Need to Go National?

IN an editorial published in The Crimson last week titled "Life Isn't a Kosher Deli," Jonathan Cohn launched an attack on the recent surge of fraternities at Harvard--and Sigma Alpha Mu, in particular.

But although the goals and positions of the new traditionally Jewish organization are to some extent questionable, his argument showed little appreciation for the need for a new breed of social organization. Students are attempting to broaden the organized social life of a University whose present system caters almost exclusively to prep-school WASPs and old-boy legacies.

Unfortunately, in attacking Sigma Alpha Mu as a Jewish fraternity, Cohn's arguments hinted anti-semitism and unfairly pre-judged the new organization.

Calling it "an unfortunate trend in American Judaism today" for Jews to congregate socially, he creates a fright-eningly anti-semitic image of the fraternity which comes across as naive and misguided.

If several Jewish men join an organization with the hopes of meeting and socializing with others of the same cultural and religious background, more power to them. The courage to associate socially--not just for religious and cultural functions sponsored through organizations such as Hillel--should be commended.

What liberal advocates of diversity seem to ignore too often is the fact that for diversity to "work" at Harvard, individuals within minority groups must be willing to build strong communities amongst themselves before they can go out and share their varying ideas and customs with the rest of the community. And cultural activities alone are not always enough to build strong personal bonds between individuals in minority communities--too often we see members of the same race or religion shy away from social association with people of their own background for fear of being characterized as "segregationists" or by their minority characteristic alone.

THE minority dilemna rests in the ability to find a balance between integration and segregation, and contrary to Cohn's generalized stigmatizations, members of Sigma Alpha Mu seem to have an appreciation for this balance.

Founders of the fraternity have repeatedly said they will not discriminate on the basis of race, religion or socio-economic status. According to colony president Jonathan L. Brisman '90, the fraternity plans to mail pledge cards to every first-year male--an action which should eventually speak louder than words.

But what we should examine in addition to how exclusive or egalitarian these new fraternities will in the end prove to be, is their raison d'etre itself. Are these fraternities in fact merely a reaction to final clubs which pride themselves on being so few in number and membership?

Judging from the make-up of many of the minority fraternities--groups which have traditionally been excluded from the final clubs--this is a reasonable conclusion to make. And if this is the case, the possibility of a resurgence of a Greek system somewhere down the road is not highly unlikely if enough students do feel this need.

BUT although the fraternity/sorority option does seem like the lesser of two evils at first glance--at least students get to choose to pledge instead of having to hope to be "punched"--newly forming social organizations really should think twice about whether or not they want to bring back to Harvard national organizations wound up in their own elitist pasts.

Founders of fraternities must think carefully about starting organizations over which they do not have final say over all matters of operation, since they are bound by national guidelines. The members of Sigma Alpha Mu ran into this very problem. Although the majority of its members supported coed membership, the organization could not include women for fear of losing its national charter. It is precisely for this reason that the Harvard administration originally did away with recognition of national organizations.

In betraying its own conscience and remaining exclusively male only so that it may keep its national charter, Sigma Alpha Mu faces the problem every new national fraternity attempting to start at Harvard must deal with: do the benefits of national recognition really outweigh the inability of local officers and members to dictate their own organizations?

Not only must these new national fraternities adhere to national rules to which many of its members are morally against, but they must also face greater obstacles from the University administration, which is still doing whatever it can to make life an uphill battle for these new fraternities. Denied official recognition, newly formed fraternities themselves must supply everything from congregation rooms to mailing announcements.

Dean of Students Archie C. Epps III has even said that students found recruiting or initiating conversation with prospective members about their fraternities would be met with disciplinary action.

THIS stance by the administration--aside from denying students of their Constitutional freedom of speech--is especially repugnant because of its hypocrisy. Just two weeks ago final clubs got away with distributing punch cards under dorm-room doors just as they do every fall, without so much as a slap on the wrist.

Of course the reason for the hypocrisy is an all too familiar one, as again we see the University selling itself out for financial reasons--in this case the powers that dictate are the final clubs' alums.

The new fraternities do not have the financial or moral support of the powerful alumni network of the final clubs to soften the administration's position on nationally affiliated organizations. In the face of their scarce resources, it is fair to assume they will have a tough time securing themselves a safe position in the social life of the University.

In light of these drawbacks--the need to live by morally disagreeable national charters, the lack of alumni support and an uphill battle with the administration--it seems that the unique social needs of this University could be better met with unique social organizations that are unattached to elitist national charters and would allow membership which does not exclude on the basis of gender, race, or religion.