A Brief History of Racial and Ethnic Discrimination in Greek-Letter Organizations

Yesterday

(NLNS)—From the founding of the first fraternity in the U.S. until the end of the Civil War, fraternities did not have membership policies which discriminated on any characteristic other than sex. This was largely due, however, to the fact that the student body was composed almost exclusively of white Protestants. As the makeup of the studen body began to change, Greek-letter organizations began adopting official policies discriminating against African Americans, Jews, Asian Americans, and other minorities. The racial and ethnic proscriptions were in some cases quite stringent; as late as 1953 it was the national policy of Lambda Chi Alpha to pledge only those “who are members of the Caucasian race who are of non-Semitic blood and believe in the principles of Christianity,” rejecting those with even “one-eighth of proscribed blood.” One commentator noted that “This is even more restrictive than Hitler’s definition of the “Semite” in his infamous Nuremberg laws: his edicts applied only to those who had one-fourth or more of ancestry identifiable as Jewish.”

In his 1955 book Fraternities Without Brotherhood, Alfred McClung Lee examined in detail what he described as “the chief defect in… the social fraternity,” which “may be summed up as “Aryanism”—the acceptance and rejection of persons for membership on grounds of race, religion, and national origin. To the extent that Aryanism persists in them, social fraternities represent a basic threat to democracy in the United States.”

Several clear cases of the application of these discriminatory policies came to national attention in the 1950s. For example, in 1953 the Phi Delta Theta national suspended its chapters at Williams and Amherst for pledging “non-Aryans.” Although the national changed it official requirement for admission from “full Aryan blood” to “socially acceptable” the following year, the suspensions of the Amherst and Williams chapters were upheld.

Resistance to discriminatory policies grew quickly in the 1950s, both from university administrations and undergraduate students. Some local chapters adopted non-discriminatory policies even though it meant losing the recognition of their nationals. According to a student at Wesleyan at the time, “We view with shame the paradoxical situation presently existent at Wesleyan—of a community explicitly dedicated to the principles of democracy and brotherhood which yet allows discriminatory practices to persist within its own area of jurisdiction.” Despite the movement for change, nationals and alumni clung closely to tradition.

For example, National Interfraternity Conference (NIC) President David A. Embury said in 1947 that people should “stop shivering at the word discrimination… I love the discriminating tongue, the discriminating eye, the discriminating ear, and, above all, the discriminating mind and… soul. The person for whom I can find no love and no respect is the indiscriminate person. To be indiscriminate is to be common, to be vulgar.” According to Phi Kappa Tau member Professor William Henry Shideler in 1951, “The drive to “liberalize” fraternities is one that has no fundamental basis for action. Yet all over the U.S., too simultaneously to be accidental and affecting too many campuses where there has never been a problem to be spontaneous, we find a ver similar pattern of attack upon fraternities by deans of men, directors of student affairs and professors of sociology, government, and psychology. The pattern has been so nearly identical that one cannot avoid the conclusion that it all came from an original source.” What was the “original source”? According to Shideler’s “personal ideas, “this is just another case where some well-intentioned, but misguided people have been sucked into a deal initiated by the Communists.”

The claim of a Communist conspiracy was reiterated by NIC President Embury at the 1947 NIC convention: “Now, we know that in large part this movement [to eliminate discriminatory clauses] has originated with student councils, especially student councils dominated by the AYD [American Youth for Democracy] and other left- wing radicals. The trouble is that it has not stopped there. I am not afraid of the man who says, “I am a Communist and, in the name of Communism, I demand thus and so.” I am, however, afraid of the big-hearted, liberal-minded fellow who, without bothering too much to think things through for himself, falls for the high-sounding but wholly specious pseudo-altruistic arguments of the left-wing rabble-rouser and takes up the cudgel for the chap whom he sincerely, although erroneously, regards as the under-dog. … I, for one, will fight to the last ounce of my strength to defend the right—the democratic right—of any man or group of men to form a fraternity or other association with any membership restriction or qualification that they, in their absolute discretion, may see fit to impose: a fraternity of blacks for blacks, of whites for whites, of Jews for Jews, of Gentiles for Gentiles, of Catholics for Catholics, of Protestants for Protestants.”

As a result of discriminatory practices by fraternities and sororities, and as the enrollment of minorities in universities increased, minorities began to establish their own fraternities. Phi Kappa Sigma was formed at Brown University in 1889 as a fraternity for Catholic students.
[Email from Mike Haas, Beta Tau Chapter, Phi Kappa Sigma: "Your Artical on A Brief Histroy of Racial and Ethnic Discrimination in Greek Lettered Organizations needs to be changed. The Phi Kappa Sigma Fraternity did not start at Brown University. It started at U-Penn in 1850. The PKS that you are talking about became Phi Kappa Theta after they realized that their was already a Phi Kappa Sigma. Theta Phi Kappa Sigma came together with another Fraternity Theta Kappa Phi to make Phi Kappa Theta. The Two PKS's are not linked in any way. Please correct the article. Also Phi Kappa Sigma was the first fraternity not to discriminate, because we never did." Date: Thu, 08 Aug 2002 09:23:48 -0400]
Pi Lambda Phi was formed in 1895 as the nation’s first non-sectarian fraternity, accepting men of all religions; local chapters of Pi Lambda Phi were often founded by Jewish students who would not be accepted by other fraternities. The first fraternity for African American men, Alpha Phi Alpha, was established in 1906 at Cornell University. Fraternities for particular minority groups oftenexcluded students who were not members of the minority.

When questioned about the need for fraternities for minority students in 1949, Alpha Phi Alpha President Wilbert Whitsett responded that “If we are not permitted to join other fraternities, we must form a fraternity of our own. We have no other choice.” On the same topic a member of a Jewish fraternity said that “The pattern of segregation is fixed by the so-called white Caucasian fraternities. We simply have to fit into it. … Nobody really likes to live in a ghetto. But sometimes you have to.”

Today

By the early 1960s all the major national fraternities and sororities had eliminated discriminatory clauses from their charters (other than those discriminating by sex). In Fraternities Without Brotherhood, Alfred McClung Lee astutely pointed out that “the abolition of restrictive clauses is merely a first step; it ignores other means for maintaining restrictive practices. It may remove an obstacle; it does not promote integration.” This point was demonstrated in when 1950 Pi Kappa Phi eliminated its discriminatory constitutional clause, only to replace it with a new secret initiation ritual which required that members vow to continue the old discriminatory practices. Even in the absence of such conscious efforts to subvert the elimination of official discrimination, other forces can work to restrict access to minority students, even in the face of the best of intentions.

Where do the predominantly white college fraternities and sororities stand today with respect to minority students? It is clear that despite the elimination of official discriminatory policies over thirty years ago, problems remain.

A charge leveled against fraternities on many campuses is that, despite the lack of official policies of discrimination, they continue to discriminate and are in fact overtly racist. Some of these charges are based on continued de facto segregation, others on parties with racist themes or other similar events. In addition, hazing activities have included the use of racial stereotypes, and according to a recent New York Times article, initiation rituals involving “racial and ethnic taunting or mocking” are on the rise. For example, “At Texas A&M University last October, Sigma Alpha Epsilon, a white fraternity, held a “jungle” theme party. Pledges blackened their faces, donned grass skirts, carried spears and were “hunted” by members dressed in military fatigues.”

A similar event at the Rider College chapter of Phi Kappa Psi gained national media coverage recently. Pledges of the all-white fraternity were made to dress “like black people,” have X’s painted on their foreheads, and talk in stereotypical black speech while cleaning the fraternity house. A message posted to a public electronic mailing list by a representative of the fraternity soon after the event, which became known as “Nigger Night,” claimed that the event was the sole work of a deviant brother and that the fraternity “condemn[s] the incident and neither condone[s] nor tolerate[s] insensitive or inappropriate behavior of this nature.” A week later, however, the Phi Kappa Psi national announced in a press release that, in fact, “the actions were premeditated and conducted with the full knowledge of the chapter officers,” and that initial reports from the fraternity to the contrary were the result of the fact that “the chapter officers conspired to lie and obstructed both the Fraternity’s and the college’s investigations.” The press release further stated that “Phi Kappa Psi…does not condone or tolerate actions or language which are insensitive to others” and that “Action is pending to expel from the Fraternity the members who were involved.”

Other similar incidents abound. Such actions, combined with the historical discrimination practiced by fraternities, have certainly not helped to attract minority students to predominantly white fraternities on many campuses.

Tomorrow?

What can be done to address the problems facing minority students with respect to predominantly white fraternities and sororities? Greek-letter organizations have long espoused democratic rhetoric, claiming that they “adhere… steadfastly to social, religious, political and economic democracy as the only sound basis for a satisfying personal and national life” and that they “defend… the individual’s right to liberty and equality of opportunity.” If this is true, then Greek-letter organizations need to take positive steps to ensure that they do in fact offer opportunities for everyone. Of course, there is at least one basis on which fraternities and sororities are as openly discriminatory as ever: sex. But that is an article for another day.

Change will not come about by itself, and if history is any guide, any positive changes that come about will be the result of the idealism and efforts of students. It was largely through the effort of students that formal discrimination was eliminated in Greek-letter organizations, and it will no doubt be by the effort of students that substantive discrimination and other problems facing Greek-letter organizations will be eliminated.

The Thistle can be reached
℅ Alternative News Collective, 84
Massachusetts Ave
Cambridge, MA 02139
(617) 253-0399
      

♦ ♦ ♦