The Value of the Greek System: Should Fraternities and Sororities Have a Place on Campus?

Deanna M. Garrett

Critics of the Greek system argue that fraternities and sororities perpetuate widespread alcohol abuse, sexual abuse, sexual assault, and discrimination, and call for the elimination of Greek organizations on college campuses. Do the positive benefits gained by members outweigh the negative consequences enough to justify the continuation of Greek social organizations? This article explores the hotly debated issues surrounding the Greek system, whether institutions should ban fraternities and sororities, and how Greek members and institutions should respond to the criticisms and concerns.

In recent decades, fraternities and sororities have come under attack due to the negative consequences associated with the cultures present in many Greek systems. Opponents of the Greek system argue that fraternities and sororities perpetuate environments for alcohol abuse, sexual assault, and discrimination (Heida, 1990; Maisel, 1990). Proponents point to the advanced social development of fraternity and sorority members, leadership opportunities, and alumni donations as evidence of the Greek system’s service and value to higher education. However, do these positive benefits outweigh the negative consequences? Are fraternities and sororities to blame for widespread alcohol abuse and sexual assault on college campuses? Are they meeting the needs of their members? What do students gain from membership in Greek social organizations? What would students lose if colleges and universities eliminated Greek systems, and how would they compensate for such a loss? This essay explores and responds to these questions while examining the factors that influence decisions to retain or eliminate fraternities and sororities, and the implications of those decisions for higher education.

Recent events involving fraternity members demonstrate the urgency and timeliness of questioning whether Greek systems should remain a part of higher education. Alcohol-related student deaths at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Louisiana State University, and the University of North Carolina, as well as an alleged racially motivated attack by fraternity members on a student of color at The University of Vermont are all evidence of a Greek system in need of changes. These are not isolated events, and can be found throughout the nation’s colleges and universities. Institutions cannot continue to support the current culture of fraternities and sororities, further perpetuating excessive drinking and blatant discrimination. Students are at risk, and Greek members and institutions must work to change the culture. A major restructuring or a banning of Greek systems at colleges and universities must take place. If Greek organizations are banned, institutions must ensure there are sufficient opportunities for student leadership, interaction with peers, and social events.

History of the Greek System

To determine if fraternities and sororities are meeting the needs of students, one must return to their original purposes. Students founded Greek organizations to provide themselves a social alternative, an outlet to the rigorous academic requirements of college. Social fraternities gave students opportunities to interact with other students and release their energy and stress. The first fraternity began at Union College in 1825, and by 1840 most colleges in New England and New York had created fraternities on their campuses (Rudolph, 1962). Fraternities "offered an escape from the monotony...[and] escape from the long winters and ingrown college world.…the Greek letter fraternity and its counterpart, the social club, were intended to fill an emotional and social rather than a curricular vacuum" (p. 146). The Greek system quickly grew to include large social organizations and became an integral part of many students’ college experiences. Through camaraderie among members, students developed strong bonds with their peers and a sense of belonging in their communities. Greek organizations became institutions rich in tradition and loyalty, with students taking great pride in their organizations. However, opponents of the Greek system argue that widespread alcohol abuse, sexual assault, and discrimination resulted from fraternities and sororities, and use these justifications for eliminating Greek social organizations on campus.

There exists a public opinion that fraternities, in particular, perpetuate an unhealthy culture in which students frequently abuse alcohol. This culture begins with fraternity rush when hundreds of young men attempt to become members of the Greek system. Individual fraternities provide alcohol at many events including parties and other social affairs. A chapter may claim to participate in dry rush, where the fraternity does not serve alcohol; however, members often disregard this regulation. Fraternity brothers may haze new pledges, forcing them to drink excessively and engage in dangerous activities against their will and better judgment. Many consider this a rite of passage for membership in a fraternity. The alcohol culture continues throughout the academic year as fraternities host parties—most of which are open to all students—where members serve large amounts of alcohol. Many Greek systems have regulations in place to limit alcohol consumption to legal-aged students, and keep close watch over the amount of alcohol an individual consumes during the night. However, these measures go only so far and can be easily circumvented. Members loosely enforce rules and students frequently gain illegal access to alcohol. Large attendance at parties makes it difficult for even well-intentioned fraternities to properly enforce regulations. Often, students outside the Greek system view fraternities as a primary social outlet and attend open house parties on weekends. They may have little disregard for their own safety and see parties as an easy source of alcohol.

Sororities facilitate a similar alcohol culture to fraternities, though less frequently and in different ways. Often, sororities do not host parties, but do participate in social mixers with fraternities. These mixers include alcohol, and although fewer people attend, mixers have similar outcomes as fraternity functions. The alcohol culture and peer pressure encourages students to drink and insinuates that they cannot have fun without consuming alcohol. Consequences of excessive alcohol use vary among individuals, but may include illness, binge drinking or alcoholism, physical violence, sexual assault, or even death.

Negative Consequences

The negative consequences of Greek organizations can serve as volatile issues for fraternity and sorority members, students, faculty, administrators, and the community. They can also greatly affect the reputation of the college or university. Administrators must be wary of liability issues and the possibilities for legal litigation. In addition, opponents criticize Greek organizations for facilitating alcohol abuse and sexual assault, promoting homogeneous memberships, and employing elitist, racist, and heterosexist values.

Today, critics argue fraternities and sororities have lost sight of their founding goals and many positive outcomes of the Greek system by focusing too much on the social aspect of Greek membership. Often, fraternities and sororities carry out traditions because they are traditions, without ever stopping to contemplate their meanings or necessity. Events that may be heterosexist or racist in nature continue simply because the events are popular, build community, and create a sense of loyalty among Greek members. Because traditions also have these positive outcomes, they remain an integral component of Greek culture. While concern for the community, sense of belonging, and membership loyalty still exist in Greek organizations, public perception is that the importance of these aspects has decreased and given way to a focus on social events and parties.

Alcohol Culture

Six deaths occurred in 1997 as a result of excessive drinking on college campuses (Kalb, 1997). Most recently, one student died from excessive drinking while at a fraternity event at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Officials believe fraternity members were hazing pledges, forcing them to consume large quantities of alcohol. Twelve students were found unconscious at a fraternity at Louisiana State University; three were transported to the hospital, and one died from complications as a result of binge drinking ("Raise a fond last glass," 1997). At the University of North Carolina at Chapel-Hill, five students died in a fire at a fraternity house. Four of the students were believed to be too drunk to evacuate the house. Although these incidents are recent, they are not new issues. However, no reliable statistics exist on the number of alcohol-related fraternity deaths that have occurred over the years (Kalb). Nationwide, instances such as these, as well as alcohol-related physical violence and destruction of property, are becoming more common on college campuses. Perpetrators of these actions often have some tie to the Greek system. As a result, the public has become critical of the purpose of and need for fraternities and sororities.

While fraternity and sorority members form strong bonds, much of the bonding among members revolves around alcohol and partying. Alcohol is such an integral part of fraternity socials that many members ask what would remain if administrators took away Greek organizations’ rights to consume alcohol? Could fraternities and sororities meet the same needs and goals in a "dry" environment, and if so, would they be willing to do so? Many students join fraternities for the social aspect, with the assumption it will include alcohol.

In March 1997, two of the largest national fraternities voted to ban alcohol at all events ("Raise a fond last glass," 1997). Phi Delta Theta and Sigma Nu agreed to go dry by the year 2000, due to the many negative factors associated with alcohol use in fraternities. One possible factor in their decision is increasing costs of insurance to serve alcohol on campus. The insurance premiums may account for nearly 80 percent of insurance costs ("Raise a fond last glass"). Opponents of dry fraternities argue that banning alcohol will only force parties off campus or underground. These parties may go largely unchecked and unsupervised, and may create even larger risks. Tighter control may lead to greater rebellion and secrecy, but ultimately do not solve the problem. Some argue alcohol always has and will continue to be part of the Greek social scene.

Perhaps banning the use of alcohol at fraternity and sorority functions is not the best solution; however, it is an attempt to change the culture. What is lacking is a change in the mindset of students. An assumption exists among many students that alcohol must be present to have fun. Without challenging these assumptions, Greek organizations cannot change the alcohol culture. Institutions and Greek organizations also need to provide social alternatives and role model responsible use of alcohol.

Sexual Assault

Skeptics of the Greek system blame fraternity parties and sorority mixers for creating environments that perpetuate rape and sexual assault. A premise for mixers and parties is for men and women to socialize with the goal of finding a dating or sexual partner, and where sex is often a desired outcome. Peer pressure and the loss of inhibitions often associated with excessive drinking may facilitate an environment for rape. Alcohol is a large factor in many of the sexual assault incidents against college women (Muehlenhard & Linton, 1987). Members of fraternities are three times more likely than non-members to commit violence while drinking, and gang rape is strongly linked with fraternity membership (Sanday, 1990).

These statistics seem to justify critics’ concerns about the rape culture perpetuated by the Greek system. Although fraternities and sororities cannot account for all sexual assault incidents which take place, the environment they create merely adds to the problem. Institutions and Greek members must enact change in these cultures, and must begin educating students about sexual assault as well as alcohol abuse.

Discrimination

Due to its selectivity, the Greek system is, by design, an elitist institution. The processes of rushing and pledging at fraternities and sororities facilitates elitism, and the rising cost of membership fees limits the number of students who can afford to join the Greek system. Because of the rising cost of insuring and maintaining a Greek house, fraternities and sororities have increased dues, causing a decrease in members ("Raise a fond last glass," 1997).

Historically, fraternities and sororities have excluded racial and ethnic minorities. At several institutions, minority groups have begun their own chapters in addition to the traditional Greek organizations. Latino/a and Asian students in southern California and African American students in Texas have created diverse and accepting chapters ("Raise a fond last glass," 1997). Jewish students across the United States have also formed their own fraternities and sororities. Racial segregation does not promote diversity and portrays fraternities and sororities as closed organizations. Admittedly, some universities have taken measures to integrate sororities and fraternities, and to facilitate better communication between historically black and "traditional" fraternities and sororities. The number of colleges successfully taking these steps, however, is minimal.

Gay, lesbian, and bisexual students are also excluded by fraternities and sororities. Although many stories have been told about lesbians and gays being openly excluded from sororities and fraternities, little research has been published on the topic. What is evident, however, is the fact that fraternities and sororities historically have not created an inviting environment for gay, lesbian, or bisexual students (Hughes, 1991). Social events including mixers and dances where members are expected to bring dates of the opposite sex are heterosexist. These events pressure gay, lesbian, and bisexual students to conform to the expectations of the fraternities and sororities, and may force students to "compensate and express an overtly heterosexual orientation in order to feel secure with the chapter" (p. 99). Critics argue that homophobic attitudes are common among many fraternity and sorority members, which manifest themselves in language, rush activities, and pledging events.

Positive Outcomes

Fraternities and sororities provide students with social outlets and the opportunity to interact with peers. Research by Hughes and Winston (1987) indicates involvement in Greek organizations facilitates development of autonomy, individual identity, and mature interpersonal relationships. In addition, fraternities and sororities provide students with leadership opportunities and skills. Members are more likely than non-members to become involved in the university community and organizations on campus, to exert greater academic effort, and to interact more with other students (Pike & Askew, 1990). "Increased involvement may affect students’ satisfaction with the college environment, reinforcing a desire to continue academic pursuits, while at the same time creating a situation whereby the college experience facilitates members’ personal growth and development" (Hunt & Rentz, 1994, p. 289). Involvement in Greek social organizations facilitates establishing and clarifying purpose, and developing mature interpersonal relationships, intimacy, and academic autonomy (Hunt & Rentz). However, are these positive outcomes enough?

Conclusions

After examination, it appears that the benefits of Greek organizations, although very positive and important, do not outweigh the negative consequences. Fraternities and sororities may rightly claim to be social outlets for students, to create opportunities to develop interpersonal and leadership skills, and to be environments where members are welcome and can develop a sense of belonging. As a result, fraternities and sororities may facilitate positive psychosocial development. However, in the context of the current culture of alcohol abuse, sexual assault, racism, heterosexism, and elitism in the Greek system, it may be harder to facilitate this development. Social development in college is extremely important for young men and women, but it should not be combined with alcohol and other negative influences.

The most central issue is the existence of an alcohol culture in the Greek system and how to deal with it. In order to address the issue of alcohol use, colleges must provide other social niches and opportunities for students in the place of Greek organizations. Leadership positions as well as opportunities for general membership exist in cultural and political organizations, leadership and literary societies, intramural recreation sports, residence hall councils, and other co-curricular activities. If organizations such as these are small in number, then the university must create more opportunities for students. Administrators cannot take away Greek systems without providing other social and leadership opportunities.

If Greek organizations are to remain viable, they must shift their focus away from alcohol. At the least, fraternities and sororities need to teach and role model responsible drinking. They should educate members and the larger community about the negative effects of excessive drinking, the dangers of alcohol abuse, as well as the alcohol and rape cultures alcohol abuse may perpetuate. In addition, Greek organizations need to strive to be more inclusive in their memberships to reflect the diversity of the student population and the "real world." They must take on diversity as a value. Education and awareness within the Greek system are essential to facilitating these changes.

The issues discussed here appear to leave Greek organizations and university administrators with two options: reform the entire Greek system or abolish it. Fraternities and sororities simply cannot continue to perpetuate the cultures of alcohol, rape, and discrimination. These cultures are detriments to students and are not in accordance with the mission of a university. In order to justify maintaining Greek organizations, colleges and universities must change alcohol cultures nationwide, and must provide social options for students. If institutions demand these changes in the Greek system, however, they must also be willing to allocate the money, time, and resources to support Greek organizations through this transition and beyond. It is not fair for university officials to expect fraternities and sororities to live up to high standards if the university is not willing to support them. Greek organizations must first be willing to change, but administrators also have to be willing to help. Everyone involved must invest themselves in the change and have patience throughout this transition. If universities abolish Greek systems, they must provide comparable alternatives for students in the place of fraternities and sororities.

References

Heida, D. E. (1990). Greek affairs in higher education: Dilemmas in philosophy and practice. NASPA Journal, 28(1), 3-7.

Hunt, S. & Rentz, A. L. (1994). Greek-letter social group members’ involvement and psychological development. Journal of College Student Development, 35(4), 289-297.

Hughes, M. J. (1991). Addressing gay, lesbian, and bisexual issues in fraternities and sororities. In N. J. Evans & V. A. Wall (Eds.), Beyond tolerance: Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals on campus (pp. 97-116). Alexandria, Virginia: American College Personnel Association.

Hughes, M. J. & Winston, Jr., R. B. (1987). Effects of fraternity membership on interpersonal values. Journal of College Student Development, 45(4), 405-411.

Kalb, C. (1997, October 13). Drinking and dying: A death at MIT puts campuses on edge. Newsweek, 130, 69.

Maisel, J. M. (1990). Social fraternities and sororities are not conducive to the educational process. NASPA Journal, 28(1), 8-12.

Muehlenhard, C. I. & Linton, M. A. (1987). Date rape and sexual aggression in dating situations: Incidence and risk factors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 186-197.

Pike, G. R. & Askew, J. W. (1990). The impact of fraternity or sorority membership on academic involvement and learning outcomes. NASPA Journal, 28(1), 13-19.

Raise a fond last glass to Dionysus: Life at university. (1997, October 4). The Economist, 344, 36-37.

Rudolph, F. (1962). The American college and university: A history. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press.

Sanday, P. R. (1990). Fraternity gang rape: Sex, brotherhood and privilege on campus. New York: New York University Press.

Deanna M. Garrett graduated from the University of Virginia in 1997 with a Bachelor's degree in Religious Studies and a minor in Biology. She is currently a first year HESA student and a Graduate Assistant in the Department of Residential Life.