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

416 THE SCROLLMiami University, all supported by the State, and bills have been introducedin the legislatures of Wisconsin, Texas and Minnesota to abolish fraternities inthe state universities of those states. There is much feeling on the subject inthese four states. Such attacks on fraternities were threatened also in Kansas,and other states.The movement in Ohio is opposed by Dr. W. O. Thompson, President ofOhio State University, by Dr. R. M. Hughes, President of Miami University,and by Dr. Alston Ellis, * A 9, President of Ohio University. The last isquoted as follows in the Columbus Evening Dispatch of February 15 :President Alston ElHs, of Ohio University, does not think that college sororitiesand fraternities are harmful. If they are not being properly conducted, he says thatit is within .the power of the college or university to apply the necessary remedy.This can be done by regulation. Ohio University has a number of these organizations,and President Ellis asserts that they have not proved to be inimical in theirefEect upon the student."Each of these organizations has a representative in our faculty," he says, "andeach representative is held to accountability for his particular one. The best citizensof Athens are sponsors for these sororities and fraternities. I can see no evilin them when properly conducted, and this can be done by regulation by the collegeor university."President Ellis will appear before the house committee to present his views onthis subject when the bill which seeks to abolish college sororities and fraternitiescomes up before it for hearing. He thinks it would be more profitable for thegeneral assembly to employ its time in consideration of legislation of more vitalimportance than in occupying valuable time over a measure of such little consequence.A dispatch from Ohio State University, published in the New York Timesof March 2 says:Considerable agitation was caused on the Ohio State campus when the Lantern andthe Weekly printed interviews with President W. O. Thompson, one making him infavor of the fraternities and the other showing him opposed to them. Doctor Thompsoncame out with a signed statement in which he admitted that evils existed in thefraternity system, but emphatically stated that he did not believe in their abolition.The following press dispatch, dated Madison, Wis., February 26, 1913,shows that President Van Hise made a strong argument in defense of fraternities; he certainly hit the nail squarely on the head:President Charles R. Van Hise of the University of Wisconsin told a committeeof the legislature yesterday that to abolish fraternities at the institution would meantheir continuance under the name of "clubs." He spoke against the passage of thebill proposing their abolition in all state-supported schools.He was asked to reconcile the argument that fraternity students are 2 per centbelow non-members in scholastic grades with his statement that fraternities are aforce for good. He replied the percentage would probably be still lower were thesame men not members of fraternities.The legislature of South Carolina, in 1897, barred fraternities from the stateuniversity. A similar but defective act was passed by the legislature of Arkansasin 1902, and fraternities still continue there. The recent act of theMississippi legislature excluding fraternities is being'contested in the courts,and if necessary will be taken to the United States Supreme Court.Fraternities are prohibited at Princeton University, Oberlin College, MonmouthCollege, Virginia Military Institute, Virginia Polytechnic Institute,Emory and Henry College (Va.), Wake Forest College (N. C), Wofford College(S. C), Furman University (S. C), Erskine College (S. C.) and TrinityUniversity (Texas). $ A 9 has had chapters at Monmouth, V. M. I., Woffordand Trinity.CONSERVATISM OF SECTIONAL FRATERNITIESTwo systems of development arose to meet the new conditions. B 9 II,* A 9, 2 X, (the Ohio Triad) and ATA, soon followed by * P A and thesouthern societies (whose phenomenal development showed a Napoleonic leadershipand deserves a chapter of itself) strove vigorously and intelligently forposition as actual American, national societies and made a planned extension.For years on the other hand, A A ^ and "^ T, for example, took the positionthat they were already better than any other boys could be, and imitatedthe example of K A or A 4» in becoming merely provincial, not national, in