How College Fraternities Finally Died Last Week

A week ago, the Harvard University administration announced that, starting with the Class of 2021, “undergraduate members of unrecognized single-gender social organizations will be banned from holding athletic team captaincies and leadership positions in all recognized student groups. They will also be ineligible for College endorsement for top fellowships like the Rhodes and Marshall scholarships.”

In plain English, college fraternities are now banned at Harvard. The reason? They rape too much, apparently.

In addition to the all-male college fraternities, all-female sororities and other single-sex clubs will be proscribed. All groups officially recognized by the university must be “gender neutral” and have “open selection processes.” These unrecognized clubs are unrecognized because they disaffiliated from the university in 1984 in response to an ultimatum by the administration to “go co-ed.”

At Northwestern University a week ago, fraternities were commemorating “Sexual Assault Awareness Month” by hanging large banners that declared their opposition to rape outside the fraternity houses. In light of the vicious raping being committed by doughy-faced American college freshmen, it was the least they could do. Confusion about their position on rape (Good? Bad? Let the states decide?) had never been so high. On the other hand, they may have been simply taking a lesson in signalling allegiances from communist Czechoslovakia, as Vaclav Havel’s grocer taught:

“I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace.”

The blindingly obvious was not enough for the grocer’s overseers, unfortunately, and the fraternities duly came under fire for being insufficiently opposed to rape. The commissar, this time, was a freshman girl, presumably studying at Northwestern’s journalism school. It is unlikely that she even strongly believes what she writes – writing opinion columns gets you a grade in journalism school regardless of whether or not your opinion makes sense. Despite that, she has now inadvertently raised the bar for virtue signalling in opposition to rape, and made all of our lives harder.

The university’s fraternity council announced that the banners held in support of rape victims “may have been emotionally triggering for survivors, and we want to make a deep, genuine apology for anyone that may have been affected.” They are now going to create “a four-year sexual assault education program for fraternities.” Reality parodies itself. I can’t wait until a Bachelor’s degree requires nothing but four years of sexual assault education.

These two latest attacks on male social organizations follow an intense volley that occurred last year, when a transparent gang-rape hoax caused the University of Virginia to suspend all fraternities, and the University of Oklahoma chapter of Sigma Alpha Epsilon was expelled and the members evicted from housing over a short iPhone video of a ‘racist’ chant.

It has taken them decades, but progressives are finally formally eliminating the two sexes. Consistently smeared with the twin excommunicatory slurs of ‘racist’ and ‘rapist,’ college fraternities are now buckling. They may be powerful yet, but they made too many concessions to do-gooding social justice warriors in the past, the precedent has been set, and they are not intellectually sovereign enough (nor coordinated enough) to resist a finishing move by the nearly $40 billion juggernaut of status, wealth, and prestige that is Harvard.

Moldbug noted that “very generally, the consensus at Harvard at year Y is the consensus of America at Y + 50.” If that is the case, the consensus at Harvard at year Y is the consensus at Yale at Y + 1, at Princeton and Stanford Y + 2, at the rest of the Ivies and elite schools at Y + 5, and the rest of the public schools and academia in general sometime shortly thereafter. Harvard is the yardstick for what is most holy, true, and good in America. In other words, what is most high status. Harvard has declared that the most high status thing to do is prohibit single-sex organizations, and then sanction anyone who joins one. You can expect this to become something of a rule, just like co-education became something of a rule following the cultural upheaval of the 1960s.

Do you ever stop to wonder why boys and girls are educated together? Before long, you will probably not stop to wonder why single-sex organizations are prohibited, nor will you wonder why the very thought of such a thing makes you shiver and think of Hitler.

Single-sex social organizations represent an egregious violation of the tenets of egalitarian progressive dogma. You and I may enjoy the subtle classicism, youthful tradition, and sexual dichotomy of the American Greek system. To a progressive who takes his pious vows seriously, the entire spectacle is something straight out of the nine circles of Hell. Indeed they claim that college campuses, filled with students so green they are not even legally allowed to drink alcohol, are rape factories worse than the American prison system – home of Bloods, Crips, MS-13, and the Aryan Brotherhood.

The Greek system itself is a repudiation of the quickly-advancing consensus on sex and gender that has been cobbled together in the last few decades. As puerile as it sounds, the simple fact that there are organizations that might potentially exclude the queer or “gender non-conforming” is an offense to the diversity commissars. With every other pillar of civilization and normalcy totally smashed – and you will scarcely find a place where they are more smashed than a college campus in 2016 – the very sexual dimorphism of the human species needs to be attacked to fuel the eternal revolution. The fraternities and sororities are not saved by the fact that they are overwhelmingly liberal. They are not saved by the fact that they allow homosexuals and lesbians into their ranks. They are not even saved by the fact that – as some almost certainly do – they allow “passing” transsexuals in. They must be smashed for progress.

At this point, the analysis of leftist dysfunction usually ends, but there is another layer to the onion that we have to peel back.

While it seems obvious to pin the blame on the social justice activists with problem glasses, these people are in fact only tools for another power. Though xe complains loudly and consistently, it is not the campus activist who is at fault. The professional whiner is a loser everywhere, at all times and without exception. Losers are not winners, so we can’t be satisifed with the conclusion that, in these special cases of social justice victory, the losers suddenly win, win big, and win consistently. They do not have the power to mandate perfect sex equality. Not the social power to influence, nor the financial power to bribe, nor the physical power to threaten and destroy.

That power lies with the university administrators, people like Dean Rakesh Khurana and President Drew Gilpin Faust. The dean and president in fact have all three kinds of power at their disposal: they can withhold prestigious degrees, scholarships, and positions from dissenters, they can use the $40 billion endowment to bribe or punish whomever they wish, and they command a private armed force of some 80 officers who carry the only legal, lethal weapons on Harvard’s gun-free campus. That is real power that neither frat boys, nor blacktivists can match.

Much like the present elites ally with the underclass to take out Middle Class America, the university administrators ally with the malcontents among the student body to take out the popular social clubs in the middle. This is the classic High/Low vs. Middle dynamic identified by Bertrand de Jouvenel that has been the iron fist in the velvet glove of liberal-progressive pap since the first revolution.

Why does this happen? It’s not at all complicated. Matter seeks to fill space, plants seek to grow, power seeks to expand – nature abhors a vacuum. For a high, central power, the main threat and the main obstacle to growth and expansion is not the power of the perpetually dysfunctional underclass, it is the power of the fairly well-organized and stable middle. The natural ally for a high, central power is a low, disorganized, and weak power. Such a power can be easily controlled and used as a cudgel to clobber the competing middle power, which is a greater threat to the High by definition. The Middle can’t weaponize the Low because it is less powerful than the High, which also seeks to weaponize the Low in order to prevent the Middle from competing with it.

In the context of a university, the university administrators represent an extremely powerful central power that is very jealous of competition, and the closest competing power center to an administration on a university campus is the fraternity scene. Just apply the social/financial/physical power trio and compare.

As the de facto gatekeepers to the party (and therefore sex, and therefore social status) scene, fraternities have massive social power among students. As chapters of national organizations with decades-if-not-centuries-long histories and massive alumni networks, they have financial power unrivaled by any other student group. As ritualized, all-male brotherhoods, often with regional, racial, religious or occupational requirements (or more recently, just tendencies), they have massive physical power at their disposal, both in terms of raw numbers, energy and muscle, as well as group asabbiyah.

Fraternities often own not just a large designated fraternity house, but several other pieces of property near the campus that are used by fraternity brothers. Official and unofficial fraternity houses located in or around campuses represent serious real estate pressure on the expansion of the university – the administration can’t build more dorms, labs or centers if the dozen or more frats won’t sell their property that circles the campus.

Fraternities do not answer to the university administration, but to national chapter leadership. They are not a part of the university chain of command, although you may be forgiven in thinking that, given how ubiquitous they are on American campuses. But that is as bad of a mistake as assuming a people and their government are one and the same, or even share aligned interests. The first American college fraternities, in fact, were formed by male students in order to skirt the authority of rigid religious professors in the 1820’s — to play pranks, have fun, and escape the strict order of the college. Needless to say, the faculty were opposed to the “secret societies” from the get-go. In this sense, not much has changed between 1826 and 2016, except that the fraternities have been on a serious losing streak since the mid-20th century.

Trapped between the local mob of malcontents from below and the administration from above, fraternities are squeezed for power – most of which is assumed up by the High, and a little bit of which is allowed down to the Low. Under the pretense of eliminating unjust discrimination and an epidemic of sexual assault, the administration can now bar the most talented athletes and scholars from joining fraternities, denying them human capital which will instead be initiated into the administration’s system of control. The fraternities will lose a concomitant amount of members, prestige, status and power – since they depend on new blood every year – and the relative power of the High administration and the Low agitators will increase.

There will be more and more talented students living in dormitories run by the administration rather than fraternity houses. There will be more time spent in sanctioned and recognized student groups that follow the administration’s directives, and less time spent in the unrecognized fraternities. More students will depend on the university-provided career services and counselors rather than their fraternity alumni networks. And so on. Power seeks power.

The High/Low vs. Middle process seems unfair and self-destructive. It is. The High cannot cannibalize the Middle indefinitely, and eventually entropy in the form of the Low destroys the High. In the short term, however, cannibalizing the Middle is a winning proposition for members of the High. All that can be said is that virtue and restraint must be practiced by the elite for a society to thrive, and an unvirtuous elite will not be survived by a virtuous middle class – not a large one at any rate.

We are finally reaching the point where the last parts of the functioning Middle are being demolished. Colleges and fraternities were sundered from their traditional white Anglo-Saxon Protestant character a long time ago. They were subsequently sundered from their generally Christian character, their white European character, their masculine and chauvinist character, their aggressive character, and finally their strictly heterosexual character. Before being tarred as rapists and bigots, they were tarred as drunken idiots and hazing bullies.

Now, they are being forcefully separated from the last thing that made them distinct and powerful. Rest in peace. Whoever can guess what happens next gets an A+.

Mark Yuray is verified on Gab. Follow him there and on Twitter.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All

36 Comments

  1. Final nail in the coffin.

    Most fraternity and sorority members are fully brainwashed by equalist ideology long before they ever get to college.

    They’ll join the Greek houses and the raw social dynamics and shallow “traditions” will take hold for four years or so, but all that is built on the Progressive substrate and will not hold.

    Most will actively undermine the organization from the get-go, consciously or subconsciously, and spend four years offering fraternity apologetics – “Well, we really do a lot of service work”, “No way, we banned hazing a decade ago”, “Yeah, I’m just in it because my dad was”, “We’re totally inclusive, look at how diverse our incoming class is!”, “Our chapter has the largest number of Men Against Rape members on campus”, etc., etc.

    A combination of liability, social justice warrioring, and University pressure has national Greek organizations entirely cowed. They exist at the whim of our Cathedral overlords. I suppose that whim is no longer favorable to survival.

  2. You’d think fraternities would at least form a grand alliance and try to finesse it. Say, offer to pay a fine if they don’t meet these demands. Put up some sort of fight. But they don’t seem to have the will to do even that.

    The administration obviously feels it has the upper hand financially and has decided it doesn’t need fraternity alum donations. They probably get much more from foreign entities. I know the school I went to gets millions per year from Saudi Arabia.

    1. Activists are not known to be the sharpest knives in the drawer when it comes to finances. Remember that business over at the University of Missouri? Enrollment and alumni donations are down precipitously, but the activists don’t care. And once those activists are ensconced in administrative posts, they don’t magically become financially astute.

      There has been some pushback from national Greek organizations, but it has gotten much less attention. That being said, most fraternities don’t have any real fight in them. I know a lot of people involved in a variety of Greek organizations and the only ones who’ve complained at all about Harvard’s new policy are a few sorority women. Even men involved in national fraternity organizations have been silent.

    2. I’ve heard, via private sources, that the frats are indeed fighting this hard and are confident they will win. (At least this time.)

  3. wow. I am a complete outsider to US fraternities, but I always imagined them to be powerhouses, natural männerbunden. The cathedral really does take no prisoners.

  4. The more disconcerting aspect of this methodical destruction of the fraternities is that its members will be the Cathedral in a few years. The present power is eroding the future power.

  5. Prosecutor: “John Doe – Did you have sex with that woman – Jane Doe – ten years ago?”

    John Doe: “Why – heck yes I did! High five, bruh!”

    Prosecutor: “Do you have proof that at each stage of the encounter you gained consent?”

    John Doe: “What!? We were having sex, bruh! She was into it and so was I. Why would I need consent at every stage? You know when someone’s consenting – ya feel me!?”

    Prosecutor: “The law states that unless you can prove she consented at every stage of the sexual encounter, you’re guilty of rape, Mr. Doe.”

    John Doe: “WHHHHAAAATTTT!? She never said no and was as into it as I was! What planet are you from?! A good night out – a nice meal – a few drinks and badda bing baby! You know that score!”

    Prosecutor: “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury – it’s clear that Mr. Doe did not gain consent at every stage of the sexual encounter with Jane Doe and is therefore guilty of rape. Furthermore, by his own admission, Mr. Doe plied Jane Doe with alcohol – effectively removing her ability to consent.”

    Long story short – John Doe goes to prison – where he’ll be repeatedly raped and beaten for the next 15 years to life. It won’t matter that Mr. Doe didn’t want to marry Jane Doe after sex and that she vindictively and falsely accused him of rape. The only thing that will matter is that “Affirmative Consent” is a law designed to instill in men a cold spike of fear during and after each sexual encounter with a woman – for many years after he had sex with that woman. As he’ll have aids and be unhireable if ever released from prison – he’ll undoubtedly become one of the tens of thousands of men in the US that commit suicide annually.

    Feminist rhetoric requires the routine rejection of facts and reality, hypocrisy and double standards to survive. The 1 in 5 lie is just one example of the manipulation of reality, double standards and hypocrisy that lies at feminism’s foundation. The reality of feminism is that as relationships with women become more and more anti-male and toxic – and they will – men will more and more go their own way – as evidenced by the decades long declining marriage rates and birth rates within countries in which feminism has a strong foothold – especially by whites in America, Europe, the Netherlands, Scandinavia, and the Japanese. Muslims in Denmark are now demanding that parts be annexed for Muslim only communities.

    The unspoken truth of mass immigration into the aforementioned countries is that with feminism comes the need to outsource birth – which means extinction – some even might call a form of suicide – for the races that adopt toxic feminism. I don’t need to prove this. It’s already happening the globe over right before your very eyes.

    I’m one such example. Feminism and all the anti-male policies and misandric rhetoric that comes with it taught me that it’s best to avoid legal, financial and psychological relationships with women all together. I haven’t had a relationship with a woman in many, many years and will remain blissfully single for all my remaining days. My will contains provisions for my estate at death to be transferred to men’s charities – not my wife – or the children I’ll never have.

    Feminists are very wrong for destroying patriarchal notions. The destruction of the supposed patriarchy leaves little to no reward in marriage for men. With no-fault divorce – a system rigged in women’s favor by NAWL (National Association of Women Lawyers) – with women refusing to take their husbands name – with women using parental alienation to destroy men – with women demanding child support in lieu of shared parenting – with false accusations becoming all the rage – there’s nothing left for men in marriage or commitments to women. Why bother when the entire system is rigged against you? I sure won’t – at least not any longer.

    BTW – I don’t live in my mother’s basement. Salary is close to 200K yearly – academic credentials are many – own my own house and car outright – am debt free and have close to a million in savings.

    Will anything I just wrote change things in the slightest? Nope. Why? Feminism’s hatred of men is merely the manifestation of women’s deep desire to control men and maintain superiority above men. Most women won’t claim the label of feminist outright – but instead conceal their support – knowing that they can use the rigged, misandric system against men when the time is right.

    The head of the left’s addiction to forcefully transfer power, wealth and control to those that demand it is spearheaded in feminist’s lust for the destruction of anything male or masculine.

    1. This is a chilling comment. Have you considered using your wealth to move to a place without the legally-mandated cold spike of fear? Central/Eastern Europe, Asia, Latin America, etc. Thanks for posting.

      1. Thank you for your reply. Yes – I may in fact do that in retirement. For now however, it’s more lucrative for me to live close to certain US cities. There are also certain credentials that would become difficult if not impossible to retain by living in a foreign country. I appreciate the tips however.

        1. If and when you need to make a decision to move abroad (or whatever), feel free to contact us at SM for advice. We have some knowledgeable people and we’d be glad to give pointers to a fellow thought-criminal.

          Otherwise I know the Roosh/PUA/Manosphere/etc. people have a tendency to move abroad, probably have some tips too.

          1. Thanks again. Will retire early in another decade, so have a ways to go before I begin research in earnest. Appreciate the tips.

    2. Thank you for getting to the cause of all this destructive nonsense going on in this society. I love this site but rarely do they mention gynocentrism and how it’s a fundamental pillar,if not the fundamental pillar of the current cathedral.

      1. Thanks very much.

        Increasingly, as feminists move into positions of power, laws and policies will become more anti-male globally. This trend has been growing for decades and will only get worse as time goes on – as evidenced by the recent, unrelenting push to remove due process and presumption of innocence rights from college men through Affirmative Consent. Once this law becomes de facto on campus – it will soon become the law at the criminal justice level as well – leading to the incarceration and total life destruction of men by disgruntled misandric women. There has already a push by feminists within legal organizations to accomplish precisely this end. If you don’t think they can pull it off – research the abuses of men during divorce through the VAWA.

        Additionally, forced marriage for males (de facto marriage and/or common law marriage) is a growing trend globally. In parts of Canada and the EU, cohabiting for a certain period of time leaves women with the identical rights to divorce, alimony and asset division that their married counterparts so enjoy.

        Furthermore, in parts of the EU, an accusation of assault or rape against a man results in a mandatory arrest and prosecution – even if there’s no evidence to justify an indictment. Alison Saunders – a career lawyer who rose up the ranks of the UK’s Crown Prosecution Service (“CPS”) – is particularly hateful of men. Google ‘Souad Faress False Rape’ for a chilling story of a UK man accused of rape and put on trial even though the evidence proved the accuser was lying from the very start – effectively destroying his life. The prosecutors had proof she was lying but still prosecuted the accused. The accused had never met the accuser and had no idea who she was. His true crime was merely walking past her in a London tube station. Her name was never officially released due to laws protecting female accusers in the UK. It was leaked to the media by unknown sources. To date, there have been no criminal proceedings against Souad Faress for the false accusation – the desire to encourage more women to come forward following sexual assault being the justification. If that doesn’t reek of gynocentrism and anti-male sexism, what does?

        Withholding funds from a woman in a de facto or marriage bound relationship – deemed ‘coercive control’ – is now held on par with physical abuse and can get you prison time in the EU as well. Google ‘coercive control UK’. Is there any doubt this law is being used to win custody and asset rights by women and to destroy men’s lives with false accusations – as has been done with VAWA in the US? From past experience – I think not.

        It’s not just women pushing for anti-male laws and policies however. Men steeped in gynocentrism from birth – easily manipulated and swayed by feminist rhetoric – which are common as most media sources preach gynocentrism from birth to death – are also commonly anti-male.

        If you think gynocentrism is bad for men now, just wait. Ever hear of the Istanbul Convention? Have a look at this. It’s a case study in the legal hypocrisy, double standards and manipulation of facts by feminists – who only ever wanted equality:

        http://redpilluk.co.uk/TheIstanbulConvention.pdf

      2. It is not the fundamental pillar. If you are convinced gynocentrism is the fundamental pillar, you may be surprised to learn there are people convinced that Judeocentrism is the fundamental pillar, others who are convinced that Islamocentrism is the fundamental pillar, yet others who claim it is homocentrism, or whatever…

        In fact all of these pillars are part of the facade, to varying degrees, and yet they all point to something larger — insecure power inhabiting the building; a lack of secure central authority, and democratic/republican Enlightenment nonsense ruining everyone’s sanity.

        1. Great points. I was speaking strictly in terms of my own observations – but of course – there’s a bigger picture.

        2. Gynocentrism may not be the central pillar, but the particular nature of the assault on patriarchy gives women a particularly good position to blunt it. They could have spoken out against it.

          Almost to a one, the decline to do this and seem to enjoy the way things are going — if not generally, in the specifics. They’re willing to see the man as her enemy or one for her to exploit, rather than her partner and one for her to support. There are some exceptions, and certainly there are some pretty good wives out there. But women, as they tend to do, are just going along, and they are the only ones who could have stopped it.

          1. And according to some comments from women joining ISIS I read yesterday, they are doing it because they want the Islamic / Sharia culture, with the male control of women. But rather than fight for it here, they just go there.

          2. “They could have spoken out against it.”

            No, they could not have. They are incapable of it. When the winds of power shift direction, women blow over like reeds. You should not and cannot expect them to be like oak trees. That is the job of men.

            “But rather than fight for it here, they just go there.”

            They are biologically incapable of fighting.

            Assume women do not have agency. That will get you closer to the truth than assuming they do, and that they have some sort of responsibility for doing the kind of dissident thought and resistance that men ought to be doing.

          3. Well yes I know women do not fight — except against their own men. I’m coming up on 20 years married now and it’s definitely true.

            But the matriarchal legal structure that’s been set up makes it simply not worth it for a man to fight for what’s right, or to fight for his women. They are not his women, and everyone from the legal system, to other men who’ll undercut him, to the women themselves will tell him that.

            And if he wins a fight he doesn’t get the girl. So that kind of fighting is not worth it. He has no obligation to do it, and his own life has value on its own. If the women are unprotected, oh well not everything is men’s fault. Absent a more devious strategy or some other event of cultural change, it’s been a good ride but it’s about over.

          4. They don’t fight their men. They test their men. Let me illustrate the difference.

            Suppose you and I lived together and slept in the same bed and one night you tried to put your penis into my… well, let’s just say butt, since I am missing the other orifice.

            There is a 50/50 chance somebody would be dead in less than 60 seconds. Blunt trauma. Perhaps death by bedside lamp. Asphyxiation possible too. Maybe just fist-induced coma.

            That is called fighting. Every man would do the same.

            Do you worry about blunt trauma, asphyxiation or fist-induced coma when you lay down with your woman? No, of course not. That is because your woman is not interested in fighting. She is not interested in slamming a lamp into your face then beating you into a pulp.

            Depending on how go-grrl braindead she is, she expects you to do something on the spectrum from negging to BDSM. That’s not fighting, that’s testing.

            I hope I don’t sound condescending, just channeling Jim a little bit here.

            I think you understand my point, of course, but the rhetoric and vocabulary you use to convey it is illustrating the wrong frame. Gynocentrism is the wrong frame. The system is not about privileging women, it’s about privileging destructive single sluts with bastards. That is because the system is about privileging chaos and destruction over good and creation. That, whatever word you find to name it, should be appended with -centrism, not gyno-.

            Anyway my point is just that there is difference between fighting and testing. Men do the former, women do the latter. Women tested leftism, and leftism beat them into a pulp. Now they support leftism. Don’t blame them for it — they never had a choice to begin with.

            Men have to fight leftism. They have to fight the screwed-up legal system too, unfortunately. Advice on how to do that is not my specialty but I’d be glad to spitball the issue.

  6. The Dissenting Sociologist May 17, 2016 at 9:24 am

    Dept. of Criminology and Studies in Social Pathology:

    Unattached young men show up in the city to go to school, and are separated, for the first time ever, from the influence of parents, family, and even peers in the primary community, and otherwise profoundly isolated. They are impelled, by these facts and the nature of things more generally, to seek out each other’s company and form brotherhoods. They’re also young, dumb, and full of cum, as the saying goes; already given by nature to all sorts of disorderly conduct of a more or less serious character, as though the abrupt and near-total removal of social controls from their lives wasn’t bad enough already. They have three basic options, arranged in order of associated risk of offending at the greater end of the disorderly conduct spectrum:

    -Join an established fraternity that has the status of a civil-society association integrated, by formal means (e.g. corporate charters) and informal means (participation in student life, often in leading roles), into the University and the community in general, and as a corollary, has codes of conduct, disciplinary procedures, and so on that have proven to be very effective at confining disorder to the level of puke-fests and the like.

    -Spontaneously associate on a wholly informal and extra-societal basis. This sort of association preserves the fraternal character of the first but dispenses with most of the latter’s rules- to wit, it is, one way or another, a street gang, and accordingly assumes a criminal character to the extent that it is socially censured and prohibited, and thus placed beyond the social pale in an intrinsically antagonistic position vis-a-vis law and order.

    -Remain profoundly isolated- and objectively, very, very dangerous. Most youths in this position, to be sure, won’t become school shooters or serial rapists. But the reverse isn’t the case. And the risk of other, less dramatic but pernicious social and mental dysfunction (including suicide) is astronomical in this group.

    It follows that, as the frats decline, social dysfunction and outright criminality will increase, with the victims being those in the closest social proximity to the offenders, i.e. the student body. The Left will then, without irony, demand more resources for anti-whateverist indoctrination in order to address the spike in crime, delinquency, suicide, etc. that the Leftist policies created.

    Way to go, Left. You’ve done what you do best: destroy society, for spite and personal profit. Bravo. “Society must be destroyed”- that is your true motto. Bravissimo.

    On the bright side: that the demand for brotherhood, like any form of demand, will find its own supply if the normal marketplace is closed is very good news for alert passivists with an idea of how to supply it…

    1. “It follows that, as the frats decline, social dysfunction and outright criminality will increase, with the victims being those in the closest social proximity to the offenders, i.e. the student body.”

      University administrations already exercise something close to totalitarian control over students’ lives. To me it is still a little jarring that university administrations (which are, theoretically, just about academics) have expanded to the point of providing university-branded police forces and university-branded psychiatric services. Of course they love this — they love power! Who doesn’t? They won’t let some silly fraternities get in the way if they don’t need to.

  7. I welcome the abolition of the pathetic, degenerate, vulgar, trashy American “frats.” Sometimes your enemy takes out another enemy. Good. I attended UChicago in large part because it did not have that pathetic American “tradition.” In order to understand why the feminist critique of American sexuality has taken hold, one must look back at what life was like under a fraternity dictatorship, especially in the south. Everything happens for a reason. The revolt against fraternities had nothing to do with politics initially. I have always been a fundamentally right-wing person – but also an artsy one, and I remember bashing frat boys faces in defending “artsy” girls from the scum and vermin who lacked enough confidence and social status to not join a homoerotic, vulgar, trashy American frat, Good riddance!

    1. “I have always been a fundamentally right-wing person – but also an artsy one”

      You moron, arty guys don’t give a damn about fraternities one way or the other. Nice try. I liked the bashing faces though. Like hundreds, dude.

    2. This comment is bleeding unreviewed liberal-leftism from nearly every word, which, based on your alma mater, is not surprising. You’ve made a good start finding your way here, and I commend you for that. But. Go read old books and get wasted with some bros or I will have to call you a faggot.

    3. Everything Roger needed to know about frats, he learned from National Lampoon.

      1. “Before being tarred as rapists and bigots, they were tarred as drunken idiots and hazing bullies.”

        Animal House was released in the 70’s.

    4. How did you defend those “artsy” girls, and from what? Were they being coerced? Physically dragged to the frat parties by those un-artsy guys that presumably they would have no interest in? And how did you do that if your campus actually didn’t have any of those frats?

      Or, to your total incomprehension, were they attracted to those “frat-like” guys and since you didn’t understand it, you assumed it was something wrong that those guys did to make the girls take leave of their senses? Or because you wanted the girls and were doing everything they asked and they still weren’t attracted that way?

      Look up “white knight” and tell us if that was you.

      1. UChicago does have frats & sororities, it’s just that I’m not too familiar when the first one was chartered. The institution’s Greek life isn’t big, but as of late interest from incoming students have been growing.

        We don’t know what year Andretti graduated. I guess he was a student at UChicago when Greek life was truly tiny on campus, maybe no more than six organizations total between IFC and NPC.

        Either way he should return back his undergraduate degree. His story also doesn’t make much sense because he mentions the South, a region where Greek life thrives, fighting of the stereotypical frat boys from “artsy girls,” yet he attended university in urban Midwest.

        Most of those who I know that attended UChicago seem to have an indifferent view towards GLO’s. I don’t know a single person who pledged there, so Andretti’s post on a minority is suspicious.

    5. It’s highly humorous that an alumnus from probably the most intellectual institution in the States, more intellectual than Harvard, Reed and Stanford, can express such ignorance and contempt for things he obviously has no clue about, let alone any experience in.

      I suppose with great ignorance aided with a sense of self-righteousness, anyone – no matter his academic credentials, can across as a leftist.

  8. What’s with institutions like Harvard, Wesleyan, and Dartmouth having such animosity towards Greek life? And it’s usually on the East Coast.

    Besides the whole douchebag, rape, and get drunk stereotype (not with a grain of truth to it), I sense it’s just misplaced social justice mentality about doing away with the supposed low-brow aspect of college life.

    As a fraternity man, Harvard and its brethren who are banning these groups that they perceive as archaic institutions just come across as anti-intellectual, petty, and clueless. It’s ironic.

    1. They may come across as anti-intellectual, petty and clueless, but they have power, and they will probably win. They will then write of their epic, just and glorious holy war to rid the college campus of evil pro-rape groups, that were not just sexist but often (gasp) racist and homogeneous too!

      1. Only in their own world would they win. Greek life thrives in Southern universities, private or public, as well as in the Midwest and the West. UIUC is home to the largest Greek life system and if the administration decided to follow Harvard’s path hell would literally break loose. You’d have GDI’s taking up banners in favor of letting them be.

      2. >> racist and homogeneous too!

        Ha! I remember watching a segment with Thomas Sowell about race. He calmly said that fraternities were probably the best student organizations that excelled at integrating various people of race, ideas and creed w/o using buzzwords such as “global citizenship,” “inclusiveness,” and “diversity.”

        In my experience Sowell was onto something. We had blacks, Hispanics, Asians and whites from small towns. At the time of my junior year my fraternity’s president was a homosexual whose ‘boyfriend’ was rushing. It was not an issue. One method of seeking out potential pledges was through faculty recommendations. We also has a GPA cutoff. So if you were the captain of the baseball team, but had a 2.8 GPA you wouldn’t be looked at unless a faculty member insisted that you would be an exception with the promise of meeting the GPA requirement.

  9. Abelard Lindsey May 22, 2016 at 10:39 pm

    Why would students who can no longer join frats and sororities end up living in the dorms? Perhaps many of them will live off-campus as GDI’s (goddamned independents).

    1. At least in Harvard, all undergraduates live on-campus from my understanding. They’re divided into residential houses which serve as their community within a community. They reside in these houses for all four years.

Comments are closed.