Strong Talk

As expected, there was a mild furor over the new constitution for the fraternity system [see "An Unease on Webster Avenue," April issue], and just about everyone involved came out of the ruckus looking a bit sheepish. Fraternities were told that if they refused to sign by the April deadline, the College would suspend their officially recognized status. In other words, they would become public boarding houses, subject to local safety and health codes few would be able to satisfy.

Feeling as though they were being railroaded, the house presidents staged a few sessions of angry talk at Interfraternity Council meetings. Three presidents claimed they would not sign the document, protesting what they characterized as "strong-arm tactics" on the part of the College and Dean Ralph Manuel '58. But when the deadline actually arrived, everyone signed on the dotted line.

"We really had no choice," observed former IFC President Robert Ceplikas '78, "but I don't think the constitution is a bad document at all. The only real issue was the College's timing."

The constitution seeks to define the relationship between the fraternities and the College. It establishes a structure for governing the fraternity system, operating under the assumption that the fraternities, as part of the College, are subject to its control. The College guarantees to help out in financial matters, and in turn the houses are expected to maintain certain standards in keeping up the buildings. The constitution also insures that a majority on the board of fraternity overseers will have had affiliation with the fraternity system.