Summary: Should Colleges Ban Frater-Nities

CRITICS OF THE VALUE OF FRATERNITIES and sororities have considerable evidence to support detrimental aspects of membership. Advocates counter that findings represent isolated cases comparable to the same rate of incidents by nonmember students or students in other campus organizations. The continued recurrence of the argument highlights a per- sistent difficulty confronting those interested in research and practice related to fraternal involvement. North-American Interfraternity Conference (NIC) President and CEO Pete Smithhisler recently stated, “often, arguments both for and against the fraternity experience focus on personal experience and anecdotal information” (Pendry, 2010, para. 2). The persistence of these ar- guments was most recently affirmed in a New York Times column (2011) asking experts to comment on the question, “Should Colleges Ban Frater- nities?” Further, research about the legal risks associated with fraternities on campus has done little to convince the public of the value of such organi- zations (e.g., Elkins, Helms, & Pierson, 2003; Hennessy & Huson, 1998), neither have popular books (e.g., DeSantis, 2007; Nuwer, 2001; Robbins, 2005), nor highly trafficked websites (e.g., http://totalfratmove.com/) that showcase the detrimental aspects of membership. Yet, students continue to join.
Since national data

collection began in 2000 (HERI, 2013), 10.9% (sd = 0.91) of incoming first-time, full-time college freshmen said they planned to join a fraternity or a sorority (Figure 1).
The Influence of Fraternity and Sorority Involvement 1
FIGURE 1
Percentage of Incoming Freshmen Intending to Join a Fraternity or a Sorority (2000–2012)
Note: Illustration of longitudinal responses from entering first-time full-time college freshmen to the statement: Chances are very good that you will join a social fraternity or sorority. Since 2000, an average of 270,000 students from over 400 institutions per year participated in the survey (HERI, 2013), which is weighted to represent national norms for American college freshmen attending bac- calaureate-granting institutions. Although these data have been collected since 1967, the question was not disaggregated until more recently. Specifically, in 2000, the “future activity” item “join a social fraternity, sorority or club” was changed to “participate in student government” and “join a social fraternity or sorority,” respectively, with similar results.
Consistent with this trend, 11.7% of freshmen became members ac- cording to national aggregates from 2009 (Ruiz, Sharkness, Kelly, DeAngelo, & Prior, 2010).

As of 2012, the NIC, an association representing interna- tional and national men’s fraternities, listed 75 member organizations with approximately 5,500 chapters located on more than 800 campuses with about 350,000 undergraduate members in the United States and Canada. In 2011, the National Panhellenic Conference (NPC, 2012), which repre- sents international and national women’s groups, listed 26 member organiza- tions with approximately 3,078 chapters located on 655 campuses with

more
2
than 300,000 undergraduate members. Other prominent organizing coun- cils, such as the National Pan-Hellenic Council, Incorporated (NPHC) and the National Multicultural Greek Council, Incorporated (NMGC), have not published membership statistics. This does not even account for noncoun- cil member groups, local chapters, and other campus organizations that use Greek-letter designations. As will be demonstrated in this volume, the loose organizational coupling of these organizations makes precision difficult. De- spite this imprecision, it is reasonable to say that fraternities and sororities remain a prominent extracurricular outlet for college students.
Terminology
The terminology used in this monograph will be familiar to fraternity/sorority professionals but may seem new to those not affiliated with the Association of Fraternity/Sorority Advisors (AFA) or Oracle. The word “Greek” will not be used in this volume to describe fraternity or sorority members; Greek is considered a nationality rather than an organizational distinction. It might be argued that fraternities and sororities could be considered “Greek-letter organizations,” and although this label is not incorrect, it is still somewhat imprecise. A parallel is the use of the word “Hispanic,” as noted in a recent Oracle editorial (Biddix, 2010). Throughout this monograph, members will be referred to as affiliates, fraternity/sorority members, or members of frater- nal organizations. Fraternal organization is an inclusive term encompassing both men’s and women’s groups, as several women’s groups (e.g., Chi Omega Fraternity) have retained their original description as a women’s fraternity. Regardless of group designation, members of men’s groups will be listed as