The Strategic Plan for the College of William and Mary entitled Into the Fourth Century stated as one of its goals "To provide an environment that supports a wide spectrum of student interests and needs (including social and recreational needs), encourages the development of intellectual and creative interests, as well as leadership skills, and promotes responsibility as a member of the community" (1994, Goal C.4.). Related to this goal was a commitment to "review the fraternity/sorority system to insure that it continues to serve well the needs of students and the aims of the broader university community" (Strategy C.4.e.). In March 1996, the Vice President for Student Affairs appointed a Task Force on Greek Life to undertake the review called for in the Strategic Plan.

The Task Force included fifteen individuals and was broadly representative of the campus community. Of the nine students serving on the Task Force, six were members of Greek organizations. Four faculty and two administrators were members of the Task Force. The Associate Vice President for Student Affairs, the Director of Residence Life, and a Graduate Assistant in the Office of Student Activities provided staff support.

To fulfill its charge, the Task Force consulted a variety of sources for information about Greek life at the College of William and Mary and on other campuses across the nation. Specifically, Task Force members reviewed the literature on fraternities and sororities; reports from national organizations and from other universities; and available data on membership trends, academic performance, occupancy in special interest housing, repairs to houses, judicial actions, and other aspects of fraternity and sorority life. Concerns clustered in six major areas: academics, sorority rush and membership development, fraternity rush and membership development, social and residential issues, service/philanthropy, and public/community relations. The Task Force then formed six three-person sub-committees to study each area in more detail.

Beyond the document reviews, the Task Force actively collected information from the campus community. The Task Force met several times with the Council for Fraternity Affairs (CFA) and the Intersorority Council (ISC). The Task Force held two open forums for students to solicit their input. It also sponsored a forum with representatives from the national Greek organizations and later sought their feedback on a draft of the report. Members of the Task Force interviewed key student leaders, faculty, Student Affairs staff, Campus Police, Facilities Management staff, Campus Ministers, and members of the Williamsburg business community. Additionally, the Task Force solicited comments from students through written surveys and from faculty through an e-mail survey. The major findings of the Task Force are summarized in this report.

OVERVIEW OF THE GREEK SYSTEM AT WILLIAM AND MARY

Greek-letter organizations in American higher education trace their origins to the College of William and Mary. The Alpha Chapter of Phi Beta Kappa was founded at the College in 1776 as both a social and scholarly society, making it the first Greek-letter fraternity. As our nation celebrated the Bicentennial in 1976, the fraternity system also commemorated the 200th anniversary of the founding of Phi Beta Kappa. In an introduction to a collection of papers presented at the bicentennial celebration of the founding of the Greek system, Thomas C. Schreck, Commission Chairperson for the Fraternity For The Year 2000, wrote

The American College fraternity has a long and rich tradition in association with higher education. The fraternity has contributed to the social fiber of the college campus and to individual growth and maturation and has supplied important services to the institution. Further, it has provided quality housing facilities to large numbers of students. The past is rich, as can be the future.

The establishment of a Theta Delta Chi chapter in 1853, Sigma Alpha Epsilon in 1857, and Kappa Alpha and Kappa Sigma in 1890 firmly established the fraternity system at the College of William and Mary. The first sorority chapter established on campus was Chi Omega in 1921, followed closely by Kappa Alpha Theta in 1922, and Kappa Kappa Gamma in 1923. Since then, the Greek system has grown to 18 fraternity chapters and colonies and 13 sororities. In 1975, Alpha Phi Alpha, an historically black fraternity, established a chapter at William and Mary, followed in 1976 with the establishment of a chapter of Delta Sigma Theta, an historically black sorority. Since then, two additional historically black Greek fraternities and two additional historically black sororities have chartered chapters on the campus.

Housing for Fraternities and Sororities. Between 1853 and 1929, most of the 10 fraternity chapters owned and occupied small houses located near the campus on Jamestown and Richmond Roads. In 1943, fraternities were disbanded for the duration of World War II. In 1947-48, following the end of the war, lodges were constructed on campus and occupied by the 11 fraternities that had campus chapters. These units provided housing for four to five brothers and general meeting space for the chapter. Eventually the fraternities outgrew these units, and the College opened the current Fraternity Complex in 1968 to house 12 chapters. Originally designed to house 33 members and a live-in housemother, the units now have capacity for 36 brothers and accommodate 11 of the 16 chapters that have houses. Two chapters have assigned space in the Randolph Complex, two have been assigned Lodges, and one fraternity has a house adjacent to Sorority Court.

Beginning in 1921 and continuing through 1932, a similar number of sororities formed chapters, and the College owned and operated their houses in Sorority Court. In the 1970s, the College built a residence complex designed to accommodate nine sororities, each expected to house 42 members. The sororities decided not to relocate to these units, desiring to maintain their small individual residential units. They requested that the College renovate their existing houses and assign the new complex for general student housing. In the early 1980s, all of the houses in Sorority Court were renovated. Currently 11 of the 13 campus chapters occupy College housing; these houses range in capacity from 6 to 19 women.

Given this evolution of fraternity and sorority housing at William and Mary, chapters are in the unique position of occupying houses that are owned by the Commonwealth of Virginia and managed by the College. As state-owned buildings, these facilities are subject to the same regulations, restrictions, and guidelines applicable to all other state property. This affects the enforcement of State laws and College policies, fire safety compliance, maintenance of the facilities, product procurement, and renovation planning and funding. Each chapter signs an annual housing agreement with the College for the space assigned to them for the academic year. As detailed in the provisions of the agreement, the chapter or the College may cancel this lease. Over the past 30 years, there have been six instances wherein the College removed chapters from assigned housing or a chapter requested to be released from the agreement.

In accordance with the Strategic Plan, the College must "Explore, within the context of the Report of the Task Force on Special Interest Housing, the creation of more direct linkages between academic and residential programs" (III, C. Goal 3.d.). Appointed by the Vice President for Student Affairs and consisting of students, faculty, and administrators, the Special Interest Housing Committee was created to hear requests by groups for assigned housing space and to provide an ongoing review of the organizations that occupy assigned space. This review requires those organizations with special interest housing to submit for evaluation by the committee information detailing mission/purpose, programs and projects, membership and involvement, house administration, and citizenship/responsible behavior. The 11 sororities and 16 fraternities occupying College housing are subject to this review process. Based on evaluations completed by the Special Interest Housing Committee, the organizations will be allowed to maintain their assigned space, be placed on a one-year probationary status, or have their assigned space revoked.

Membership in Greek Organizations. The membership trends of William and Mary’s fraternities and sororities have, for the most part, mirrored the trends across the nation. While the William and Mary student population in 1952 was not as large as it is today, the percentage of men who were affiliated with fraternities was 65%. In 1962, that percentage had dropped to 44% and in 1996, the percentage was down to approximately 33%. The Sororities accounted for approximately 64% of the William and Mary undergraduate female population in 1954, followed by 52 % in 1962, and approximately 40% in 1996. The percentages of women who are affiliated with sororities is slightly higher at William and Mary than percentages across the country.

Rush and Pledge Processes. The selection of members for fraternities and sororities is a mutual selection process called Rush. After many years of a second semester Rush, the sororities switched in the mid-1970s to a first semester Rush that occurs shortly after classes begin. One of the numerous reasons for moving the Rush period was to accommodate a change in the College’s calendar which eliminated a break in mid-January when Rush had been held. The other reason was a strong preference by the national sororities for a first semester Rush. During the early years of the first semester Rush process, the number of women who went through Rush increased, but the number who actually pledged did not increase at the same rate. This left a large number of women who had hoped to join a sorority disappointed and often bitter about not being selected. In recent years, the process has improved significantly. Increasingly larger numbers of women who stay in the process are matched with a bid. During Fall 1996 Rush, for example, every woman who signed a preference card was issued a bid.

The fraternities have historically held a variety of pre-Rush events called "smokers" in the first semester with their "Formal Rush" in the early part of the second semester. Over the past 10 years, the practice of Rushing more intensively in the fall semester and asking men to commit to joining a group before rush formally begins has made the Formal Rush period a non-event. For all practical purposes, the fraternity Rush is a first semester Rush with formal pledging occurring after the start of the second semester.

The historically black fraternities and sororities have much stricter membership intake processes. In most cases, interested students who meet the required minimum scholastic average apply for membership and are selected by various methods including interviews with an alumni board.

Following the Rush period, all fraternities and sororities have a period of "pledging" designed to educate the new members about the local chapter and the national organization. Until recently, this period of pledging would last an entire semester or longer. Most of the national fraternities and sororities, in an attempt to reduce the risk of hazing and inappropriate activities, have shortened the time allowable for pledging. While hazing as a routine practice appears to have declined, it has taken on a new look and remains prevalent in the Greek community. National fraternity and sorority executives continue to grapple with the issue of hazing and have resorted to more drastic measures, including suspension of chapters, in an attempt to eliminate hazing activity.

Governance. Local governance of the fraternities rests with the Council for Fraternity Affairs (CFA). This body replaced the Interfraternity Council (IFC) in the early 1980s. Membership in the CFA is comprised of fraternity presidents, rather than chapter representatives as used under the IFC. This reconfiguration was intended to streamline decision-making within the governing body. The presidents are the only voting members of the CFA, and they select from a pool of applicants a chairperson and Rush, social, and philanthropy chairs to carry out the activities of the Council.

The sororities are governed by the Intersorority Council (ISC) which was formed in 1983 to replace the Panhellenic Council. The Panhellenic Council was restricted to only those sororities affiliated with the National Panhellenic Conference (NPC). When the historically black sororities were established on the campus, they were unable to be full partners in the governance of the system since they were not affiliated with NPC. After much negotiation, the decision was made to break with NPC and create a new governing body where all member groups had equal voices. Because of the differences in Rush procedures, the historically black sororities do not Rush at the same time as the NPC groups, but they are eligible to hold office and are on the rotation for ISC president.

Oversight of the Greek system rests with the Associate Vice President for Student Affairs. Because of the breadth of responsibilities assigned to this position, it is impossible for this person to be directly involved in all aspects of the Greek system. Working directly with the CFA, the ISC, and the individual chapter presidents, the Associate Vice President keeps the administration informed about the system. Together with the Greek Area Director, whose responsibilities are primarily associated with the housing issues and staff supervision, a team approach to working with fraternities and sororities has emerged. Efforts in the past to provide more support for Greek organizations met with resistance and reservations about the level of resources directed to this group of student organizations perceived by many to be elitist and anti-intellectual.

Advisory Systems. Many of the chapters have very active alumni(ae) who serve in a variety of advisory roles from Chapter Advisors to Rush Advisors to House Corporation Boards. Given the size of Williamsburg, there are not enough alumni(ae) in the immediate area to staff fully the recommended advisory positions. It is not uncommon for chapters to have advisors living in Richmond, Norfolk, or Washington, D.C. who may be able to attend one chapter meeting a month. This is a significant disadvantage for chapters and of particular concern to the national officers. For the most part, the national fraternities and sororities represented on the College campus provide good support for their chapters. Nearly every chapter is visited by an advisor or consultant each semester. Some of the smaller nationals are able to visit only once a year but make up for this by corresponding more frequently. Most national organizations are quick to intervene when they feel that a chapter is not performing adequately and are not reluctant to ask for assistance when problems occur. The College emphasizes to the national fraternities and sororities that the Greek system is a partnership effort.

At William and Mary and on campuses across the country, the Greek system has experienced many changes and at times been the focus of great controversy. To respond to new expectations, the national organizations have reviewed their missions and goals in efforts to provide more effective leadership to campus chapters. Like William and Mary, many colleges and universities have engaged in recent comprehensive reviews of Greek life within their own communities to address major concerns and ensure the continued vitality of their fraternities and sororities.

A VISION FOR THE FUTURE OF THE GREEK SYSTEM

The Task Force on Greek Life envisions a strong Greek system at the College of William and Mary where fraternities and sororities are highly valued among the many organizations with which students can affiliate. Individual chapters are part of a cohesive Greek system at William and Mary that contributes positively to student life and the College community. Members of fraternities and sororities interact extensively with non-Greeks, and they are active as leaders in all facets of campus life. The Greek system is well connected with major academic and student support services.

The Greek system maintains a strong emphasis on ideals of scholarship, leadership, and service, as well as brotherhood or sisterhood. Working together as appropriate, the Council for Fraternity Affairs and the Intersorority Council continue to promote high standards for Greek organizations and members, and they take responsibility for monitoring and sanctioning violations of standards. The Greek system provides more than social affiliation through balanced attention to opportunities for personal development and contributions in all areas. Both the Greek system and the individual chapters support and recognize academic excellence. They actively foster leadership development of all members and offer a range of leadership roles. Greek organizations are continually engaged in service projects that support their national philanthropies and the needs of the local community.

The activities sponsored by fraternities and sororities offer both Greek and non-Greek students important social outlets, but the Fraternity Complex is not the only social scene on campus. The College sponsors a complete and regular cycle of social events, such as concerts, dances, coffee houses, etc. Both the Greek system and the College plan a broad variety of events, including alcohol-free social activities.

The Rush systems for fraternities and sororities are well organized to minimize interference with students’ academic and other commitments. Prospective members perceive Rush as a welcoming experience. Chapters educate and assimilate new members effectively within a single semester. Policies prohibit all forms of hazing, and chapters do not tolerate any infractions. Fraternities and sororities view membership development as a continuous process to help all members understand the rich traditions and high expectations of the individual organizations and the Greek system.

Fraternities and sororities take pride in their houses and complexes, and they share responsibility for maintaining them well. Members consider it a privilege to live in the houses.

The Greek system communicates actively with others in the College and local community to inform them of their contributions and activities. The CFA and ISC, as well as the individual chapters, work closely with the College’s Greek Advisor to plan and coordinate their activities.

Overall Recommendations

To achieve this vision for the future of the Greek system at the College of William and Mary, the Task Force offers two overarching recommendations followed throughout the Report by a series of specific recommendations pertaining to academic performance, rush and membership development, residential and social issues, service and philanthropy, and community relations:

• The Vice President for Student Affairs should appoint a Greek Life Advisor who has major responsibility for working with fraternities and sororities to develop positive programs and to reduce violations of College and national organizational policies.

• The Vice President for Student Affairs should appoint a new Task Force in three years to review the progress that has been made in implementing the recommendations of this report and advancing the Greek system at William and Mary.

 

1.0 THE IMPACT OF GREEK LIFE ON ACADEMICS

The Task Force on Greek Life focused one phase of its evaluation on the effect of sorority and fraternity membership on student academic achievement and the impact of the Greek system on the intellectual atmosphere of the campus. To carry out that evaluation, the Task Force examined the fraternity and sorority members’ academic reports for the past 11 semesters and sought information and opinions from a variety of administrators, faculty members, and students.

As might be expected, faculty and student opinions were sometimes at odds on these two questions. The Task Force attempted to present both the perceived and the actual strengths and weaknesses of the Greek system in the area of academics.

Perceived Strengths

William and Mary sorority and fraternity members believe that their organizations encourage academic achievement. They note, for example, that their national offices strongly encourage good scholarship, and most chapters specify a minimum grade point average (GPA) for active membership. Chapters maintain test and professor files, and members offer advice and informal tutoring to one other. Fraternity members argue that the range of majors represented within each organization is a strength; brothers can get help with a variety of subjects. Sorority members point out that the all-sorority grade point average (GPA) usually exceeds the all-female and all-undergraduate GPA.

The scholarly research on college students’ learning and cognitive development indicates that membership in a Greek-letter organization usually has a slight-to-significant negative effect. William and Mary sorority members in particular do not seem to fit this pattern. Indeed, during the Fall 1996 semester, the grade point averages for both sorority and fraternity members were higher than the all-male, all-female, and all-undergraduate grade point averages. Such a result is unusual for the fraternities but fairly common for the sororities over the past five years. Tables in Appendix A summarize these GPA comparisons from Fall 1991 to Fall 1996.

Awards given at commencement are another indicator of academic achievement. Greeks have been well represented among recipients of graduation awards: 6 of 10 recipients of the Carr Cup for scholarship, leadership, character, and service have been in sororities (three) or fraternities (three); 10 of 20 Sullivan Awards for service to others have gone to Greeks (four fraternity men and six sorority women, and half of the ten have belonged to historically black, Greek-letter organizations). Over the past decade the College has produced one Marshall and three Rhodes Scholars. The Marshall was a sorority member, and one of the Rhodes Scholars belonged to a historically black fraternity.

The Greek organizations at William and Mary differ in the emphasis they place on scholarship, but at least some have special study halls for pledges, minimum grade point averages for initiation and continuing active membership, internal scholarship awards, and conscientious scholarship chairs. In fact, one administrator commented that a good scholarship chair "makes all the difference" in the way chapter members approach academic work.

The CFA further emphasized scholarship in its 1997 document "Guidelines for Fraternity Conduct". The document states that "We recognize our primary commitment must be to academics," and that "We expect each fraternity to provide proper support and motivation for academic success." Specifically, the guidelines affirm that each fraternity chapter "is expected to equal or surpass the all-male grade point average of the College each semester." For chapters that fail to realize this goal, the CFA promises to offer incentives for improvement as well as sanctions. In addition, "the chapter with the highest cumulative GPA per semester will receive a 50 percent reduction in semester CFA dues." Finally, the CFA promises to develop a fraternity tutor list at the beginning of each academic year, and it encourages chapters to develop their own academic recognition programs and to work to improve student-professor relationships.

Areas of Concern

A number of faculty members believe that the Greek system is inherently anti-intellectual and thus detracts from the academic life of the College. In the eyes of one professor, "the Greeks are deleterious more than useful to an academic community. There is a focus on elitism and alcohol-based socialization which is not offset by the social service agendas most of them have." Another senior faculty member worried "what sense of values is being instilled by the Greek system?" Many professors and several administrators cite first semester sorority Rush as the most serious problem. Some argue that early Rush sets the wrong tone for freshmen women by implying that social activities take precedence over academic work at the College; others note that the time-consuming parties interfere with the academic adjustment of freshmen women and lead to class-cutting and late or missed assignments. They also complain that Rush takes a toll on the work of upperclass women, but they are most concerned with the impact on first semester freshmen. Several faculty members note that Rush parties conflict with late afternoon and evening classes which seem to be growing in number. They argue that no student should be put in the position of having to choose between a class and a sorority or fraternity activity. In addition to the direct academic costs of Rush, at least one administrator points to the detrimental effects of the psychological stress and loss of self-confidence suffered by those women who fail to gain a bid to the sorority of their choice.

Some students agree that first semester sorority Rush interferes with academic work. They also admit that the pressure to "party" and to participate in other sorority and fraternity activities can divert members, especially freshmen, from their course assignments. The fact that under the present system, some sorority Rush parties conflict with regularly scheduled evening classes must be counted as a real weakness as well. In addition, fraternity members concede that it is often difficult to study in their houses.

Although a number of Greek students have won both College-wide and national scholarships and awards over the past ten years, they were not very well represented in the 1996-97 competitions. Of the 44 applicants for the Rhodes, Marshall, Fulbright, Goldwater, Carnegie, and NSEP scholarships and the USA Today All-Academic Team, only four identified themselves as members of Greek-letter organizations. In addition, only four of the 33 sophomores with the highest grade point averages are members of sororities; there are no fraternity members in the group. In the past ten years, only one of the recipients of the Botetourt Award for the graduating senior with the greatest distinction in scholarship has been a member of a sorority or fraternity. As the percentage of students at the College who belong to Greek-letter organizations has averaged 30%-40% in recent years, the figures on scholarship and award applicants and winners may not be shockingly low. Yet because the scholarship chairs who responded to the subcommittee's questionnaire reported almost no knowledge of or contact with the Charles Center for Honors and Interdisciplinary Studies, there is cause for concern.

Conclusions

Although many members of sororities and fraternities at William and Mary have impressive academic records and give every indication of being able to maintain a sensible balance between their intellectual, social, and other extracurricular activities, some students struggle with the competing demands on their time and energy. Clearly, the College has a responsibility to do all that it can to encourage high academic standards and enable students to develop their intellectual talents as fully as possible. It should ensure that freshmen women, in particular, are not forced to choose between conflicting academic and Rush schedules. It is also important to encourage fraternity and sorority members to take full advantage of the special academic opportunities offered by the Charles Center and the Reves Center for International Studies and the supports offered by the Study Skills Office and the Writing Resources Center. And, finally, the administration of the College should do more to encourage and recognize good scholarship among the fraternities and sororities. The Task Force believes the following recommendations will help reduce both perceived and real conflicts between academic and sorority/fraternity values while strengthening the academic component of Greek life on the campus.

Recommendations

1.1 The sororities should make certain that no Rush parties, formal or informal, conflict with academic classes. Additional recommendations regarding sorority Rush are presented in Section 2.0.

1.2 The CFA and ISC should adopt academic standards for members of Greek organizations to be in good standing. When an individual falls below the minimally acceptable GPA, he/she would be subject to social probation and mandatory study hall for a period to be determined by each chapter.

1.3 The ISC should institute a tutoring system, similar to the planned CFA effort, to help meet both academic and service objectives.

1.4 The CFA, in turn, should consider establishing a scholarship officer, similar to the existing position in the ISC, to encourage and coordinate academic information and activities among the fraternity chapters on campus.

1.5 The CFA and ISC should encourage the scholarship chairs of all the fraternities and sororities to have workshops at the beginning of each academic year and to establish an academic e-mail listserv where the Charles Center, the Reves Center, the Writing Center, and the Study Skills Office can post information of interest to those chairs and their members.

1.6 The College should revise the methods it uses to calculate the sorority and fraternity chapter grade point averages each semester to take into account the differences in chapter size and thus reveal more accurately the strengths and weaknesses of the individual chapters. These reports should also be expanded to include an analysis of the grades of the pledge classes and of grade trends over time.

1.7 The President of the College should institute four annual awards for presentation at the Spring Awards Ceremony--one each for the fraternity and sorority with the highest grade point average over the past two semesters, and one each for the fraternity and sorority demonstrating the greatest academic improvement over the past two semesters.

2.0 SORORITY RUSH AND MEMBERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

Currently, William and Mary sororities that are part of the National Panhellenic Conference (NPC) have a formal Rush process that takes place over a two-week period in the early fall. The historically black women’s organizations are not members of NPC; these three chapters conduct Rush by an application process that occurs in the second semester. NPC requires its sororities to hold a "formal" Rush. This means that contact between women in Greek organizations and all freshmen women must be limited until Rush ends and bids are extended. Parties begin approximately one week after the start of classes. There are currently eight total days of Rush, and parties are held both during the week and on weekends. All are structured according to a set time schedule, with the exception of Informals which occur on two nights. During Informals, the women who are Rushing may visit any house still on their party list in any preferred order.

Rush is open to any undergraduate women with a GPA above 2.0. Approximately 60-65% of the women who Rush are freshman, and the remaining 35-40% are sophomores. Although the number of women who Rush varies, it is typically between 300 and 400 per year. The majority of women are invited to join one of their top three remaining houses at the end of Rush; those women who are not matched to one of those houses are offered a bid to one of the other chapters on campus.

The period of orientation into the sorority, known as the "pledge" or "new member" period, begins immediately after the end of Rush and lasts until initiation. During this time, the pledges are educated about the history and tradition of the chapter and given an opportunity to meet all of the sisters in the sorority. The length of the pledge period varies: one chapter's "new member" period lasts only four weeks, and two sororities initiate shortly after the women return from winter break. The average length is approximately ten weeks which means that initiation generally takes place close to Thanksgiving.

Perceived Strengths

The number of women choosing to join a Greek organization at William and Mary has remained fairly stable in recent years and increased sharply last fall. Sorority size is still strong on this campus, although nationally many colleges are experiencing a decline. In previous years, a significant number of women who rushed (5-10%) did not receive bids to any house. This resulted in a great deal of negative publicity on campus and created an image of the sorority system as somewhat elitist. Due to changes made by the ISC, the pledge class size of every sorority is now larger, which means that more women are matched to one of their top choices; as a result, no woman was denied a bid during the 1996 fall Rush. The Task Force considers this a positive improvement for the Rush process.

Holding Rush in the fall offers freshmen women the chance to meet and interact with women in the Greek system. This opportunity might be limited if William and Mary were to move to a spring Rush. Working closely with upperclass women in both academic and social settings introduces freshmen to many aspects of the College and can have a positive effect on their academic performance.

Areas of Concern

Structuring Rush as an intense, time-consuming period in the fall immediately after classes begin makes it difficult for women to concentrate on academics. As noted in Section 1.0, many members of the faculty have expressed serious concerns about sorority members’ and rushees’ lack of participation and focus in class during the Rush period. This situation is especially difficult for freshmen women who are trying to concentrate on adjusting to the demands of college academics for the first time.

Many women perceive the Rush process as having numerous procedural and administrative flaws (e.g., party invitation lists are sometimes incomplete, and the flow of information between the ISC and the individual houses is not always efficient). Rho Chis, the Greeks who guide women through the Rush process, are often perceived as providing incomplete or inaccurate information about Rush procedures. Although the number of these errors varies from year to year, any flaws during the Rush period reflect badly on the Greek organizations and make the process more difficult for all involved.

Membership development, although emphasized during the pledge period, generally seems to be de-emphasized once initiation has taken place. Many sorority women's only exposure to chapter history, national chapter standards, and similar functions of the sorority is during the pledge period. In most chapters, there is only limited contact with alumnae in the local area. Although all chapters have standards at the national level concerning alumnae participation and mentorship, not all chapters perform the outreach and communication necessary to meet these standards.

Conclusions

Although a spring Rush appears desirable because it would allow freshmen women more time to adjust to college life and avoid certain problems related to academics, spring Rush would also have several drawbacks. For those women who Rush as freshmen, pledging offers them the opportunity to meet women of all ages on campus and to benefit from both their social and academic experience. A formal Rush system requires that Greek women be on closed association with freshmen women until after the Rush period. A spring Rush would limit contact between freshmen and upper-class women throughout the fall semester and make closed association policies difficult to enforce. The leadership opportunities available within sororities might be decreased with a spring Rush, because women would not be able to hold an office until their second year of membership. Many campuses have experimented with both a spring and fall Rush, and based on these experiences, the National Panhellenic Conference strongly recommends that women Rush in the fall.

Moving Rush to the spring, as some have suggested, would not in itself alleviate the concerns expressed by faculty and others. The Task Force believes that these concerns have more to do with the timing and scheduling of the Rush parties than with the semester in which Rush is held. Although moving Rush to the spring semester admittedly might eliminate some negative effects on academics experienced by freshmen women who have not yet adjusted to the academic demands of college, such a change might also limit the positive effects on academics created by early Rush. Those effects include informal and formal study sessions, as well as earlier interaction with upperclass women who have adjusted to the academic rigors of William and Mary. Further, such a change would not address what may be the key reason for Rush-related academic problems - the time demands imposed by Rush activities. Moving to a spring Rush system would only transfer these problems to the spring semester. More emphasis on teaching freshmen women effective time management skills may also be helpful. Women who prefer not to participate in Rush immediately after they arrive at college may choose to rush in their sophomore year, as many do now.

The pledge period is particularly time-consuming for many women. In addition, the opportunity for hazing, and hence, the level of liability, is heightened during the pledge period. For these reasons, many chapters have already made a shorter pledge period mandatory at the national level. The pledge period should focus on activities necessary for effective integration of new members, such as teaching the history and standards of each chapter and introducing the pledges to the chapter as a whole. Many social activities that are held during the pledge period can be held as chapter events after initiation. Limiting the number of requirements that are placed solely on the pledge class and making events mandatory for all sisters would discourage the two-class mentality that can arise from the distinction of being a pledge versus being a sister. All women should be considered equal members of their chapters at all times.

The Task Force supports the recent changes in the ISC Bylaws that require all incidents of hazing to be reported to the Administration. Such reports will ensure that any hazing violations that come to the attention of the ISC will be dealt with by the College's judicial system. Most incidents of hazing that occur within the sororities result from the actions of isolated individuals rather than entire chapters. Individuals and not chapters, therefore, should be subject to judicial proceedings through the administration. Yet chapters have a responsibility to educate their members about hazing, to be vigilant about infractions, and to sanction members who engage in hazing behavior.

Recommendations

2.1 The 10 sororities affiliated with the National Panhellenic Conference should continue to hold a formal Rush period during the fall semester but structure the timing of Rush to reduce the negative impact on women's academics. The Task Force recommends that Rush parties be held only at the end of the week and on weekends, beginning no earlier than 5:00 p.m. Thursday and ending no later than 5:00 p.m. Sunday. Parties should be scheduled so that the sororities' major selection sessions take place on a Friday or Saturday night. Rush must be confined to a period of two weekends (for a total of eight days), and should begin no later than a week after the first week of classes. The Task Force recognizes that the Informal parties are a popular part of the Rush schedule at William and Mary; the Task Force is also aware that the national advisors and the National Panhellenic Conference have recommended that these Informal parties be discontinued. The Task Force believes that the decision regarding these parties should be left up to the ISC, with the understanding that all parties must be scheduled within the limits for the formal Rush period cited above.

2.2 ISC and Student Affairs staff should conduct a mandatory time-management program, as part of the initial meetings for women who are considering Rush.

2.3 The ISC and Student Affairs staff should ensure that the flow of information during Rush is more accurate and complete. The Task Force urges that the Rush schedule be planned at least one semester in advance, that Rho Chis be properly trained and monitored, and that Rush lists generated by the computer be double-checked for accuracy. The Task Force supports the newly-created position of an additional Executive Vice President within the ISC to manage the work load during Rush.

2.4 The ISC should continue the positive changes that were implemented during 1996 Fall Rush. The Task Force recommends that quota be determined after Skit Night, as it was in 1996, in order to enlarge quotas and reduce the number of women who are not bid-matched. In addition, strong publicity efforts aimed at both freshmen and sophomores should continue.

2.5 The sororities should structure all pledge periods to last no longer than 10 weeks with initiation occurring prior to final exams for the fall semester.

2.6 The ISC and individual chapters should improve efforts to educate members and pledges about the College hazing policy and enforce a stricter judicial policy for hazing incidents, including an emphasis on individual responsibility when appropriate. If responsibility cannot be assigned to specific individuals, the entire chapter should then be subject to proper review and discipline.

2.7 Sororities should continue membership development activities throughout the entire membership period. The Task Force recommends that the chapters continue to hold educational programs regarding ritual and standards during weekly meetings, retreats, etc. throughout the year.

2.8 The ISC and individual chapters should work to build a stronger advisory system and local alumnae network. Each sorority should publish an annual or semi-annual alumnae newsletter to stay in better contact with alumnae. The Task Force recommends that the ISC and the administration consider how to develop an alumnae advisory board and alumnae mentoring system for sororities. Advisors need not be limited to William and Mary graduates, nor to William and Mary chapters.

3.0 FRATERNITY RUSH AND MEMBERSHIP DEVELOPMENT

The Task Force on Greek Life evaluated the perceptions and attitudes held by members of the fraternities and the non-Greek community regarding the current Rush or new member intake process; the Pledge or new member education program; and on-going membership development. Currently, all chapters except the NPHC or historically black fraternities participate in a Council for Fraternity Affairs (CFA) sponsored Rush program. The NPHC fraternities do not participate in the CFA Rush program because their organizations require a certain GPA prior to Rushing and pledging. The CFA Rush program consists of numerous Open Houses (smokers) during the Fall semester followed by a Formal Rush period in the beginning of the Spring Semester lasting approximately one week culminating in the issuing of formal bids. The Rush activity during the first semester is rather informal and is usually focused around social themes. Fraternities are able to issue an informal, non-binding invitation to join called a "shake." The norm is for a chapter to have its new pledge class solidified with "shakes" well before the first semester is over, with few fraternities actually participating in "formal rush." In effect, the CFA Rush which is formally designated a Spring Rush, is for all practical purposes, a Fall Rush that concludes by the Thanksgiving break. Fraternities pledge their "shakes" after bids are issued and the pledge period begins. Most fraternities continue the pledge period throughout the spring semester with initiations occurring just prior to exams. Key issues center on the timing of Rush; the issuing of "shakes;" the length of the pledge or new member program; the recurring problems with hazing and alcohol; the perceptions of Rush and pledging; and the associated disruptions to other residents and programs on campus.

Perceived Strengths

When asked to detail the strengths of the fraternity system especially the Rush process, most students stated that it offered Freshmen an opportunity to meet many other students, both Greek and non-Greek. Fraternity men and Rushees reported that the CFA was doing a good job in coordinating the Rush process and that it was "laid back" and not a big time commitment. Most fraternity men felt that the informal nature of Rush in the Fall gave Rushees plenty of time without pressure to see all the groups and decide whether or not to join. Fraternity members also noted that the length of Rush allowed for fraternities to establish themselves as the "social outlet on campus." When asked, most fraternity members reported that hazing is on the decline and when it does occur, it most likely is an individual not a group activity. Respondents also pointed out that many fraternities require their pledge classes to do service and philanthropic projects that benefit the chapter and the campus.

Areas of Concern

The biggest concern from the Greek and non-Greek communities focused on the image of the system. According to fraternity members, the system gets a "bad rap" from the faculty, administration, and the non-Greek community, despite the fact that they feel fraternities are obligated to provide the social outlet for the campus. There was general consensus that the CFA needs to do a better job of publicizing the positive aspects of Greeks and of educating faculty, administrative staff, non-Greeks, and entering students about the system. Fraternity members also noted that the rivalry and "trashing of other fraternities" was negative and had to be stopped. New members of fraternities reported that the amount of time required for the pledge period was too long, too intrusive to academic time, and laden with activities that would most likely be considered hazing. Despite perceptions that hazing is either nonexistent or declining in prevalence, what was communicated was that hazing is increasing and becoming more serious. This observation at William and Mary is consistent with reports nationwide.

The image of fraternities continues to be damaged by the posting of offensive flyers for events and the heavy emphasis on alcohol. The use of alcohol in Rush events is a particular concern. Although the College, CFA, and national fraternity organizations prohibit alcohol at any Rush or new member/pledge activity, many students stated that brothers will not attend these functions if they are alcohol-free.

Some Greek members expressed concern about the lack of goal-oriented programs and lip-service to philanthropy activities. While many chapters tout their community service involvement, more often than not, it falls on the shoulders of the pledges to do these projects without the help or support of the brotherhood. Many brothers attributed declining membership to all of the negatives associated with fraternities.

Conclusions

Many of the concerns expressed about fraternities center on Rush and membership development activities. At William and Mary, what has been formally presented as a spring Rush process has in reality involved a very active fall schedule of smokers culminating in a brief Formal Rush period in early spring semester. Although formal bids cannot be issued until the conclusion of Formal Rush, most chapters have filled their pledge classes through "shakes" extended throughout the fall. Since initiation typically occurs just prior to May exams, the fraternities in effect have devoted nearly the entire academic year to rush and pledging. This practice at William and Mary raises concerns among the campus community and the national organizations. Nearly all of the national fraternities are promoting shorter Rush and membership development periods as a means of assimilating new members more effectively; engaging all brothers in positive membership development, leadership, and service activities; and minimizing incidents of hazing.

Many of the negative stereotypes about fraternities are perpetuated by the Rush flyers and other printed materials perceived as offensive by many members of the College community. The CFA and individual chapters must take responsibility for promoting a more positive image.

Despite the acknowledged differences between men’s and women’s Rush and membership development processes, concerns about the scheduling of Rush parties, interference with academic and other commitments, the length of the pledge period, and hazing violations are common to both systems. Many of the recommendations offered by the Task Force to address fraternity issues, therefore, are parallel with earlier recommendations for the sororities.

3.1 The CFA should enhance its efforts to promote the Greek system, highlighting the strengths and contributions that fraternities make to the campus and local community. New and more appropriate materials should be developed and sent to entering men prior to their arrival on campus. The CFA should hold general information sessions on Greek life early in the semester for freshmen and sophomores considering Rush.

3.2 The CFA and fraternities should compress formal Rush and pledging activities into the fall semester for all chapters that do not have a GPA or credit-hour requirement mandated by their national organizations.

3.3 The Task Force recommends that Rush parties be held only at the end of the week and on weekends, beginning no earlier than 5:00 p.m. Thursday and ending no later than 5:00 p.m. Sunday.

3.4 All fliers and advertisements for Rush/new member recruitment must be authorized in advance by the CFA before posting.

3.5 Chapter activities should be restricted to members and invited guests only. Rushees should be permitted in the house only at official Rush activities approved by the CFA and the Greek Advisor.

3.6 Chapters must strictly adhere to national fraternity rules and College regulations on hazing and risk management. The CFA and individual chapters should improve efforts to educate members and pledges about hazing policy and enforce a stricter disciplinary policy for hazing incidents, including an emphasis on individual responsibility when appropriate. If responsibility cannot be assigned to specific individuals, the entire chapter should then be subject to proper review and judicial action.

3.7 Each Chapter’s Pledge/New Member Educator must have a written plan for pledge/new member education that is centered around scholarship, involvement, and service, with scholarship being the highest priority. Plans must have the approval of the chapter, the chapter/national advisor, and the Greek Advisor and be on file in the Greek Advisor’s office. The approved pledge education period must last no longer than ten weeks.

3.8 All Rush and pledge/new member education activities and programs must be geared towards generating good brothers, not good pledges. Each year, the CFA should have mandatory programs for all chapter members, especially new members, on the following topics: men’s health issues, risk management, alcohol and substance abuse, sexual assault/misconduct, and hazing.

4.0 RESIDENTIAL ISSUES

The Task Force on Greek Life examined issues related to campus housing for Greek members, including the allocation and condition of residence space. It received input from representatives of Residence Life, Facilities Management, Student Affairs, the Campus Police, the CFA and ISC, as well as sorority/fraternity officers or members (at the open forum), members of the historically all-black organizations, and non-Greek students (through surveys). The Task Force inventoried ways in which the social and residential aspects of Greek life at William and Mary contribute to College goals or detract from its mission.

Perceived Strengths

Currently, there are 11 fraternities on "the row," each with 36 spaces. Additionally, three fraternities are in other protected housing on campus, one unit with 24 spaces and two others with 7 spaces. Three other fraternities do not have protected campus housing; however that number will fall to one in the 1997-98 school year. The remaining fraternity has not stated a desire for housing.

Eleven sororities have protected housing in or near Sorority Court. Most have space for 12-19 residents, a far smaller share of the membership than is housed in fraternity units. One sorority has six spaces, and two others do not have protected housing at this point.

Protected housing allows members of Greek organizations a high degree of group cohesiveness, opportunities for fellowship and social interaction. Many, if not all, of the general benefits of fraternity or sorority life are maximized by having houses with common areas for functions and residential space for many members. Sorority Court is a particularly appealing and attractive set of residential units, close to campus and Merchants' Square. The fraternities are well-located, close to sports and dining facilities, and accessible to others. Most fraternities and sororities are eligible for funds to upgrade the units from their national chapters, supplementing the resources that the College itself can potentially provide.

Areas of Concern

Concerns about Greek residential life center primarily on the condition of the Fraternity Complex (especially all the common areas) and the resulting repair costs. Although the latter fluctuate each year, repair costs are generally much higher per capita than for other housing units. Residents and nonresidents alike agree that the buildings are not optimally structured for their purposes. Moreover, they concur that drabness and disrepair make the units unappealing and present a negative impression to the public, parents, alumni, and potential members, perhaps explaining why some fraternities cannot fill all the rooms in their assigned units. Moreover, officers feel that their national chapters' willingness to help fund improvements--already reduced by restrictions on investments in state-owned property and the prospect of fraternities losing protected housing status--is further diminished by perceptions that the buildings are poorly maintained.

The College plans an upgrade of the facilities of the Fraternity Complex; however the source of the current disrepair is in dispute. Fraternity officers estimated that half the damage to common areas and some to rooms result from an excessive number of outside visitors to parties (a function of the perceived role of the Fraternity Complex as a social center on campus) as well as from summer contract work or use (a factor beyond their control). And while conceding that members themselves account for a major portion of the damage, they cited several contributing factors or policies: (1) the inherently unappealing appearance of these buildings, (2) the underestimation of damage costs (e.g., to ceiling tiles), (3) absorption of that cost by the Office of Residence Life rather than the fraternity, (4) the perception that Facilities Management will act more slowly on repair requests from fraternities, (5) undue charges by Residence Life (e.g., for trash bag removal), (6) and policies banning beer kegs at social functions (which result in alcohol being served in cans and bottles).

Facilities Management attributes the problem mainly to the attitude of fraternity residents, which one employee characterized as "an Animal House mentality." They note that the amounts of trash in hallways and stairwells; the use of recycling bins for garbage; and the damage to ceilings, bathrooms, windows, etc. exceed that found in other buildings of a similar design (e.g., the Botetourt Complex). One Facilities Management representative called cleaning up the Fraternity Complex after a party "a health hazard," and another added that many on the housekeeping staff would "rather go hungry" than clean-up after parties in the complex. Facilities Management agrees that it does not always assign priority to Fraternity Complex maintenance and repairs, but notes that repair requests are continuous and repairs are later frequently undone by residents. One representative noted, "We do what we can but can't get them up to acceptable standards, and so [we] focus elsewhere."

Facilities Management and the Office of Residence Life seem to disagree with regard to how much should be or can be done to encourage better treatment of Fraternity Complex buildings and grounds. The Task Force feels that mistreatment by residents and slow repairs creates a cycle of neglect. Most of the larger-scale remedies such as off-campus houses owned by the chapter, new facilities on-campus, and non-residential fraternity buildings are not feasible. Some constructive steps, however, might be taken to mitigate this cycle.

Condition of the sorority houses is also an issue. Because of the appealing condition of the common areas, problems with individual rooms are often overlooked. While the buildings are too small for meetings and can in most cases provide rooms for only a few of each organization's members, most members deem this arrangement satisfactory. Residents did voice concerns about specific issues at some houses (e.g., leaky roofs, scalding water, rats). The Scheduling Office is helpful in arranging rooms for business meetings on campus, although a common guaranteed meeting space might be optimal.

Fire safety issues are an additional concern. Fraternities often make their own unauthorized wiring changes in common areas as well as resident rooms; leave trash in escape routes; and construct hanging lofts. One-quarter of all false alarms that bring the Williamsburg Fire Department to campus occur at fraternities. Some fraternity officers reported that sensors in their units are overly sensitive and go off without reason. Facilities Management insisted the sensors are accurate and voiced concern that fraternities pay too little attention to safety codes [see below] or disregard simple precautions to prevent "nuisance" alarms, possibly breeding an indifference to fire security. This "crying wolf" syndrome could pose serious danger in case of a real fire.

Some sorority officers worry that, as in most residence halls, their buildings' hallway alarms are manual, which means a resident would have to leave the area of a fire to alert others. Facilities Management staff agree that pull-alarms, though they meet fire safety codes, could be replaced by automatic devices in residents’ rooms to improve safety, but that would require finding funds for a substantial upgrade. Another concern of some sorority residents was that the fire escapes behind room windows do not swing down but are fixed to the ground, making it easier for intruders to gain access to the upper stories. Again, the only remedy would be to invest in new fire escapes.

One aspect of residential life of special concern has to do with inadequate use of available consultants on eating disorders. The prevalence of eating disorders has increased on college campuses, and residence staff are typically the ones who first recognize individuals in difficulty. Officers and members of Greek organizations tend to believe they can take care of any such problems themselves or through their national chapters, when reaching out for assistance more quickly would be better for both the individual and the chapter. There is uncertainty whether the chapter or the Resident Assistant should be primarily responsible for intervening.

Some fraternities have difficulty filling their houses with members, which has required finding other students to take the spaces so that the organization could preserve its protected housing status in prime locations. Having non-members weakens group cohesiveness. Moreover, the practice raises questions of equity (i.e., is it fair to preserve protected housing for a group that fills the allocated spaces only by relying on non-members?).

Historically Black Greek organizations voiced additional concerns about facilities. Alpha Phi Alpha worried about losing its protected housing in a lodge. Kappa Alpha Psi and Alpha Kappa Alpha noted the lack of a guaranteed meeting place, as well as a place at which to hold social functions.

Conclusion

Fraternity and sorority houses enhance the benefits of membership by providing protected residential and common space for Greek organizations. Eleven of the 18 fraternities at William and Mary are housed in the Fraternity Complex, and 11 of the 13 sororities are housed in or near Sorority Court. Although all chapters with special interest housing at William and Mary occupy units that owned and managed by the College, most fraternities and sororities are eligible for funds from their national organizations for supplementary improvements.

Major concerns about Greek housing center on the condition of the Fraternity Complex, with additional concerns about maintenance of sorority houses. The practice of filling assigned spaces in fraternity houses with non-members is also an issue. The chapters housed in smaller facilities reported difficulties in scheduling other space on campus for meetings and social functions.

There is an apparent overlap of authority between chapter officers and Resident Assistants, especially in the fraternities, which complicates management of Greek residence life. Many Resident Assistants are in an awkward position, feeling they need not or cannot enforce rules, and as members, feeling reluctant to do so if it means turning in a brother or sister. The question remains how the fraternity/sorority Area Director can be encouraged to continue taking an active role in enforcing College policy.

Recommendations

4.1 Facilities Management, on a trial basis, should devote top priority to cleaning up and repairing the Fraternity Complex, and charge the CFA with making sure that it remains in good condition as a means of reversing the cycle of neglect mentioned above.

4.2 The CFA, Office of Residence Life, and Facilities Management should work together to educate residents of protected housing on building damage and emphasize the liabilities of responsible individuals and chapters.

4.3 Fraternity chapters and alumni should actively seek greater financial support from national fraternity organizations for improvement of the houses.

4.4 The Office of Residence Life and CFA should review and redefine the role of Resident Assistants in fraternities to resolve perceived role overlaps with that of fraternity officers. Separate training for these RAs should be provided as appropriate.

4.5 Greek officers should be required to work more closely with Area Directors and other Student Affairs professionals in identifying potential eating disorder problems (without necessarily being required to give names).

4.6 No more than 20% of residents in a fraternity or sorority house that accommodates more than 15 people should be non-members. If that limit is exceeded for one year, the chapter will be placed on probation, after which time its protected housing status will be reviewed for possible reassignment. Houses accommodating fewer than 15 people will be reviewed if, over a three-year period, less than 50% of the assigned spaces are filled with members. Specific implementation of this policy should be the responsibility of the Office of Residence Life.

4.7 Student Affairs staff should identify a space in or near the University Center where Alpha Kappa Alpha, Kappa Alpha Psi, Omega Psi Phi, and Zeta Phi Beta would have priority when reserving space for business meetings. Additional space should be accessible for social functions. Chapters should file requests with the Scheduling Office at the earliest possible dates.

5.0 SOCIAL ISSUES

Perceived Strengths

For members, and to some extent non-members as well, Greek organizations provide substantial opportunities for social interaction, helping alleviate the often intense pressures of academic life at William and Mary. Sororities and fraternities sponsor numerous formal dances each year, which represent a large share of the total number held on campus. Sororities and fraternities frequently sponsor recreational events (e.g. campus golf, whiffle ball) and field the largest share of the teams in campus intramurals. Fraternities are almost the only campus organizations to hold parties with dancing and where alcohol is served; most parties are open to non-members after midnight. Very few students who attend need to drive to these locations. Many Greek organization philanthropic activities have a social dimension, encouraging interaction among members and non-members.

Areas of Concern

The major problem identified in connection with Greek social life is that of alcohol policy violations at fraternity parties, including those co-sponsored by sororities. Such violations include, primarily, underage drinking, excessive drinking, and alcohol-related assaults. No figures are available that would indicate the extent of the first two problems, although a large percentage of alcohol-related assaults on campus do take place at fraternity events (54% in 1994, 40% in 1995, 50% in 1996). Fraternity and sorority nationals are increasingly concerned about limiting the liability risk arising from these problems.

Fraternity and sorority officers agreed that negligence on the part of officers or members partly accounts for the incidence of alcohol-related problems on campus. Party policies--especially control of building/room entrances and ID-checking in the serving areas--could be substantially improved. At the same time, students noted that the fraternities serve as the center of campus social activities. Moreover, they cited a number of contributing or extenuating factors: (1) the difficulties of monitoring access to fraternities created by the structure of the buildings themselves (e.g., shared staircases between houses, the number of doors); (2) inadequate alcohol awareness education [e.g., the perception that Teaching Intervention Practices and Strategies (TIPS) training focuses only on how to recognize who is drinking too much], (3) vague or inconsistent "door policies" on campus; (4) the inability to prevent alcohol from being passed on from someone of-age to an underaged student ("handing-off"); (5) the likelihood that many students come to fraternity parties having consumed alcohol beforehand ("party-jumping"); and (6) the likelihood that some such problems are inherent in any situation where alcohol is served (at the Delis for example) or consumed (including other residence halls).

Moreover, fraternity and sorority officers perceived that enforcement of alcohol policy on campus is inconsistent, leading to uncertainty about what can be expected in all circumstances. One student compared the current situation to one in which police routinely permit people to drive at 26 miles per hour in a 25 mph zone, but then enforce that limit in one out of one hundred cases. Others noted that a large share of freshmen arrive at college already having used alcohol before and are unaccustomed to tight restrictions.

A second set of problems -- fire safety concerns resulting from overcrowding and party decorations -- arises in connection with Greek parties, particularly in the lower levels and on the patios of the fraternity houses. Fraternities complained that their space is constrained as it is and they must make use of what is available. Facilities Management noted that social officers rarely include space taken up by tables and chairs when calculating how many people can be admitted to an event, and rarely seek advance approval of decorations by a fire safety officer.

Conclusions

Many of the problems or perceived problems associated with social activities at the fraternities arise from the fact that the latter have become the center of campus social life. Given the nature of their physical facilities and for other reasons as well, neither the fraternities nor the College as a whole are well-served by having these organizations play this role and bear the resulting responsibilities or burdens. Alternative social outlets are limited. Those in the community within walking distance of campus are minimal and are likely to remain so. Activities planned by other College organizations are increasingly varied and well-attended, but there is still no place other than the Fraternity Complex where students – Greek or non-Greek - can congregate (especially on the weekends) and consistently find the same kind of social events, such as dancing.

Addressing social issues is complicated by the fact that it is often unclear whether individuals or chapters as a whole should be held responsible when violations of College policy occur. Additionally, policy-making and enforcement roles are somewhat ambiguous. College policy is not always consistent with the policies of each national fraternity or sorority. Furthermore, many officers are not as familiar as they should be with the policies of their national organizations. Complicating matters further is the role of the CFA and the ISC in creating and enforcing policies for the fraternities and sororities.

These governance questions may take on new significance as more of the national organizations revise their regulations regarding serious risk management issues. For example, Sigma Nu and Sigma Chi have banned alcohol use in all of their chapter houses nationwide effective 1999-2000. William and Mary chapters will have to respond to these changes.

Recommendations

5.1 Student Affairs should coordinate a review of current social activities sponsored by non-Greek organizations in order to determine how well they meet the interests of students and recommend necessary changes.

5.2 Each chapter must have a Risk Management Chair who should meet regularly with other Risk Management Officers and College officials to deal with problems system-wide.

5.3 The College should institute a uniform party policy that is clearly communicated and consistently enforced across all student organizations. Specific recommendations for inclusion in these policies are follows:

5.3.1 Provide TIPS training at each chapter to educate all members about alcohol awareness and party management.

5.3.2 Require that fraternity/sorority members be stationed to check IDs (if alcohol is being served), turn away non-students and those not on the invitation list, take down the name and birth date of guests, and obtain their signatures.

5.3.3 Consider requiring differently-colored wristbands with guests' names written on them to help distinguish between students of a legal drinking age and underaged students.

5.3.4 Review feasibility of third party management for fraternity parties, that is, a system under which alcohol is served and IDs checked only by paid employees not in the fraternity/sorority. Special attention should be paid to issues of liability and insurance.

5.3.5 Educate students during Orientation that it is an explicit Honor Code violation for underaged students to request/accept alcohol at College events.

5.3.6 Require sororities and fraternities involved in planning a joint party to co-sign the party form and share responsibility for any resulting problems.

5.3.7 Require fraternities and sororities to use and enforce their own guest lists more rigorously.

5.3.8 With the assistance of the CFA, on a trial basis, issue party permits on the same night only to fraternities that are not next door to each other (i.e., Unit A, C, E, but not A and B).

5.4 Encourage the Administration to utilize the new judicial panels of the ISC/CFA council in the process of sanctioning Greek organizations for infractions of College party policy.

5.5 The College should consider a policy that will help determine what share of nuisance calls result from the actions or negligence of fraternity members and institute a system of fines, perhaps to support a charity identified by the Fire Department.

6.0 SERVICE AND PHILANTHROPY

To assess the service and philanthropic contributions of Greek organizations, the Task Force reviewed chapter annual plans and reports and interviewed the Coordinator of Student Volunteer Services, chapter Philanthropy Chairs, and Greek and non-Greek students.

Perceived Strengths

Service and philanthropy are among the greatest and most visible strengths of the Greek system at the College. National organizations, chapter charters and officers promote and reinforce philanthropic activity. In fact, most chapters have an expected number of volunteer hours enforced by their nationals, although the required hours vary among houses. The historically Black organizations share a specific mission of service and are generally more active than the other chapters. All chapters have an elected office as Service or Philanthropy Chair.

Most national fraternities and sororities have an identified philanthropy that focuses the attention of each individual chapter. Individual house fundraising and service activities usually center on the identified national philanthropy. The breadth and variety of national philanthropies include: The American Cancer Society, American Red Cross, Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA), National Committee for Prevention of Child Abuse (NCPCA), and the Children’s Miracle Network (CMN).

National philanthropic events are supplemented with local College and Williamsburg community service projects. Local service events allow the greater College community to be involved in the service activity, because the events are frequently open to the public and participation is encouraged. Often, this kind of participation leads to increased positive awareness of Greek life and dispels negative myths concerning Greek affiliation. Local service also provides a positive link between student life and the greater community.

A wide variety of local service projects has been undertaken. Some representative projects included fundraising for Avalon, Peter Reid Foundation, a community playground, the Children’s Unit of Williamsburg Community Hospital, and Bowling for Kid’s Sake. Other projects involved volunteering for Bone Marrow Drives, Adopt-A-School, Adopt-A-Highway, Habitat for Humanity, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Into the Streets, tutoring programs, and nursing homes.

In addition to serving others in need, service events also contribute to chapter unity and inter-sorority or inter-fraternity collaboration to strengthen the entire Greek community. Additionally, philanthropic activities provide an opportunity for students to socialize in a non-party atmosphere. Given the increased promotion of non-alcoholic Greek activities, service provides a positive and creative alternative.

Lastly, service chair positions within each chapter encourage leadership development. Many students’ first (and only) leadership opportunity is within their respective chapter. Coordinating service activities and serving as the representative to bridge the gap between the community and the College is a positive, challenging, and rewarding experience for students.

Areas of Concern

Despite the clear strengths of service and philanthropy contributions of the Greek system at William and Mary, the nature and impact of service activities could be improved through better coordination and communication. Areas of concern focus on fine tuning current service efforts.

The College of William and Mary has made an explicit commitment to public service. Within Student Activities is an Office of Student Volunteer Services that works closely with human service agencies and projects in the community. The support services of this Office are largely untapped by fraternities and sororities. Often Greek organizations seek help with their philanthropy projects from other Greek groups. Although other Greeks can provide a strong support system and help achieve some very impressive philanthropy projects, their effectiveness could be enhanced by connecting with the Office of Student Volunteer Services. The rest of the William and Mary community is another support system that is not fully utilized. Involvement of other students and faculty in Greek philanthropies would clearly promote greater participation and interest in worthwhile service projects.

Reviews of the annual reports by chapter Presidents confirmed the commitments of the Greek organizations in the area of philanthropy. Certain chapters reported substantially greater involvement than others in service projects. The fact that national organizations place different emphases on philanthropy projects may partially explain the uneven levels of service activity among William and Mary chapters. It was further evident from the reports that fund-raising has been a major focus; direct service by groups and individual members was less clearly evident. The Greek system may better serve the local community in the area of philanthropy by targeting projects to focus on identified community needs. Often projects are duplicated among campus groups. For example, many organizations held Trick-Or-Treat parties for children at Halloween. Although this undoubtedly brought joy into the lives of many children, perhaps more pressing needs within the community might have been met with a variety of other projects.

Conclusion

A recognized strength of the Greek system is its active role in service to support the philanthropies of national organizations and projects within the local community. Sororities and fraternities at William and Mary have an impressive record of fund-raising and direct service contributions helping others in need. Service activities also provide important benefits for members themselves with opportunities for the development of chapter unity and individual leadership. Service activities offer alternatives for socializing with Greek and non-Greek students in a non-party setting. Seeking out projects that directly benefit the needs of the community, and putting time and energy--rather than money--into their execution will allow the Greek organizations at William and Mary to tailor their service projects to community needs and to promote a more meaningful ethic of service.

Overall, the concerns raised in this study about Greek philanthropy and service focus on organization and communication. Uneven involvement across chapters, non-Greek involvement, direct volunteer service, matching projects to community needs, and use of the resources in the Office of Student Volunteer Services are all areas for improvement. Coordination among philanthropy chairs; more advanced planning of events; and smaller, tangible, local projects are suggestions that may address these concerns.

Recommendations

6.1 Fraternities and sororities should use the resources of the Coordinator and Office for Student Volunteer Services in order to address identified local community needs and to improve communication and coordination among campus groups. Encourage chapters to list their philanthropy events on College-wide calendars to include electronic distribution.

6.2 Chapters should expand projects beyond fund-raising to engage members in direct service activities that facilitate the bonding of members and the development of leadership and service commitments.

6.3 The ISC and CFA should work together to sponsor at least one major philanthropic event each year.

 

7.0 PUBLIC AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS

The Task Force on Greek Life evaluated the perceptions held by the campus and broader community regarding the Greek system at the College of William and Mary. The goal was to gain input from Greek students, non-Greek students, faculty and administrators, and key members of the Williamsburg community. The focus of the study centered around two main questions: What are the perceptions of the Greek system at William and Mary? What are these perceptions based upon? Major issues included: (1) relations between Greek and non-Greek students, (2) relations among Greek organizations, (3) relations between the Greek community and Campus Police, (4) contributions of the Greek system to the community, and (5) negative impacts of the Greek system on the campus and community. Information and opinions were gathered through the open forum, a questionnaire, and round table discussion with Greek students; personal telephone interviews with community representatives; input provided by faculty in response to an e-mail distributed to solicit their thoughts; and survey forms distributed specifically to non-Greek students. (Copies of relevant instruments are provided in the Appendix.)

Perceived Strengths

A few faculty who responded to requests for input described fraternities and sororities as a vital part of campus life helping students learn to work collectively and providing an important array of community services.

Non-Greek students noted that the Greek system adds to the campus social life by providing something to do on Friday and Saturday nights. They also candidly reported that these functions provide them with free beer. They described the Greek system as creating a sense of unity on campus through involvement in philanthropies and recognize the value of bonding and friendship that occurs in these organizations. Greeks concurred that they helped to promote large campus-wide events such as Homecoming and the Annual Bone Marrow Drive through their active participation and visibility. As one student pointed out, "Greeks are very involved at Homecoming and large events which are more highly attended by non-Greeks which shows that these groups are comfortable interacting with one another."

Among Greek students, the most frequently mentioned strength was the amount of philanthropy work performed by the Greek organizations. This service also provides a positive link between the Greek system and the Williamsburg community. Another positive link is the role of advisors to the Greek officers, members of the particular organization who now reside in the Williamsburg area. Opportunities for leadership within Greek organizations were highlighted. It was mentioned that there is no strain on friendships between Greek and non-Greek students or between Greeks of different houses. Greeks reported that there was a good relationship between Greeks and non-Greeks on campus. They emphasized that most Greek events are open to the entire student body--"Activities are inclusive rather than exclusive."

The William and Mary Campus Police stated that overall the Greek system provides a "valuable social setting" to the students. The Chief characterized himself as a "supporter of Greek life" and stated that the Greek system is "good for most of the College community." He also felt that the system provided a "needed social infrastructure" for William and Mary, but that social functions needed to be held responsibly and safely. The Williamsburg Police Department is not directly involved with the Greek system at William and Mary.

Local vendors reported positive interaction with Greek students. The owner of the Campus Shop employed four Greek students and described them as reliable and conscientious. He also stated the Greek system provides an important outlet for fun and friendship, especially when the academic pressure is intense. The Case Manager for Big Brothers/Big Sisters has found the Greeks supportive. She has never experienced any kind of negative response from either students or the families with whom they work. One City official who is a regular spectator at sporting events noted that the participation of the Greek community makes these events more fun. The representative from the Williamsburg-James City County Public Schools gave special recognition to Alpha Phi Alpha for its mentoring program. She also noted that, although fraternities and sororities may party a lot, they provide bonding, belonging, community and a strong social network for students.

Perceived Areas of Concern

Many of the concerns expressed by faculty centered on sorority Rush. Issues related to the scheduling of Rush in Fall semester have been addressed in Section 1.0. Faculty also perceive Rush as taking a toll both academically and socially on first year students by preying on their insecurities. As one faculty member commented, "An unsuccessful Rush experience is terribly destructive, particularly on the eve of freshman year. Quite frankly, I have been embarrassed, on behalf of William and Mary that such things occur and are seemingly condoned. A student can recover from failing an academic test because of insufficient knowledge...recovery from a seemingly personal failure is less assured." Another faculty member recounted a similar sentiment. "I am aware of a student who went through the Rush process and was not invited to join any sorority. She was devastated and she had difficulty returning to classes because some of the people in her classes were sorority members who she knew had rejected her. She withdrew from school for that semester to recover from this process. To my way of thinking, this is a completely unacceptable outcome."

Other concerns focused on what was labeled a "herd" mentality. As perceived by some faculty, fraternities instill negative attitudes about women and a generalized lack of respect evidenced by destruction of property and abuse of alcohol. According to one faculty member, "We already have a lack of tolerance in our society as a whole, and I don’t think the Greek system is helpful in this area. (Yes, I do understand that the sororities and fraternities do service work, but students can organize around service projects without the Greek system.)"

Non-Greek students expressed many negative opinions about fraternities and sororities. Their strongest objections related to the expense, superficiality, elitism, forced sisterhood and brotherhood, isolation from the rest of campus, "mob mentality," abuse of alcohol and drugs, damage to facilities, and perpetuation of immature behavior. Non-Greek students noted blatant and frequent violations of William and Mary rules and state laws. They also criticized the Administration for allowing fraternities and sororities to bend the rules beyond what non-Greek students would be allowed to do (e.g., drinking, fighting). One student questioned why social groups automatically get housing and suggested not allowing housing for fraternities and sororities who have violated school/state policies.

Greek students were concerned about external perceptions of the Greek System. They felt that non-Greek students only see the weekend parties and not the weekday activities which include philanthropies, intramural sports, and tutoring. Greek students were also concerned that the faculty do not view the Greek organizations seriously and regard them as a detriment to academics. Greek students reported that the College Administration focuses on the negative aspects of the system because of the liability issues involved.

Some Greeks expressed regret regarding the internal rivalry among sororities and fraternities. Different houses speak negatively of other fraternities during Rush, for example. Greeks also reported that individual chapters have a low level of participation in campus activities other than their own.

An overriding concern of Greek students was the relationship between fraternity members and Campus Police. Some students felt that campus police officers have unprofessional biases against the fraternities. Students also expressed concern about the lack of communication between Campus Police and the College Administration, especially Student Affairs. From a Greek student perspective, the College needs to exercise more oversight of Campus Police officers.

Campus Police expressed concern about consistent enforcement of safety regulations and offered several recommendations. For example, Party Permits are completed by the fraternities indicating how much alcohol and non-alcoholic beverages will be served, but there is no enforcement of what is actually purchased and served. Campus Police recommended that enforcement become the responsibility of the Office of Student Affairs and/or the Area Director of the Fraternity Complex. The City Fire Chief also expressed a similar concern about enforcement of fire safety regulations. (Specific recommendations about party policies have been addressed in Section 5.0.)

A representative from the Williamsburg-James City County Public Schools voiced concern over excessive drinking and hazing but could not cite specific examples, acknowledging that this concern was based on national trends rather than direct experience.

Conclusion

Perceptions of the fraternities and sororities at William and Mary reported by key members of the community vary widely. For the most part, community members and organizations not affiliated with the College voiced the most positive impressions based on service and philanthropy projects and on personal encounters with chapter members. Fraternities and sororities should be encouraged to maintain these connections as they provide a strong positive link between the College and the greater Williamsburg community. Respondents on and off campus also acknowledged that the Greek system provides a social outlet for both Greek and non-Greek students, and that relationships between and among Greeks and non-Greeks tend to be affable and seamless. The potential for friendships, bonding, and leadership opportunities was highlighted as a strength for members of Greek organizations.

Faculty, staff, and non-Greek students expressed concerns about abuse of alcohol, gender stereotyping, fighting, damage to property, and other violations of policy as well as an anti-intellectual mentality. Concerns about Rush and pledging activities centered around the scheduling conflict with academics and the rejections some individuals may experience as participants in the process. Greek students acknowledged group rivalries as a weakness, and they perceived that the Campus Police have been unfavorably biased against them. Fraternity and sorority members must take take an active and intentional approach to improve communication about the many positive attributes of the Greek system.

Recommendations

7.1 The CFA, ISC, and individual chapters should take a more active role in publicizing their events and contributions to the community. For example, a weekly column in The Flat Hat could highlight upcoming events and spotlight successful accomplishments within the Greek community.

7.2 The CFA and individual fraternities should improve the image presented in all publications and flyers by eliminating offensive material and by balancing attention to academic, leadership, and service as well as social opportunities.

7.3 The Greek community should take initiative to improve communication and relationships with all members of the College and community.

7.3.1 CFA and ISC should open lines of communication with Campus Police by inviting officers to their meetings at least once a semester. Individual chapters should host similar meetings with Campus Police to discuss current issues of concern.

7.3.2 Chapters should increase their involvement with faculty. Fraternities and sororities might consider implementing a faculty advisory system similar to alumnae advisory systems used by several of the sororities.

7.3.3 CFA and ISC should sponsor at least one joint activity and one separate activity each year that are educational in nature for the entire student body.

 

 

Notes

Respectfully submitted by:

Amy C. Beasley, Undergraduate Student

Deb Boykin (ex officio), Director, Office of Residence Life

Lynda L. Butler, Professor, School of Law

Clay Clemens, Associate Professor, Department of Government

Robert S. Dutro, Director of Trust Administration, Office of Development

Timothy R. Garnett, Undergraduate Student

Quimby J. Horrell (ex officio), Graduate Student

Lynne M. Hozik, Undergraduate Student

Mi Suk Kang (Spring 1996), Undergraduate Student

Brian S. Lambert, Undergraduate Student

Karla R. Lowe, Undergraduate Student

Virginia L. McLaughlin (Chair), Dean and Chancellor Professor, School of Education

Benjamin E. Olive, Undergraduate Student

William M. Rogers, III (Fall 1996-Spring 1997), Assistant Professor, Department of Economics

Lauren E. Schmidt, Undergraduate Student

Ronald Sims (Spring 1996), Professor, School of Business

Kenneth E. Smith, Jr. (ex officio), Associate Vice President for Student Affairs

Helen Cam Walker, Associate Professor, Department of History

Timothy A. Witcher, Undergraduate Student

References

Aday, D. P., Kreps, G. A., Rapoport, R. B. (1991). College of William and Mary alumni survey results. Williamsburg, VA: Assessment Steering Committee, The College of William and Mary.

Atlas, G., & Morier, D. (1994). The sorority rush process: Self-selection, acceptance criteria, and the effect of rejection. Journal of College Student Development, 35, 346-353.

Baier, J. L., & Whipple, E. G. (1990). Greek values and attitudes: A comparison with independents. NASPA Journal, 28, 43-53.

Black Greek Issues Subcommittee Final Report. (1994). Emory University, Partnership for the Improvement of Greek Life.

Bowker, R. G. (1994). Correlates of pledging and academic performance in an introductory biology course. NASPA Journal, 31, 263-270.

College of William and Mary. (1997). Alcoholic beverage policy. Williamsburg, VA: Author.

Council for Fraternity Affairs, College of William and Mary. (1986). Constitution and by-laws of the Council for Fraternity Affairs. Williamsburg, VA: Author.

Council for Fraternity Affairs, College of William and Mary. (1992). The Trojan: A guide to the fraternities of the College of William and Mary in Virginia. (1992). Williamsburg, VA: Author.

Council for Fraternity Affairs, College of William and Mary. (1997, Spring). Guidelines for fraternity conduct. Williamsburg, VA: Author.

Cufaude, J. (1990). Strategies from a Greek advisor: Maximizing the Greek cocurriculum’s potential. NASPA Journal, 28 (1),82-90.

Fraternity life subcommittee final report. (1994). Emory University, Partnership for the Improvement of Greek Life.

Fyten, D. (1995, December). State of a union. Wake Forest University Magazine, pp. 8-15.

Geraghty, M. (1997, June 20). Rise in hazing incidents at sororities alarms colleges. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A37.

Office of Vice-President for Student Affairs, College of William and Mary. (1992). Greek-letter social organization and academic special interest housing at William and Mary. (1992). Williamsburg, VA: Author.

Goodwin, L. (1992). Alcohol and drug use in fraternities and sororities. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 37, 52-63.

Gose, B. (1995). Partying without alcohol. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 41, A31-32.

Greek life: A foundation for the future. (1995). University of Maryland at College Park, Office of the Vice-President for Student Affairs.

Howard-Hamilton, M. F. (1993). Greek relationships in black and white. Journal of College Student Development, 34, 380-381.

Ickes, B. (1996, November). Kappa Kappa Glamma. Allure, 188-202.

Intersorority Council, College of William and Mary. (1993). Bylaws of the Intersorority Council. Williamsburg, VA: Author.

Intersorority Council, College of William and Mary. (1996). The Athenian. Williamsburg, VA: Author.

Kuh, G. D., & Arnold, J. C. (1993). Liquid bonding: A cultural analysis of the role of alcohol in fraternity pledgeship. Journal of College Student Development, 34, 327-334.

Kuh, G. D., & Lyons, J. W. (1990). Fraternities and sororities: Lessons from the college experiences study. NASPA Journal, 28(1), 20-29.

Kuh, G. D. Pascarella, E. T., & Weschler, H. (1996). The questionable value of fraternities. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 42, A68.

Maisel, J. (1990). Social fraternities and sororities are not conductive to the educational process. NASPA Journal, 28, 8-12.

McKenzie, A. (1990). Community service and social action: Using the past to guide the future of black Greek-letter fraternities. NASPA Journal, 28, 30-36.

Meilman, P. W., Von Hippel, F. A., Gaylor, M. S. (1991). Self-induced vomiting in college women: Its relation to eating, alcohol use, and Greek life. Journal of American College, 40, 39-41.

National Interfraternity Conference Campus Commentary. (1995, February). Substance-free fraternity living environments gaining momentum. Indianapolis, Indiana: Author.

National Interfraternity Conference Campus Commentary. (1995, March). SELECT 2000: A return to fraternity values. Indianapolis, Indiana: Author.

National Interfraternity Conference Campus Commentary. (1995, May). Student leaders talk about Greek life. Indianapolis, Indiana: Author.

National Panhellenic Conference. (1997). Standards of conduct for National Panhellenic Conference chapters. Indianapolis, IN: Author.

Office of Student Affairs, College of William and Mary. (1995). Sorority/Fraternity Information, Fall 1991-1995. Williamsburg, VA: Author.

Office of Student Affairs, College of William and Mary. (1996). Greek roster membership information, 1994, 1995, and 1996. Williamsburg, VA: Author.

Pascarella, E. (1994). Cognitive effects of Greek affiliation during the first year of college. University Park, PA: National Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment.

Pike, G. R., & Askew, J. W. (1990). The impact of fraternity or sorority membership on academic involvement and learning outcomes. NASPS Journal, 28, 13-19.

Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity Office. (1997, May). A first try for last call at two fraternities. The Recorder, p. 1.

Spaulding, D. J., & Eddy, J. (1995). Fraternity and sorority hazing violence: Elements of a comprehensive plan to combat this campus scourge. College Student Journal, 29, 368-373.

Schuh, J. H., Triponey, V. L., & Heim, L. L. (1992). Student involvement in historically black Greek letter organizations. NASPA Journal, 29, 274-282.

Sorority life subcommittee final report. (1994). Emory University, Partnership for the Improvement of Greek Life.

Status of the college fraternity and sorority. (1992). Indiana University, Center for the Study of the College Fraternity.

Southwest Texas State University. (1991). The Greek experience: A report of the Greek life task force.

Tampke, D. R. (1990). Alcohol behavior, risk perception, and fraternity and sorority membership. NASPA Journal, 28 (1), 71-77.

Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E. T., & Blimling, G. S. (1996). Students’ out-of-class experiences and their influence on learning and cognitive development: A literature review. Journal of College Student Development,37(2), 149-162.

Whipple, E. G., Baier, J. L., & Grady, D. L. (1991). A comparison of black and white Greeks at a predominantly white university. NASPA Journal, 28, 140-148.