the articles are herewith presented. The varying views which they record are supplemented by the letter from Mrs. McElroy, chairman of the National Panhellenic Congress, the official organization of the women's Greek-letter societies.
By The President of Vassar College
Fraternities Meet A Demand.
Their Salvation Is In The Healthful Spirit Of The Younger Generation.I am glad to comment upon Miss Rickert's interesting, careful, and impartial articles on "Fraternities in our Women's Colleges." Although I may differ with her in some of her opinions, I have only admiration for the spirit in which she has worked out a difficult problem and for the balance of judgment as well as the thoroughness shown in her investigation.
I write from the point of view of a fraternity man having had no experience with sororities. As a member of a fraternity that did for me in my college years a vast deal to direct and supplement the very best in my college life, I feel grateful to it. I have no reason to suppose that its ideals and its inspiration have changed radically, though the addition of the chapter-houses since my day may possibly emphasize the very evils which Miss Rickert indicates as threats, at least, to all such organizations. In our investigation of the higher cost of living we perhaps have not emphasized enough our higher living, and the comparison of the cost of fraternities to-day and forty years ago bears on the problem. It is possible also that living in these rather expensive houses, often beyond their own means, and largely supported by others, may in other ways have an unfavorable influence. I cannot think, however, that the evils of snobbishness referred to so particularly by Miss Rickert have special application to the fraternities for men or women. Snobbishness is not made by fraternal organizations, or confined to them, and nothing will ever do away with the spirit that begets it whether there are organizations or only individuals left to us. My knowledge of the fraternities for men leads me to dissent for the most part from what is said regarding that evil, though it is possible that that spirit would grow more quickly, from the conditions of their life, among young women.
The fraternity meets a real demand. The question whether this can be met by more favorable conditions of living is the important point raised by Miss Rickert. My experience for many years in a woman's college has led me to believe that among young women, at least, the conditions of life may be made such as to render sororities undesirable and undesired. I have heard no demand for them excepting in one or two cases by a member of such a society from another college. The large, generous life that the young women make for themselves, the general spirit of democracy among them, and a really sincere desire to have others share in the common benefits, the large number of clubs and societies, often temporary, the abundant life of the athletic world, with its stimulating comradeship, and the vital activities of the Students' Association, the Christian Association, and other such bodies, have esteemed to absorb all the interests that under other conditions go into the fraternity relationship.
I question strongly, with Miss Rickert, whether the plan for the delay of pledging will have any vital influence in reducing the evils she has sketched. The policy at colleges, where there has been an annual passing of a small body of men from one society to another, would not seem to support the hope. Even if honestly maintained, the plan must take account of this influence on the uncertain freshman.
Nor do I think that a cottage system such as is suggested by Miss Rickert would have any particular influence upon the development of sororities. It would tend, if there were a large number of those cottages, I fear, to the gathering in particular cottages of the sets or cliques that in their worst phase form certain of our fraternities. The advantage of a building for a hundred rather than for twenty or thirty is something like that of a fair-sized, well-conducted hotel as compared with a small boarding-house. The supreme difficulty of finding proper heads of such houses is in itself an argument against the possibility of such a general cottage system. Nor can I think with Miss Rickert that it would be desirable to call back young graduates for this service. There are no better people in the world than the recent graduates of our best colleges, none with higher ideals, and none with a keener purpose to make them real; but, after all, what is wanted in the head of a house is some experience, as well as sympathy with youth, and the guidance that young people can look up to, and which they really desire.
Here as elsewhere the only hope of meeting the real dangers and real evils which are possible in a fraternity system is in cultivating a right and healthful spirit among the young toward one another and toward the work of life, and a clear, objective, sane view of things and people as they are. Then these other matters will adjust themselves. Happily with the spirit common among our young people to-day, that is not a hard thing to do.
James M. Taylor.
By The Dean Of Women, University Of Chicago
Fraternities Cultivate General Superficiality.
College Authorities Should Take The Aggressive.Miss Rickert has presented the fraternity problem with charm and fairness, but my experience with such secret organizations leads me to think that she might have emphasized more strongly three points, namely:
First, these organizations profess to establish and maintain high standards in social relations. They are, however, ready to adopt, in securing their pledges, most grotesque and ill-mannered methods, such as well-bred women in normal social relations would never countenance. There is no doubt that the high social principles professed by them are constantly sacrificed in securing "desirable" members.
Second, the harmfulness of developing such an artificial and rigid, as well as essentially indiscriminating, method of securing intimate friends at a period of rapid development and change in character and ideals should be considered. Some degree at least of the flexibility in social relations which characterizes later years is especially desirable at this time.
Third, the system, controlled as it is by self-imposed standards drawn from the narrow experiences of youth and applied after brief acquaintance, must tend toward undue recognition of such matters as dress, manners, and social popularity. This virtually means emphasis on a method which is directly opposed to the whole purpose of liberal training, and stultifies the efforts of the college to arouse the sympathies, and incite an interest in the large affairs of life which should begin at this period, if ever, to displace the activities of childhood.
I should dissent from the characterization of men's societies as differing from women in that "they look outward rather than inward." My observation leads me to believe that the men's groups seldom take any active interest in real scholarship, politics, art, letters, or philanthropy, and in the women's organizations there is often quite effective, though spasmodic, organized interest in one or more of these directions.
The college authorities are greatly to blame in assuming an attitude not merely of helplessness in the handling of these organizations but of deference to them. A system which perverts true standards of friendship and of character, and carries in its wake bitterness and dishonesty, should not be tolerated. Not until the college replaces its present method of controlling the social instinct through prohibition and restriction applied to such groups as fraternities by a positive and even aggressive policy in which every agency within reach is utilized for the training in efficiency and for the molding of character will the evils of the fraternity system give way to more natural friendships and to a more democratic and generous attitude toward life.
Marion Talbot.
By The Dean Of Barnard College
Despite Their Evils, Fraternities Hand On High Ideals.
The New Religion Of "Social Service" Will Save Them.Miss Rickert's articles give an interesting survey of many of the problems connected with fraternities. Among the evils she touches on I have been most impressed, in my own experience, with the occasional jealousies and quarrels among the fraternities, the bad influence which they sometimes exert in college politics, the distractions of the exasperating practice known as "rushing," and most of all by the pain and bitterness felt by some of those who are left out. On the other hand, no administrative officer can fail to appreciate the value of the best fraternities in the social system. They cut across the lines between the four classes and hand on, from college generation to generation, sound traditions and high ideals. The influence of the older members on the younger ones can be used to guide many an erring freshman or sophomore. Fraternity members are likely to be loyal alumnae, bound to their alma mater by added ties of affection and service. As Miss Rickert says, they are trained to effective "team-work."
How can we preserve the merits of the system and abolish its evils? Since fraternities, like other social organizations, are but human, we can never entirely achieve this ideal end. The plan of cottage households suggested by Miss Rickert could help us but little at Barnard, where the great majority of our students live at their own homes. The solution is most likely to come, I think, from that other source doubtfully mentioned by Miss Rickert at the end of her second article. "We need a new religion to teach the subordination of personal good to communal welfare," she asserts; but in seeking it "we falter and fail." I am more optimistic than she; I believe this new religion is at hand. Stirring through our student body, and among the fraternity members no less than among the others, is a new and wonderful spirit of democracy, of "brotherhood" in the broadest and noblest sense. More and more our women appear to be unwilling to enjoy personal pleasure and development which the community as a whole cannot share. More and more common is the student who is eager to subordinate her individual good to the welfare of society. Very touching and inspiring is this idealism, this intense desire for "social service." I do not mean that we shall never again suffer from college snobs; but I do believe that the new spirit will inspire the fraternity members themselves to work with their non-fraternity sisters for the reform of the college social system, to consider the chapters fairly, and to end them or mend them, as may seem best for the community as a whole. Perhaps the process will be long, and in it we shall lose something of value; but at all events it will be an inspiring sight to see our college women working honestly in the endeavor to put into practice the social ideal of the new democracy.
Virginia C. Gildersleeve.
By The President Of Wellesley College
Better An Organized Than An Unorganized Clique.
Select Its Members On A Basis Of Scholarship And Public Spirit.I have read with much interest the articles by Miss Rickert, on "The Fraternity Idea among College Women."
Even if one admits there are some advantages in these fraternities as described, no one who wishes to foster a sane, wholesome social life in women's colleges will deliberately choose their presence.
The problem is, How shall the advantages furnished by such organizations be conserved and the evils avoided? Undoubtedly the halls of residence already contribute largely to the "group development of students," and may be so administered as to do so more and more. Personally I doubt the wisdom of the selection by the dean or any other college officer of the group that shall constitute the family in these halls of residence. In my judgment, grouping by lot, haphazard though it may be, is much to be preferred. Even a dean is fallible, and a single mistake made by her is far more disastrous than an undesirable group determined by lot. One is an error in judgment on the part of a college official, something which might have been avoided and therefore, to the students, intolerable; the other is an accident inherent in the system for which no one is responsible, and, with the help and inspiration of the house mother, may rouse the students to their community responsibility and may challenge them to conquer despite an apparent unfortunate combination of persons. Much indeed depends upon the house mother. Every college is often forced to choose only the better instead of the best, but all must agree that larger halls of residence in charge of house mothers who are women of "ability, tact, social distinction, and loving-kindness" make for the finer development of students than a larger number of smaller halls, if they must be put in charge of inexperienced though loyal alumnae.
The fact remains that, however wisely the halls of residence may be administered, cliques will arise. Unfortunately, the abolition of all fraternities national or local will not mean disappearance of all cliques. Granted that such cliques are bound to exist: is it not better that they should be organized, since organization makes possible a friendly supervision by the faculty, and carries with it a sense of responsibility to the community? Such organizations have been known to develop a fine sense of community responsibility.
About three years ago the six literary and social societies of Wellesley College, all local organizations, on their own initiative asked the consent of the faculty to a change in their basis of membership. This change was approved, and has now been in operation for more than two years. The new system limits membership in these societies to juniors and seniors, and provides for an eligible list of students selected on the basis of (1) scholarship and (2) public-spirited service to class and college. This is not the time or the place to enter into the details of the plan, but it is based on the principle that the privilege of membership in some one of these societies is open to any junior or senior who wishes to earn it either by attaining high rank in academic work or by serving the community in other ways. The diverse elements in a group so constituted react upon one another and are a potent factor in the development of each individual.
Every college must meet its own problems, and the same method of solution will not be applicable in all institutions. This proposal by the Wellesley societies of such a basis of membership and their success in accomplishing it is a significant instance of "the subordination of personal good to communal welfare" which Miss Rickert rightly says is needed. May the colleges for women foster every such seed, hoping for a steady growth into a vigorous and responsible democracy!
Ellen F. Pendleton.
By The President Of Mount Holyoke College
Fraternities Non-Democratic And Destructive To Freedom Of Intercourse.
"Rushing" Emphasizes The Wrong Values.Miss Rickert's articles on fraternities among college women I have read with keen interest. My own convictions are the result of over twenty years' experience in New England colleges of two types: first, as a student in an affiliated college, the Women's College in Brown University, and charter member of the first society organized there; second, as a member of the Wellesley College faculty for five years; and third, as executive at Mount Holyoke for twelve years.
My conclusions about the societies are as follows:
First, they are opposed to the best interests of the college itself. As "aristocratic organizations" the fraternities work against a democratic spirit, one of the most valuable influences which the college can exert, and perhaps more needed among women than among men. I have known many earnest, thoughtful girls, members of societies, who have fought against this influence, but have found it impossible to bring exclusive self-perpetuating organizations in harmony with their democratic ideals. As members of the Christian Association, the Student Government, and other inclusive undergraduate bodies, they have been placed in the inconsistent position of working for an equality of privilege that their membership in an exclusive organization denied.
Second, fraternities seem to me opposed to the best interests of the students as individuals. I think that membership in such an organization is a serious handicap to the girl who has a real desire to work for the common welfare of the college. She is handicapped by rules and artificial restrictions intended to prevent "rushing," by the misinterpretation of what would otherwise be perfectly natural friendliness, by her own self-consciousness and the self-consciousness of those outside the society.
A broad-minded and independent girl may rise above these limitations and be a force in the college, but she is hampered by them in her broader social influence.
A more serious detriment to the life of the students as individuals is found in the case of those who are "eligible" for membership. No organization of this character can eliminate "rushing," and the attentions paid to an immature freshman make undue demand not only upon the time which ought to be given to her work, but also upon her nervous and physical strength. "Rushing" puts a wrong estimate upon values. It tends to increase the sense of importance of the student who is sought, and the depreciation of the one unsought.
It would be difficult to decide which student suffers the more. Student judgment is not infallible, and it is frequently impossible for an older observer to understand why one is taken and the other left. But to the young girl, sensitive and self-depreciating, the discrimination may be nothing less than a tragedy. Students have left college, and for others the entire college course has been embittered, because they were not elected to societies.
In the separate colleges for women and the affiliated colleges, making ample provision for halls of residence and social opportunities, the society-rooms and houses do not serve as homes for the students. The coeducational institutions have a different problem to meet, which can be more intelligently discussed by those who have had experience with this type of the college for women.
Mary E. Woolley.
By The President Of Bryn Mawr College
The Snobbish And Undemocratic Basis Of The Fraternity System.
Bryn Mawr College has a very simple answer to the Fraternities question: "Do without them."
When Bryn Mawr opened in 1885 it opened under a trustees' ruling that no society of any kind to which students were elected by their fellow students should be permitted to exist in the college. This rule was passed on my recommendation. I had seen what I believed were the evil effects of the men's Greek letter societies at Cornell University, extending even to the women students, who were made to understand that they must dance and associate only with the men of certain smart fraternities under penalty of being taboo to these fraternities forever after. We were recognized or ignored by fraternities, not by individuals. Fraternity feeling ran rampant in those early days at Cornell. In the midst of the primeval mud, unfinished buildings, and all the bare surroundings of a great university in the making, the snobbishness and social rivalry of secret societies flourished like an evil weed on what would have been supposed to be the barren soil of the earnest, eager students who came from simple homes. I deplore the unlovely spectacle of the scramble for election to the most popular secret societies that goes on in the fraternity and sorority colleges to-day. No imagined, or real, good can possibly compensate for this prostitution of the ideals of youth. However deeply it may be covered over by the fine words and even by the fine deeds of certain fraternities, there is at the root of all elective students' societies this fatal idea of social difference from one's fellows.
Any elective students' society takes away from the democratic character of an institution and causes the members of the student body to pay undue attention to the social and financial position of their fellow students, and also to those popular qualities which may, perhaps, make for success of a certain kind in after life, but which certainly should not be over-emphasized in college life. At Bryn Mawr no society is allowed to be formed unless the requirements for admission are clearly stated and filed in advance in the president's office, and are such as can be met by any student. These requirements may be as high as possible, but they must be open for competition to all alike. We have many clubs with all sorts of admission requirements, high and low; for example, in the English Club the writing requirements are so severe that only about ten students in the college can reach them at any given time. By the rules of the club there may be only ten members, and when there is only one vacancy it sometimes happens that two students are able to meet the requirements, but even in such a case the English Club is not permitted to choose between the students; the choice is left to the head of the essay department.
Year after year I am told by students who have come to Bryn Mawr from other colleges or universities, notably from the great Western state universities, that although Bryn Mawr has in proportion many more wealthy students, the feeling here seems to them much more democratic than in state universities, where fraternities and sororities influence the students, as I believe, for evil. As an instance of the democratic feeling at Bryn Mawr, which I am confident would be impossible if secret societies were permitted, when the college was begging for an endowment fund two years ago, I asked the students in chapel if they would be willing to form committees in the different halls of residence in order to obtain for me the names of the wealthy relations of the students then in college to whom I could appeal. Immediately a large committee of students came to see me, to tell me that it seemed to them undemocratic for any students' committees to have this knowledge as they feared the result on them, and that they thought it would be better for the students themselves to hand me in the names of their rich relations. That the financial position of our students is really unknown to their fellow students has been proved to me many times, notably when one of our graduates, who left a large legacy to the college, spent four years here without her fellow students or any one else at the college knowing that she was possessed of a large fortune.
If Miss Rickert's careful conclusions are justified, which I think must be frankly admitted by all, nothing that can be said in defense of fraternities can outweigh their serious and lasting harm. All that is good in them can be obtained in other ways, certainly in our residence colleges; but, even if these comparatively slight benefits cannot be secured in any other way in non-residence colleges, the wrong done by fraternities, even at their best, to all those ideals of social service and equality of opportunity that our students should most cherish in their youth, is so great that we must pluck them out, root and branch, from the older colleges for women, and never allow them to plant their evil seeds in the new.
M. Carey Thomas.
By The Chairman Of The Panhellenic Congress, And National President Of The Alpha Phi Fraternity
A Girl Separated From Her Family Needs Sympathy And Help.
Fraternities Share These Duties Of The College.The five oldest fraternities founded as Greek-letter societies by women sprang up in coeducational institutions of high rank before either Wellesley, Smith, or Bryn Mawr opened its doors. These colleges for women provided at once for the housing of their students, as well as for the supervision of their social affairs.
In contrast to this cloistered life of the women's colleges is that of the undergraduate in most of the coeducational colleges, where, of necessity, the housing of students and the supervision of their social life are inadequately provided for.
Deans of women are a recent innovation in many coeducational institutions. Formerly the girls in these colleges sought out one another for advice and chaperonage, and through conferences often effected better living conditions. Because of these needs the fraternity idea naturally evolved itself for women.
So new was college education for women forty years ago, and so eager for interchange of scholastic thought and congenial intercourse were these pioneer groups, that they sought out kindred groups in other colleges, and new chapters were founded, and the fraternity system for women was established. To-day, when it is the fashion to go to college, there are few coeducational institutions which have not experienced the beneficent influence of the fraternities among their students.
College is an artificial life, and the college girl, separated from her family and kindred, needs sympathy, criticism, and inspiration. Joining a congenial group often brings about her best development, as she in turn must show herself unselfish and ready to share mutual responsibilities.
As an alumna, she no doubt often renews her loyalty to her alma mater because the invitations from her chapter bring her back on college visits, and at the chapter-house or in the chapter-circle, because of her fraternity experiences, she renews her ideals and catches the prevailing inspiration of congeniality and helpfulness.
The fraternity chapter, like a family, must be comparatively small to induce the intimate associations necessary for character-building, supervision of scholarship, regulation of social life, and the training of leaders who are recognized in college activities.
It is a matter of congratulation that the growth of some fraternities is so steady that any young woman of good deportment and creditable scholarship may be enrolled or be instrumental in installing a new chapter in her college if she so wishes.
Society has grown complex without and within the college alike. The fraternities see in this complexity opportunities to serve the college and its community. In their desire to share the burden of the college, they have sought through the National Panhellenic Congress to cooperate with the faculties and with one another to improve social and scholarship conditions, and in all ways to promote a larger college spirit and a freer college life.
If college fraternities were rooted up, a premium might be placed on mediocrity, as cliques are natural, and local societies would result; and these groups, uninspired by the traditions of the fraternities, would lack the wholesome rivalry and the diversified point of view of the national organizations.
Mrs. John Howard McElroy.