This House Would Ban Fraternities

One of the main impetuses for young men to join fraternities comes from the idea that it will be easy to have sex with women should they do. This idea has two affects on fraternities. The first, detailed in this point is more indirect. The people who apply to fraternities do so because of these preconceptions and often are able to get in to fraternities.

This means that a fraternity essentially becomes a place where a large number of men who already tend towards chauvinistic ideas gather. It seems logical then that often fraternities colour people towards the objectification of women.

This is further exacerbated by initiation rituals which often emphasise sexist attitudes, for example, raiding sororities and stealing lingerie. The significant social pressure this creates, especially on newer university students who might fear exclusion, means that even those who did not have bad preconceptions of women before can end up tending strongly toward chauvinism.¹

Further, fraternities often have strong relationships with sororities. This is specifically important because often sorority girls are often encouraged by the hierarchy of the sorority to maintain good relations with related fraternities. This means that many younger girls might be encouraged to play into the stereotypes that the fraternity boys expect of them to maintain the sorority’s popularity with the fraternity. As such, negative stereotypes are reinforced by this relationship.

Banning fraternities would be conducive to changes these conceptions by preventing people with chauvinistic opinions gathering to begin with and reinforcing each other’s views of the world. Further, with less social pressure to impress the frat boys, related sororities might play into these stereotypes less.

The issue with impressions of women with respect to university already exist before fraternities become involved. Most young adults go to university with expectations that sex will be easy to come by and this is exacerbated by film, television and other forms of media. Fraternities are targeted as a gathering place for men, but should they be banned, this behaviour will not go away.

Whilst fraternities may exacerbate the problem, they are easily visible institutions that can be targeted and changed, pushing these individuals away from any support network would just lead to a worse outcome as the first opposition argument suggests.

Secondly, fraternities are often negatively stereotyped in this area. Most fraternities are respectful of women and do well to moderate those that might not be.²

Whilst the initial proposition argument claims that fraternities lead to the objectification of women and how this harms women indirectly, this argument claims that the men included in fraternities are more likely to physically harm and rape women.⁷

The culture of the objectification of women and the expectation that members of a fraternity should have sex leads to incidents where fraternity members will report to other members of the fraternity about women that they got with the night before.

Whilst this is typical of most male groups, it becomes more insidious when those who are able to do better with the women often end up doing better within the formal hierarchy of the fraternity.

As such, because of these pressures there is often an impetus from members of a fraternity to have sex with women regardless of the consequences. Given the first argument about the general perception of women that fraternities promote and it is logical that there might be a higher chance that fraternity members would be involved in crimes such as rape and sexual assault. Further, the drinking culture that often goes with fraternities exacerbates these problems as young men who ordinarily would not succumb to the social pressures do, or perceive a responses from women incorrectly, leading to cases of sexual assault.¹

Similarly to the first counterargument, rape culture does not only exist within fraternities. Fraternities might be more pronounced in this area; however, they also provide an excellent way to engage with young men to eradicate the overall prevalence of rape culture. Fraternities are useful specifically because courses can be run among the brothers to raise awareness of such issues. If they can be targeted to this extent then it is possible to use fraternities to cause a reduction in the prevalence of rape culture among people who join fraternities. Such benefits could extend further as fraternities often do activities to raise awareness of issues on campus as a whole. Essentially, fraternities group a large number of people who might be at risk together and as such provide a group that is easy to target for authorities seeking to resolve problems of sexism and rape culture within colleges.

Secondly, eliminating fraternities in this way creates a false sense of security in people, who might feel that the problem of rape culture on college campuses has been fixed. Given that rape culture is so prevalent it requires a large number of people to be behind its elimination for there to be a chance for it to be eradicated. Implementing such a solution harms the overall impetus by creating the false illusion that the problem is solved or is at least significantly better now.³

As mentioned in the first point, many people join fraternities with preconceptions of the lifestyle available to them. Many people believe fraternities are all about binge drinking for example. Because of this, the applicants that fraternities get are often people looking to engage in that kind of lifestyle. As such, a large number of people who do join fraternities do so under the assumption that they will get to consume large amounts of alcohol. This means that fraternities initially attract people who are already into drinking, but secondly those people that do join also wish to live up to their conception of what a fraternity should be, further encouraging binge drinking. Therefore, those people who join because of the drinking are likely to be accompanied by a large number of people who do not see the problems associated with drinking and encourage their habit. Those who are not initially into drinking may start drinking simply to fit in with the others and this may well be encouraged by initiation rituals which encourage drinking themselves. In this case a ban on fraternities would stop such people coming together in the first place and as such halt peer pressure that might result in unhealthy drinking behaviour.

Secondly, the large number of social events that fraternities partake in result in binge drinking through sheer volume of events where alcohol is freely available to individuals. The social pressures to consume alcohol are also coupled with the aforementioned social pressures to have sex. Many individuals feel that alcohol and the consumption of alcohol make them more attractive to the opposite gender by allowing them to get past nerves. Hence, the social pressures mentioned compound one another significantly. Again, a ban on fraternities would prevent this because it would become more difficult to organise such a busy social calendar without the approval of the university. Fewer events necessarily will result in less alcohol being freely available at said events. Further, without an efficient method of collecting money from people that fraternities provide, such parties will become more difficult to organise.⁴

Very similarly to the previous opposition counter arguments, fraternities are useful as they gather people with similar ideas in a single place and allow universities and the state to target individuals who are often vulnerable and provide them with support mechanisms that prevent binge drinking. Further, the brotherhood provided by the members of most fraternities mean that should a brother’s situation get significantly worse owing to alcohol, they are more likely to intervene and prevent the situation from deteriorating further.

The strong social group and the creation of an atmosphere similar to a family means that if the brothers do have to intervene on behalf of a vulnerable individual, that individual is more likely to accept the advice given than a person just among friends.⁵

One of the main impetuses for young men to join fraternities comes from the idea that it will be easy to have sex with women should they do. This idea has two affects on fraternities. The first, detailed in this point is more indirect. The people who apply to fraternities do so because of these preconceptions and often are able to get in to fraternities.

This means that a fraternity essentially becomes a place where a large number of men who already tend towards chauvinistic ideas gather. It seems logical then that often fraternities colour people towards the objectification of women.

This is further exacerbated by initiation rituals which often emphasise sexist attitudes, for example, raiding sororities and stealing lingerie. The significant social pressure this creates, especially on newer university students who might fear exclusion, means that even those who did not have bad preconceptions of women before can end up tending strongly toward chauvinism.¹

Further, fraternities often have strong relationships with sororities. This is specifically important because often sorority girls are often encouraged by the hierarchy of the sorority to maintain good relations with related fraternities. This means that many younger girls might be encouraged to play into the stereotypes that the fraternity boys expect of them to maintain the sorority’s popularity with the fraternity. As such, negative stereotypes are reinforced by this relationship.

Banning fraternities would be conducive to changes these conceptions by preventing people with chauvinistic opinions gathering to begin with and reinforcing each other’s views of the world. Further, with less social pressure to impress the frat boys, related sororities might play into these stereotypes less.

The issue with impressions of women with respect to university already exist before fraternities become involved. Most young adults go to university with expectations that sex will be easy to come by and this is exacerbated by film, television and other forms of media. Fraternities are targeted as a gathering place for men, but should they be banned, this behaviour will not go away.

Whilst fraternities may exacerbate the problem, they are easily visible institutions that can be targeted and changed, pushing these individuals away from any support network would just lead to a worse outcome as the first opposition argument suggests.

Secondly, fraternities are often negatively stereotyped in this area. Most fraternities are respectful of women and do well to moderate those that might not be.²

Whilst the initial proposition argument claims that fraternities lead to the objectification of women and how this harms women indirectly, this argument claims that the men included in fraternities are more likely to physically harm and rape women.⁷

The culture of the objectification of women and the expectation that members of a fraternity should have sex leads to incidents where fraternity members will report to other members of the fraternity about women that they got with the night before.

Whilst this is typical of most male groups, it becomes more insidious when those who are able to do better with the women often end up doing better within the formal hierarchy of the fraternity.

As such, because of these pressures there is often an impetus from members of a fraternity to have sex with women regardless of the consequences. Given the first argument about the general perception of women that fraternities promote and it is logical that there might be a higher chance that fraternity members would be involved in crimes such as rape and sexual assault. Further, the drinking culture that often goes with fraternities exacerbates these problems as young men who ordinarily would not succumb to the social pressures do, or perceive a responses from women incorrectly, leading to cases of sexual assault.¹

Similarly to the first counterargument, rape culture does not only exist within fraternities. Fraternities might be more pronounced in this area; however, they also provide an excellent way to engage with young men to eradicate the overall prevalence of rape culture. Fraternities are useful specifically because courses can be run among the brothers to raise awareness of such issues. If they can be targeted to this extent then it is possible to use fraternities to cause a reduction in the prevalence of rape culture among people who join fraternities. Such benefits could extend further as fraternities often do activities to raise awareness of issues on campus as a whole. Essentially, fraternities group a large number of people who might be at risk together and as such provide a group that is easy to target for authorities seeking to resolve problems of sexism and rape culture within colleges.

Secondly, eliminating fraternities in this way creates a false sense of security in people, who might feel that the problem of rape culture on college campuses has been fixed. Given that rape culture is so prevalent it requires a large number of people to be behind its elimination for there to be a chance for it to be eradicated. Implementing such a solution harms the overall impetus by creating the false illusion that the problem is solved or is at least significantly better now.³

As mentioned in the first point, many people join fraternities with preconceptions of the lifestyle available to them. Many people believe fraternities are all about binge drinking for example. Because of this, the applicants that fraternities get are often people looking to engage in that kind of lifestyle. As such, a large number of people who do join fraternities do so under the assumption that they will get to consume large amounts of alcohol. This means that fraternities initially attract people who are already into drinking, but secondly those people that do join also wish to live up to their conception of what a fraternity should be, further encouraging binge drinking. Therefore, those people who join because of the drinking are likely to be accompanied by a large number of people who do not see the problems associated with drinking and encourage their habit. Those who are not initially into drinking may start drinking simply to fit in with the others and this may well be encouraged by initiation rituals which encourage drinking themselves. In this case a ban on fraternities would stop such people coming together in the first place and as such halt peer pressure that might result in unhealthy drinking behaviour.

Secondly, the large number of social events that fraternities partake in result in binge drinking through sheer volume of events where alcohol is freely available to individuals. The social pressures to consume alcohol are also coupled with the aforementioned social pressures to have sex. Many individuals feel that alcohol and the consumption of alcohol make them more attractive to the opposite gender by allowing them to get past nerves. Hence, the social pressures mentioned compound one another significantly. Again, a ban on fraternities would prevent this because it would become more difficult to organise such a busy social calendar without the approval of the university. Fewer events necessarily will result in less alcohol being freely available at said events. Further, without an efficient method of collecting money from people that fraternities provide, such parties will become more difficult to organise.⁴

Very similarly to the previous opposition counter arguments, fraternities are useful as they gather people with similar ideas in a single place and allow universities and the state to target individuals who are often vulnerable and provide them with support mechanisms that prevent binge drinking. Further, the brotherhood provided by the members of most fraternities mean that should a brother’s situation get significantly worse owing to alcohol, they are more likely to intervene and prevent the situation from deteriorating further.

The strong social group and the creation of an atmosphere similar to a family means that if the brothers do have to intervene on behalf of a vulnerable individual, that individual is more likely to accept the advice given than a person just among friends.⁵

Firstly, the ban on fraternities is an overreaction to a problem that only exists within a few fraternities. Many fraternities exist as helpful parts of the community which support students in all parts of their lives through creating bonds of friendship and brotherhood that persist over long periods of time.

Secondly, those frats that do break the rules can easily be punished and made to set an example for all other fraternities. Given the culprits can almost always be targeted; it seems extreme to ban every fraternity.

Further, an alternate solution would simply be to improve relations between fraternities and members of faculty, who might encourage better study and allow fraternities to better prepare themselves for their futures. Further, mentoring in other areas could be given, such as support classes for those suffering from alcohol problems. There might even be mandatory seminars on feminism and other issues that might be affected significantly by the fraternity culture.⁶

The ban on fraternities should occur because whilst certain fraternities can be punished, it is likely that many other fraternities keep their transgressions better hidden. Often, transgressions can’t be linked back to the fraternity and as such nothing is done to change the system.

But as well as this, by not taking significant action against fraternities for their misogynistic actions, the entire American Education system is made to look bad, with colleges themselves seeming misogynistic through their inaction.

As well as this, universities have an incentive not to punish fraternities too severely as often university alumni who donate significantly come from a fraternity background.

Further, whilst engagement between fraternities and teaching staff is a positive thing, it is unlikely that members of suspect fraternities will be significantly responsive to what they would consider to be patronising classes and interference in their lives when they feel they should be independent.

"Fraternities might actually convey benefits on members and even their host institutions. While fraternity membership has been associated with cheating on exams and poor academic performance, other evidence suggests that fraternity members declare majors earlier, obtain higher-paying entry-level jobs and donate more to their alma maters. Anecdotally, simply requiring a higher G.P.A. to permit membership than simply to remain academically eligible might boost school performance among current and would-be fraternity members." Says Jeffrey DeSimone in “The Role of Drinking”

This argument is furthered by Charles Eberly in “Unfairly Singled Out,” where he states that "negative consequences surrounding the actions of fraternity and sorority members seem to be highlighted with far greater frequency than the positive outcomes associated with membership. Typical of the latter are examples from a fraternity chapter I counsel at Eastern Illinois University. One member who is graduating with a master's in school counselling developed a program on healthy men's development that is presented to all new members of the college's fraternity system each year, and another brother created a charity to support a local children's advocacy centre. Yet a third is running marathons in all 50 states to support suicide prevention in memory of a brother who committed suicide in 2008. The chapter is planning a fund raising drive to construct a wishing well on campus in coordination with another fraternity chapter that lost brothers in a bus accident, with the contributions going to the children’s advocacy centre."

Fraternities provide areas where different people with different skills can pool those skills together in order to provide an organised and productive environment for those around them. This is especially important given the American education system often focuses more greatly on variety of subjects studied. As such a fraternity might well have a brother who is very good at mathematics and as such could potentially help an English student who has taken a mathematics elective. Further, the standards required of fraternities owing to the very controversy that says we should ban them means that the majority of fraternities end up focusing strongly on maintaining academic success.^5,2

Fraternities promote a culture that implies that education is less important than other activities. Through their ritualistic behaviour fraternities psychologically imprint the idea in member’s heads that the fraternity is more important than all other parts of life. Given that that is true, often fraternities can lead to academic neglect. Secondly, the male dominated fraternity culture can create a sense of machismo, where doing well in school is associated with negative consequences, such as being a “nerd.”

It is also implied that the negative stereotypes of women portrayed by fraternities leads to an environment that is very negative for girls to learn in. In fact, these negative portrayals can often cause girls to feel unwelcome at university and force them to drop out owing to fear. Hence, fraternities not only harm the education of the people within the fraternity but also those who wish to have no part in those activities.⁷

Implicitly the motion assumes that all fraternities are about binge drinking, illicit sex and partying. However, there are many different types of fraternity that for example, admit members not based on old social connections of general likeability but on other criteria, such as academic success or commitment to certain causes. Indeed there are academic fraternities, religious fraternities and social justice fraternities. Whilst these fraternities aren’t immune to the harms mentioned on proposition, it is clear that their purpose and likely their members are significantly different in their attitudes to the “typical” fraternity member. These groups often do a significant level of good both for their members and for the wider community. It seems unjust therefore to ban all fraternities when these people are not doing anything to significantly harm the rest of the university community.³

Firstly, proposition can if they choose, concede this argument and state that they would not ban fraternities of a social, academic or religious nature. This does not harm the overall case and perhaps can be incorporated into the initial proposition mechanism.

Secondly, even if that is not legitimate in the context of the debate, it can be argued that fraternities are based on the basis of exclusion. Regardless of the type of fraternity, there will always be individuals who are considered inappropriate for the fraternity. University is meant to promote the idea that working together is a positive and good thing; however, exclusion from fraternities goes against this line of thinking and can result in individuals feeling that university is in no way different from the high school experience.

Further, those who are accepted into fraternities are often accepted because of past links to the fraternity. It means that often, even in academic fraternities, the concept of frat boys being, wealthy and white is promoted, again emphasising exclusion within the university system.¹