1912–13 Volume 37 No 1–5 - Phi Delta Theta Scroll Archive

248 THE SCROLLFRATERNITY EDITORS MEETOn the evening before the meeting of the conference, there was ameeting of men who were or had been connected with fraternityjournals. About twenty-five enjoyed a dinner, for which arrangementshad been made by Mr. James T. Brown, business manager ofthe Beta Theta Pi. This was the second interfraternity editorial dinnerpreceding the Interfraternity Conference, and the occasion wasa very delightful one. Mr. William Raimond Baird, editor of theBeta Theta Pi, and author of "American College Fraternities," presidedand led in an informal discussion of various topics relating toPan-Hellenic matters, and especially to the editorial and businessmanagement of fraternity journals. Those present from Phi DeltaTheta were George Banta and Walter B. Palmer.Mr. Banta spoke in favor of the fraternities giving the InterfraternityConference at least limited legislative powers, so that it mightenact binding rules with regard to such questions as the exclusionof members of high school fraternities, postponing initiation untilafter the first semester, and regulating rushing practices. His propositionwas favored by Mr. Ed. L. Sutton, editor of the KappaSigma Caduceus, but was considered impracticable at this time byMr. James Anderson Hawes, editor of the Delta Kappa Epsilon Quarterly,and Mr. Frank F. Rogers, editor of the Delta Tau Delta Rainbow.Mr. Hawes stated that some of the chapters of Delta KappaEpsilon would certainly object to the Interfraternity Conferenceexercising legislative instead of advisory powers, and that severalfraternities that had been very timid about entering the conferencewould seriously object to submitting to its authority if it shouldundertake to enact legislation that would be binding on all of thefraternities represented in it. An editorial by Mr. Baird in theBeta Theta Pi for January says:The opposition to the college fraternities is becoming mbre intense, moreunited and more effective everywhere. It calls for more united and efficientaction on the part of the fraternities than has heretofore been had. In theInterfraternity Conference at New York the representatives of' the severalfraternities seemed to be in great accord on most of the propositions whichwere brought before the meeting for consideration and discussion, but all,or a great majority of them, seemed averse to doing anything or passing anyresolutions which would have any binding effect upon anybody. They seemedafraid of accomplishing anything for fear that in some way they may losesome small atom of individual freedom of action. ' In brief, they are each oneof them in favor of the enactment of laws and the passage of resolutions tendingto promote more harmonious feelings on the part of the different fraternitiesbut are very generally against the enforcement of such laws or thecarrying out of such resolutions. We fear that nothing will be accomplishedby this body until the delegates to it are given some legislative authority andsome power to bind their respective fraternities.Mr. Baird argues that binding force should be given to acts ofthe Interfraternity Conference, because "One chapter in a college candefeat entirely the efforts of the other chapters to accomplish anv-