Fraternity Tension

Increased Tension and Regulations Between Fraternities and University Adminsiatration

During the post-war period, the relationship between fraternities and university administration enters a period of tension. A newspaper article at the time reports that the “Greeks” are raising havoc with their traditions of organization. In 1946, fraternities get reexamined to solve the fraternity “problem”. Fraternities received criticism from

• College administrators
• Faculty
• Legislators
• National publications
• General public

They all have argued that fraternities serve a useless function and should be eliminated. Instead, a new constitution was developed based on recommendations made by the Activities Bureau and Interfraternity Council. It ruled that

“No group will be recognized as a Greek letter or social fraternity by the university unless it

subscribes to the constitution and the bylaws and becomes and remains a member of the

Council.”

This gave the Council

• The power to govern all academic fraternities on campus
• Superiority to any individual chapter
• The status of a policy-determining organization¹

Leaked Party Photos

Despite the positive image fraternities were trying to give themselves, newspaper continued to print articles that gave a different image. In 1948, photos were leaked of a party held by Delta Sigma Pi. An article written on these photos said

“These pictures which showed co-eds in shorts and fraternity men in swimming trunks

participating in an evening’s entertainment were labeled, by Edmund G. Williamson, dean of

students, as being ‘in very poor taste.’”²

Continued Regulation

The two different images of fraternities were constantly battling. In 1951, more regulations were added to fraternities, this time concerning pledge walkouts. These regulations were added to prevent destruction of property. They stated

• No walkouts could be scheduled during the first two weeks
• Pledges had to be taught how to properly conduct a walkout
• The walkout must be registered with the IFC
• A representative must attend an IFC meeting during the first three weeks³

Fraternity Propaganda

The problems surrounding fraternities compelled them to release brochures that told a different story than the newspapers. In 1948, one booklet stated

“The words ‘brotherhood’ and ‘fraternity’ will sometimes draw a snicker from the occasional

bystander. To him they probably represent just college tom-foolery and snobbery. Strangely

enough, that is just what a fraternity is not.”⁴

These booklets tried to attach a more positive image of fraternities to keep them alive. In 1966, another pamphlet portrays the same thing, claiming

“The American college fraternity has undergone drastic revision during the past few decades.

Unfortunately, the image of the fraternity man in the 1920’s, dedicated to drinking, parties, and

perpetual hazing of pledges was too often true. However, the modern Minnesota fraternity has

successfully outgrown this and has come to an awareness of the university’s more worthwhile

activities.”⁵

The fraternities claimed the issues surrounding fraternities were a thing of the past and no longer prevalent. 

Back and Forth with Medical Fraternities

The period from 1950-1952 was a period of extreme tension between fraternities and the U. Fraternities were under fire due to allegations of breaking university policies and house rules on drinking and parties. 

1950

In 1950, it was reported that Phi Rho Sigma created a “fake chaperone list” for a New Year’s Eve party, though these allegations were denied by medical fraternity leaders. Many university officials responded to this incident:

“The University would be better off without these groups than to have the student activities

bureau turn into an agency which continually snooped into the fraternity houses to police

them.” -B.J. Borreson, associate director of the student activities bureau

It was also said that

”Rule violations by the medical fraternities were endangering the administration’s

relationship with the academic fraternities.” -Edmund G. Williamson, dean of students⁶

1951

More violations occurred in 1951, this time for breaking rules on drinking. Phi Kappa Psi, an academic fraternity, received several severe penalties. These penalties upset many fraternity members. E. G. Williamson, the dean of students, wrote a letter to Robert J. Sommers, the Phi Kappa Psi president. He announced that the fraternity lost all rushing and pledging privileges until Jan. 1, 1952.⁷

1952

A new rule was enacted on drinking that replaced the old IF regulation. It stated that

“no beer or liquor shall be served or provided for any rushee at any time or place by a chapter

or member during formal rushing, or at any organized chapter function in or out of the house

during the remainder of the year except under University approved conditions.”

A Pharmacy Fraternity also admitted to stealing University furniture and test answers in April of 1952. A meeting was held to determine whether Phi Delta Chi should be abolished.⁸