Fraternity Discrimination Faces a Deadline
CHAIRMAN, UNDERGRADUATE COUNCIL DISCRIMINATION COMMITTEE
UNDER pressure of tremendous growth in student enrollment, the postwar years have produced profound changes in the American college scene.
The increased demand for higher education has brought with it something of a revolution in social attitudes. These attitudes have been marked by an increasingly critical view, taken by both students and faculty, toward fraternities which set up racial and religious barriers to membership.
Opposition to the discriminatory system began shortly after the close of World War II, under the influence of the large number of veterans who entered the nation's colleges under the GI bill. Returning from the world's fighting fronts, they brought to the campuses a broad cosmopolitan outlook which could not be reconciled with the snobbery and prejudice long prevalent among many national fraternities.
All over the country, campus sentiment is on the rise against this hallmark of exclusiveness which has shut out a certain section of the college population from equal enjoyment of the social privileges which are a basic part of a liberal education. On March 24, 1954, the student body at Dartmouth College voted to recommend to the Trustees that "by April 1, i960, any fraternity which, as a result of a nationally imposed written or unwritten discrimination clause, restricts or can be interpreted to restrict membership because of race, religion, or national origin, shall be barred from all interfraternity participation."
President Dickey has explained the feeling of the Trustees that led to their acceptance of the student recommendation: "An externally imposed racial or religious barrier to the choice by a Dartmouth man of his social companions is not a desirable educational influence. . . . I simply want Dartmouth students to be free here to take or reject their social associates on the basis of their own preferences and judgment concerning the individual merits of a man."
PROGRESS AT THE COLLEGE
The 1954 referendum was the culmination of many years of work on the discrimination issue by various student groups: student government, The Dartmouth, The Dartmouth Christian Union, and other organizations. The first campus poll on the issue was conducted in late 1949, in which close to 75% of the campus favored elimination of discriminatory clauses. On March 1, 1950, in a campus referendum, the student body voted to require each fraternity to make an effort to eliminate discriminatory provisions from its constitution. The accepted proposal stated, "If it can be established that any fraternity has not exhausted all possible means of eliminating such clauses, short of disaffiliation with their national organizations, the Undergraduate Council shall withdraw all recognition of that fraternity."
Shortly after this vote was taken, a Committee on the Review of Discriminatory Clauses was appointed, consisting of the president of the Undergraduate Council, the chairman of Palaeopitus, the president of The Dartmouth, the president of the National Student Association committee, the president and vice-president of the Interfraternity Council, and two juniors appointed by the president with the approval of the Council. It was the job of this committee to insure that all fraternities meet the requirements of the referendum.
It was under this ruling in April of 1952 that Theta Chi, burdened by a "Caucasian" clause (limiting membership to members of the white race), re-examining the membership requirements of its national constitution, voted to consider it no longer binding in the selection of new members to the fraternity chapter. Later, the national notified the chapter that due to their "unilateral action in regard to the constitution of the fraternity, they could no longer be recognized as a chapter of Theta Chi." The house was then organized as Alpha Theta, a local fraternity, and was recognized by the College in September 1952, amidst much country-wide acclaim.
THE 1954 REFERENDUM
By 1954 the consensus was that the preliminary stages of the anti-discrimination movement had been satisfactory. The Undergraduate Council voted to conduct another referendum to determine campus opinion on the progress and future of the movement. A campus-wide poll in which 86.5% of the students voted offered three alternatives: (1) the continuation of the current program, in which fraternities, were left on their own to work out the problem; (2) the establishment of a deadline by which time every house would have to be free of nationally imposed discriminatory practices; (3) the opportunity to discontinue all further work on the discrimination problem.
2248 out of 2599 students voted, in the following breakdown: 848 for the continuation of the present program; 1128 for the establishment of the deadline of April 1, 1960; 272 to discontinue the movement. The proposal for the deadline had passed by a slim majority. However, analyzing the returns, it is obvious that 1976 of the voters were definitely opposed to discrimination: an overwhelming majority of the students.
With this indication of strong campus support for the program, the Council in subsequent years-has been working out a system to implement the 1954 referendum. The first step in the system is a letter to be sent by every fraternity to its national office, in' which the national officers are required to declare the chapter free of nationally imposed discriminatory practices. Step number two is a pledge to be signed by every fraternity president, with the unanimous consent of the brotherhood fin the local chapter, reaffirming their freedom in choice of membership.
Seven national fraternities have been affected by the 1954 referendum: Delta Tau Delta, Phi Gamma Delta, Phi Delta Theta, Phi Kappa Psi, Sigma Alpha Epsilon, Sigma Chi, and Sigma Nu. The four local houses - Alpha Theta (formerly Theta Chi), Kappa Kappa Kappa, Gamma Delta Chi, and Phi Tau (formerly Phi Sigma Kappa), are not affected by the referendum. The thirteen other national fraternities on the campus appear at present to be free of any nationally imposed discrimination: Alpha Chi Rho, Alpha Delta Phi, Beta Theta Pi, Chi Phi, Delta Kappa Epsilon, Delta Upsilon, Kappa Sigma, Pi Lambda Phi, Psi Upsilon, Sigma Phi Epsilon, Tau Epsilon Phi, Theta Delta Chi, and Zeta Psi.
PHI DELT GOES LOCAL
The national office of Phi Delta Theta indicated early last year that it would be impossible for the Dartmouth chapter to meet the referendum requirements, since the motion to delete the discriminatory provisions of the constitution was defeated at the last national convention. Early in January of this year, Phi Delta Theta national became the Phi Delta Alpha local fraternity and was recognized by the College.
The discriminatory clause in a national constitution can be one of two types. Usually, the clause limits membership to members of the Caucasian race, a certain religion, or some variation of these stipulations. In a number of cases, however, a constitution requires simply that a person must be "socially acceptable throughout the entire fraternity." The Discrimination Committee has gone along with the feeling that such a clause does not necessarily mean that a national fraternity imposes discriminatory requirements on the local chapter. In reviewing each fraternity case, the Committee has felt that such a clause must be dealt with in the light of its practical application in fraternity affairs. Obviously, such a clause could be used discriminatorily. Phi Kappa Psi has a requirement somewhat like this, and it has never been used for discriminatory purposes. Phi Gamma Delta has a "socially acceptable" clause which has been used primarily for this purpose. For this reason, Phi Kappa Psi will be approved by the Committee, and Phi Gam will not; Phi Psi will return both required letters, and Phi Gam can return neither.
Sigma Chi and Sigma Nu are examples of fraternities whose membership is limited to certain races or religions. Since they cannot meet the established criteria, they too will probably have to become local houses after April 1 of this year, unless a change in their constitutions occurs.
THE CASE OF SAE
Sigma Alpha Epsilon presents an interesting problem. This fraternity has a clause which requires "social acceptability" of all members. If any potential member is socially unacceptable to any brother throughout the nation, the brother may request the national officers to investigate his "social acceptability." This clause, according to the national officers, is designed to protect the fraternity against perverts, subversives, or other undesirable people. This clause would, in effect, make it possible for any one member of the national fraternity to keep another man from becoming his fraternity brother if he deemed him "socially unacceptable." It is conceivable that this clause could be used for discriminatory purposes.
As the case stands, however, the clause has never been used to prevent a man from becoming a member of SAE on the grounds of race, religion, or national origin. But the case has been complicated further by the refusal of the national officers to sign the required letter.
In a letter from Rex A. Smith, Eminent Supreme Recorder of the SAE Fraternity, he states that nothing in their constitution, by-laws, or ritual can "reasonably" be interpreted to restrict membership on discriminatory grounds. He goes on to state that their national laws are in no way discriminatory. In a subsequent letter, Mr. Smith stated (in response to a question from the Discrimination Committee) that it would be possible under their national laws for a man of any race, religion, or national origin to be a member of SAE. There have been Jewish members, and members of other nationalities, but the case has never arisen where a Negro has attempted to become a member. Mr. Smith affirmed that this was entirely possible, however, under their constitution.
The Committee decided that a substitute letter of the type submitted by Sigma Alpha Epsilon, stating unconditionally the absence of any discrimination in the national fraternity, should be acceptable, if submitted for a good reason. The feeling of SAE was simply that the wording of the required letter was unreasonable in demanding that they certify that nothing in their laws could be interpreted to be discriminatory; since in actual practice there had been no discrimination in the fraternity, the officers felt justified in stating that nothing in their constitution could reasonably be interpreted as a discriminatory restriction.
This alternate letter from the national has been backed up by the submission of the required pledge by the president of the local chapter, certified by unanimous vote of the local membership, that no discriminatory restrictions are imposed upon them by national law.
Delta Tau Delta seems to be in much the same position as SAE, although this fraternity has submitted no letters as yet. Burdened by a "socially acceptable" clause, the national officers have refused to sign the letter so far, and so the local chapter has been unable to pledge freedom in choice of membership.
THE SYSTEM AT WORK
In April of this year the Discrimination Committee will make a separate case report to the Undergraduate Council on each national fraternity, with the recommendation that it be approved or rejected for retention of national affiliation. The Council will in turn recommend the proper action to the Trustees, who will make the final decision. Somewhere in this process, the Trustees are expected to rely heavily on the opinion of the Dean's Office in regard to each case. Since the Deans and the Discrimination Committee are working in close contact, there is substantial agreement all along the line, between the students and the administration, as to the proper action to be taken in any case.
Each year after April i960 in every national fraternity, the incoming president will have to renew the pledge of freedom from nationally imposed discrimination, with the vote of the entire initiated membership. If anyone in a fraternity feels the pledge is being signed in bad faith, he will be entitled to request an investigation of the fraternity by Palaeopitus, the executive committee of student government. Also, any man who "rushes" in later years and feels he has been prevented from joining a house for reasons of discrimination, will be given the opportunity to request an investigation of the house in question.
The system has been set up to allow Palaeopitus to make a preliminary investigation in any case reported, and if there seems to be some validity to the claim, to set up a special committee within the Undergraduate Council to investigate the problem and suggest appropriate action to the Trustees.
EFFECTIVE DATE
While the Trustees at their spring meeting will take action on each house in the light of its situation on April 1, any house that may be required to go local will have until the first of next September to complete the changeover. This policy was suggested by the Discrimination Committee and accepted by the Trustees at their last meeting.
This decision allows the houses concerned adequate time to complete all die necessary steps to sever national affiliation and set up a local house. Rather than trying to- accomplish this weighty task during the school year, the few fraternities that will have to go local will have the summer months to complete the process.
In two cases, Sigma Chi and Phi Gamma Delta, there is strong indication that the situation in the national fraternity may change before the end of the summer. Phi Gam has a national convention this summer, and it is quite possible that the discriminatory provisions might be voted out of their constitution at that time. The Dartmouth chapter of Sigma Chi is currently conducting a mail vote among the members of the national on this question, the results of which will not be out until early in the summer.
In either of these cases, should the national situation change before the switch to local status is completed, a reexamination of the case will be possible, and if the fraternity can then meet the referendum requirements, the house will be allowed to remain affiliated with the national fraternity.
RESOLVING AN ISSUE
Among the alumni and students, as well as the general public, there has been some opposition to this movement. There are those who consider it something foisted upon the fraternity system by an all-powerful College administration. This is exactly what it is not.
As pointed out earlier, this movement to rid all Dartmouth fraternities of nationally imposed discrimination originated with the students, and has been carried through by the students, with the majority of the student body and the faculty and administration in support of it, at least in principle.
Not involved is any judgment on the benefits of national affiliation, or of fraternities in general. Taking the value of the fraternity in a liberal arts college as an established fact, the 1954 referendum is not even attempting to force everyone to believe that all men are created equal, or that we should not practice selectivity in our personal affairs. That decision should be left up to us.
And it is precisely here that the issue exists. The decision to discriminate or not to discriminate, to restrict our social organizations to one-eyed reactionaries or Zen Buddhists should be made solely by the individual, as the development of his own ethics and values is the sole responsibility of each single man. The 1954 referendum forbids any fraternity to accept a command by an outside group that racial or religious discrimination must be part of their value system, a command that restricts the freedom of the individual at Dartmouth to decide for himself with whom he should associate.
Tom Green '60 (r), Discrimination Committee chairman, who has written this report for thealumni, shown at the Alpha Theta House with Steve Bradish '61 and Bob Aiken '62.
April 1, 1960 is the deadline set by the Dartmouth Trustees for the elimination of all nationally imposed discrimination clauses in the constitutions of Dartmouth fraternities. With only one month left, Thomas E. Green '60, chairman of the Undergraduate Council's Discrimination Committee, has been asked to bring the alumni up to date on the background, the actions so far taken, and the unfinished business of the fraternity program.
