Column: Brothers Shouldn't Let the IFC Do All The Talking

I'm not a fraternity member, and I've never wanted to be. I've been to exactly one rush event in my life, and I found it superficial and annoying. Sure, I'm jealous of the nice houses in prime locations. Sure, I'm disgusted by some of the hazing stories I've heard, the harrassment, the posters and other improprieties charged against some houses. But I can't subscribe to the anti-Greek mentality, because I can't reconcile it with the one part of the Greek system that I face every day -- some of my best friends are Greek. This is a serious intellectual contradiction for many students. The fraternity members that I know are cool guys, reasonable people. When I go to their houses, their fraternity brothers generally seem like good guys. But then there's this big, ugly thing called the "fraternity system," and we're always reading about how this monstrosity has been raping, ravaging and plundering, generally destroying our politically correct way of life. Could my friends really be a part of that? In reality, only a few of the houses have members who really cause serious problems. Brothers are just as varied in behavior and opinion as the rest of the students. For every borderline rapist there's an amiable pothead who just wants everyone to live in harmony; most brothers fall somewhere in between. It's just that the ones who aren't Neanderthals rarely make headlines. What the fraternities have here is a serious image problem, something they recognized years ago and have tried vigorously to combat. Unfortunately for the brothers, the group in charge of image enhancement is the Interfraternity Council, which itself is an image liability for the fraternities. Why? Nobody likes the IFC. IFC leaders apparently think they're real media wizards, when in reality everything they say and do seems blatantly deceptive and superficial. A year ago they announced the BYOB policy, saying that it "had to be enforced or fraternities would be wiped off the face of the Earth," as one fraternity president put it. I've personally never seen someone bring his own booze to a frat party, but I'm told that it happens sometimes. "Once in a while some stupid freshman will bring a six-pack to one of our parties, not realizing that there's like a hundred cases of beer in the basement!" one brother told me. "It's so hilarious!" To argue that the policy was being followed was clearly ridiculous, but the IFC did it anyway. Once they figured out that no one believed them, the media wizards decided on a more moderate line. Last week, IFC President Jim Rettew was quoted as saying that "strict interpretation of the policy" wasn't that important, that IFC monitors just make sure that the "atmosphere of the party" has "elements of BYOB that shows they are following the intent of BYOB." This is the same Jim Rettew, you will recall, who last February told the Panhellenic Council that there had been 200 reported hazing incidents in 1990, later explaining to a reporter that he'd exaggerated the numbers "to make it more interesting and to get my point across to Panhel." These are the media wizards who are supposed to be the spokemen for the whole fraternity system? These are the guys the community should trust? Give me a break. Worse yet, the IFC insists on being the sole voice of the fraternity system. One brother who wrote a letter responding to an anti-fraternity column in the DP told me that he caught flack from IFC officers because it included the phrase, "Sure, the fraternity system has some problems." Last December, I wrote a column evaluating the effects of the BYOB policy. Many fraternity members told me they agreed with it, but just didn't feel free to publicly speak out about it. In fact, I can't remember even one letter or column on the editorial page, written by a fraternity brother, criticizing the fraternity system. Officers of the IFC generally refuse to speak with reporters, directing them to Rettew for comment. Solidarity among the officers of an organization is not unusual, but no other group on campus has a gag rule on its entire constituency. It's unfair to the members, and it certainly does nothing to dispel the fraternities' rather threatening image. And in the IFC's case, even their constituents don't trust them. "They're really into their so-called power," one former fraternity president told me. "They run it as though the decisions they make will have resounding significance, when really, they don't make any difference at all." "All the Greeks think it's someone else's house running their house," another brother told me. The IFC members really only represent six or seven houses -- and they seem especially immune to prosecution. Most of the brothers I talked to said that their house would leave the IFC if they could do so without losing University recognition, and, consequently, their house. But brothers told me that they won't criticize the IFC publicly because they fear their house would be harassed by BYOB monitors. "It's so frustrating, because all it takes is five guys who aren't in my house -- who I don't even know -- passing around some photos, and then many more people are opposed to the Greek system," one fraternity president lamented. One brother whose defense of the fraternities was printed in the DP said that he later had second thoughts. "I got the most positive response from guys from the houses that I was least interested in defending," he explained. There's a simple solution to the dilemma: speak out. Stop putting up with the IFC's gag policy, and defend your own house's virtues. Sure, it's a risk, but it can only improve the credibility of your own house -- and the whole system -- in the eyes of the non-Greek community. One brother explained the current IFC philosophy by saying that "individuals shouldn't act alone, because they might act against each other." Brothers from the "good houses" should realize, though, that their solidarity with the "problem houses" means that they're tolerating -- and sometimes even defending -- destructive actions that deserve neither their defense nor their tolerance. It's naive for fraternity members to think that their particular houses are in no jeopardy. University committees studying student life have given serious consideration to abolishing the whole Greek system. It's happened at other schools. There is no reason to think it can't happen here. Fraternities have a lot to contribute, both to the community and to those who choose to join them. Having just spent a weekend at Harvard ("bleak" is too weak a word to describe their social scene), I shudder to think what Penn would be like without them. But counterproductive IFC representation -- along with being lumped with the few bad apples in the system -- is bringing the good houses down. It's a shame that the University offers the fraternities no alternative to the IFC. And it's even more of a shame that fraternity members refuse to disassociate themselves with the darker side of their system. Jay Levin is a senior Political Science major from Akron, Ohio. Not That You Asked appears somewhat randomly, but generally on alternate Tuesdays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.