Do Fraternities Breed Disrespect for Women?

Now that the Rolling Stone has disgraced itself with shoddy journalism reporting a gang rape at UVA that either did not occur or occurred quite differently than reported, we have to ask why the story was initially received as completely credible.  Is it because it fits a pattern of sexual assaults at fraternity parties across the nation?  When my classes read Ross Douthat’s opinion column this fall in which he suggested a correlation between campus sexual assaults and fraternity culture, most students said he had no proof, it was just a myth, just a stereotype that gives fraternities an unfair rap.  

I’m not so sure.  Some of my evidence is hearsay, girls at SMU joking about what the letters SAE mean to them.  Some is newspaper stories about SMU, such as this one about the alleged assault in 2013 of a woman at a fraternity party. 

Or the more recent reports of a Phi Delt party at Texas Tech that had a “Rape Theme” where a cardboard “vagina sprinkler fountain” of a woman’s spread legs greeted guests as they arrived at the party.  Or the recent Yale pledge class chant: “No means yes. Yes means anal.”Or a “doorman” at a fraternity house granting admission to women based on the curvature of their rear ends:  “Turn around and show us your butt.” Sorry, I lost the link to that story.  But I'm sure you don't doubt that it happens.  And it has been happening for a long time.   In  1857, a Sigma Phi member, Jenkins Holland, wrote a letter to one of his fraternity brothers showing that even back then,  fraternity members saw women as instrumental objects for sex and bragged to their brothers about sexual conquests. Holland wrote with surprisingly modern language, “I did get one of the nicest pieces of ass some day or two ago.”
 

Now, I know what you are saying: “That’s anecdotal evidence.”  In response, I say, that’s why academic research exists.  Research may not prove, but it strengthens the claim that a correlation exists.  For example,  Nicholas Syrett, assistant professor of history at University of Northern Colorado, wrote a book based on his research, The Company He Keeps: A History of White College Fraternities.  He did a longitudinal study that shows

over the past 30 years psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists and educators have continued to document alarming trends in pressure to have sex among fraternity men, coerce it from unwilling women through the use of alcohol, and report about it afterward to the assembled brotherhood.

Also, two studies in 2007 and 2009 published in the Journal for NASPA* reported that fraternity members “are more likely than non-fraternity members to commit rape” and that "women in sororities are 74 percent more likely to experience rape than other college women.”  Why? Because they socialize in a hostile environment for women.

Everyone needs to recognize that a gender gap still exists, an uneven playing field in the workplace dominated by men.  Women still make only 77cents for every dollar earned by men.  I hate to see the progress made by feminists such as Gloria Steinem being dismantled in, of all places, higher education.  Women still need to fight for equal rights and equal respect in the workplace, the home, and, unfortunately, in the Greek social scene.  Fraternity men need to step up their respect for women.  College women need to step up their respect for themselves.

*National Association of Student Personnel Administrators

Book vs. Screen Reading

How often do you sit down with a book of your choice, and just read for a half hour or so?  I’m not talking about the common reading or the Aims of Argument, great readings both.  I mean a book you find interesting to the point that you become engrossed.  Do you do that? Did you ever used to do that?  I’m here to urge you to take up, or rediscover, the habit of slow reading.

Thomas Newkirk, an English professor at University of New Hampshire, has written a book on slow reading.

Slow, engrossed reading is not likely to happen when you’re reading on a screen (except possibly the Kindle without the Fire).  Screen reading trains the brain to do many good things such as quickly focusing attention and making decisions about the value or relevance of a web site or on-line article.  Dr. Gary Small, Director of the Memory & Aging Research Center at UCLA, praises the Internet for its ability to train the brains of young and old, developing “neural circuitry that is customized for rapid and incisive spurts of directed concentration.” That’s the good news about screen reading.

But the downside is that the more we train our brains to develop these circuits, the more likely we are to allow the pathways for more traditional learning to lapse and diminish.  I’m talking now about the ability to concentrate for extended periods of time, such as when reading a book.  Even older people who grew up loving books have lost their ability to read deeply.  Nick Carr wrote for The Atlantic magazine an article that resonated with fellow former book worms.  He asked, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”  In one way, no; it gives us information, in fast, particle form. In another way, yes; it makes us incapable of concentrating our attention.  Now, he says, his concentration drifts after two or three pages. He gets “fidgety, lose[s] the thread, begin[s] looking for something else to do.”  Sound familiar?

Because reading comprehension and people skills are so important for school, work, and full development of human potential, we cannot allow ourselves to become what playwright Richard Foreman describes as “pancake people,” people who are wide with information but thin in knowledge and relationship skills.  The solution is to start training our brains in the art of slow reading. 

My niece Meredith learning to turn the pages.

The benefits of slow reading were reported in a Wall StreetJournal article this September:  better and longer concentration, reduced levels of stress (almost within 6 minutes of opening the book, subjects’ stress level went down), and “deepened ability to think, listen, and empathize.”  Yes, reading, especially good fiction, improves people skills—but only if you allow yourself to enter into the world of the characters and their feelings. And a study by the National Endowment for the Arts similarly found “greater academic, professional, and civic benefits associated with high levels of leisure reading and reading comprehension.” The cause of these benefits remains unexplained, but the correlation has been proven.  Another correlation was found in the National Endowment study between writing scores and reading for fun among high school seniors. On a scale of 0-300, those who read every day averaged 165 (not great, but we are talking average high school writers!) while those who never read averaged 136 (considerably less great) on the writing test. 

While it’s important to exercise and socialize in leisure hours, I think most college students can work in 30 minutes a couple days a week to do an activity that will reward them in so many ways.  So when you have just a tiny block of time to fill, put the phone or tablet away and pull out an interesting and well-written book.  A good choice might be any of the ones that Highland Park High School banned (temporarily) from the senior English lists:  The Glass Castle, The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian, or The Art of Racing in the Rain.  What books have made a reader out of you? Do you have recommendations?

Highland Park Observes National Banned Books Week

Since 1982, book lovers have been observing Banned Books Week during the last week in September.  Ironically, the Highland Park Independent School District is participating in the observance by banning several books on the high school English reading list.   You can find a list of these books here.  These are some great titles by Nobel and Pulitzer-prize winning authors.  Sherman Alexie’s memoir won a National Book Award.  But the books’ merits as literature are not the only reason I think HPISD should reverse their decision and return the books to the classrooms now.  

They should be restored because in banning them, HP caved in to a barrage of complaints by parents who noticed some racial slurs in the dialogue and disturbing content like alcoholism. While parental involvement in the schools is a good thing, trying to overturn the curriculum agreed upon by a committee of professional teachers through an email campaign is not the way to do it.  

The faculty knew some of these books were risky choices, but they obviously thought high school students could handle the same topics in a book that they confront in real life: alcoholic parents, racial prejudice, and homosexual classmates and relatives, to name a few.   HP isn’t really a Bubble where the kids are never exposed to such topics, if not in the home then in music, TV, and film. 

HP should restore the books and invite the objecting parents to participate in a discussion with the faculty  before deciding on next year’s reading list.  That would be much more sensible than yanking the books and then inviting a discussion about whether to revoke the ban.

Changing the Culture

Every spring,  freshmen have anguished over housing options for their sophomore year.  Most want to find a place off campus, but they have a bittersweet feeling:  even though they will still be students here,  they will have loosened their bonds with the campus.  I don’t know why there has always been such a stampede to move off campus, and I think SMU has done the right thing in putting the brakes on it.  In fact, I think it’s the best thing that’s happened here since the Death Penalty.

In recent years, SMU has been trying to "change the culture" of its student body.  Although we are in the top tier of national universities, we have struggled with substance abuse and sexual misconduct.  Dealing with this problem through more police and penalties exacerbates tensions between students and administration.  A better way is to change the culture by changing the people who call this place home, twenty-four hours a day.  Compared to many campuses, SMU has been a virtual youth ghetto, with only 32% of its students living on campus, according to the US News and World Report guide to colleges.  The remaining 68% who commute are upper class men and women. We need to bring them home.

Having more upper-class students stay on campus longer will contribute to our campus civility.   As Donna Shalala, former President of University of Miami, told the NewYork Times, “We’re in the business of helping students mature. Campus life and campus housing are a huge part of that. We think about how to create the college experience, and that’s easier when more students, including upperclassmen, live on campus.” With more modeling of mature social behavior by older students and faculty mentors, the police will have less reason to be in the dorms. Having even a few SMU faculty families living in the dorms will help bridge the populations of students and faculty and avert some of the incidents that have marred our school’s image in the past. 

Living on campus is a luxury that many older students with jobs and kids would envy.  It's a once-in-a-lifetime social and intellectual experience.  The class of 2018 should be glad that they have another year before they have to make the choice between leaving and staying.