A CQfiPARATNE QWDY 0F WCTED
PERSGNAL GiARAC‘IERISTEcs AND
PERCEPTIQNS? 0F NATIQNAL PESIDENTS
AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTQRS’ OF
COLLEGE $OCIAL FRATEMITEES

“Nests 5cm Hm Dogma of Eéi. D.
MICHEGAN STATE UNEVERSITY
George Barry Hibbard

1966

'I’HESfS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*wa W mm m t/ t “5:33;“

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SELECTED PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS
AND PERCEPTIONS OF NATIONAL PRESIDENTS AND EXECUTIVE
DIRECTORS OF COLLEGE SOCIAL FRATERNITIES

presented by

George Barry Hibbard

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

_E£LD.._. degree in MEN

.//-4/

Major professor

    

Date WILL“ /é / QL
/

0-169

 

 

Numnwv-I
CV” (but; -,

‘\ H
1‘ ‘, P'DAE?
“ HA\\ ‘

.
.1‘

th~
w»-
‘O\L‘
'T'n
h r
L .E _;r

 

 

’v
”-

’ I Q

.
‘QYIx

L'
.e...«Lles: a:

ABSTRACT

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SELECTED PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS
AND PERCEPTIONS OF NATIONAL PRESIDENTS AND EXECUTIVE
DIRECTORS OF COLLEGE SOCIAL FRATERNITIES

by George Barry Hibbard

The Problem

 

The purpose of this study is two-fold: (1) to examine
and compare selected personal characteristics of national
presidents and executive directors of college social fra-
ternities; and (2) to examine and compare selected per-
ceptions of national presidents and executive directors with
respect to how they view the role of the college social
fraternity in higher educationo Data obtained from the study
will help fraternity leaders develop a better understanding
of themselves and their organizations, and at the same time,
will assist university faculty and staff and the public to

acquire a better understanding of college social fraternities.

Methodology

 

A questionnaire was deve10ped to examine selected per-
sonal characteristics and perceptions of national presidents
and executive directors of national social fraternities. The
questionnaire method was used because it seemed the best way

to reach the widely dispersed national officers.

George Barry Hibbard

The non-parametric statistic used for analyzing the
data in this study was chi—square. For the purpose of
interpreting the statistical data, the .05 level of confidence
was used to determine statistical significance in both parts
of the study. In addition, all of the responses of the two
groups used in the study were reported in percentages. This
was done in order to more easily draw conclusions about the

extent of the similarities and differences that were found.

Significant Findings

 

The following is a list of those items that were statis-

tically significant at .05 level and beyond.

1. National presidents are older than executive
directors of college social fraternities.

2. National presidents have lived longer in their
present community than executive directors of
college social fraternities.

3. More executive directors than national presidents
obtained their first job after graduation from
college through a fraternity contact.

4. More executive directors than national presidents
are full-time salary employed.

5. National presidents have a higher annual income
than do executive directors of college social

fraternities.

l
5".ch

A

: executl

._
.\

.:

vvhpx‘h
qu-n-ne

“5-5, 8

\

qa
-.

“wank-

'.7 ‘
4.
l
a;

1

ersit
..lleges

“Co; E.
.
"A
‘

RA

.
w
F!"

Eloomew*

9‘

’n.‘
\1

atLl

s

‘
‘

ta part ~

.
“J

“F

C

George Barry Hibbard

6. More national presidents than executive directors
have held alumni chapter offices.

7. More executive directors than national presidents
of college social fraternities have sons who hold

membership in the same fraternity.

Selected Perceptions

According to the data most of the national presidents
and executive directors tend to agree with the items dealing
with pledge education, relative importance of the president
in the local chapter, local advisor, disciplinary procedures,
fraternity expansion in both state and private schools,
scholarship, ideals and purposes, development of leadership
schools, financial assistance, salaries for national presi-
dents, summer rush programs, attitudes of deans of students
and college presidents towards fraternities, chapter libraries,
university land for construction, expansion into junior
colleges, alcohol in chapter houses, moral and spiritual
development, extra-curricular activities, deactivation for
neglect of financial obligations, and the encouragement of
more faculty and professional speeches within fraternity
houses.

There was disagreement by the national presidents and
executive directors on those items dealing with required
housemothers, senior privileges, fraternities being in but

not a part of the academic community, development of

C,
:u
.:

.

C.

_:
3.

.«V
L.

a4.

a
a.
; I

15 'n.

wu‘
-

 

George Barry Hibbard

educational offices by National Interfraternity Conference,
expansion into teachers colleges, experiences in higher
education prior to present position for executive directors,
pledging graduate students, university finances for new
fraternity houses, employment opportunities, length of.
pledge period, socio-economic background, civic-mindedness,
controversial speakers, development of residence halls, and
ideal size of fraternity chapters.

In the area of personal characteristics some statis-
tically significant differences were found. In the area of
perceptions, however, there were no significant differences.
This would indicate that although the background of these
two groups are somewhat different, basically they tend to
view the role of the college social fraternity in higher

education in the same way.

‘ f‘f‘ll ‘a‘mvov'

.1 Ct}. [11151 Ln

AID PERCEP

in;

 

 

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF SELECTED PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS
AND PERCEPTIONS OF NATIONAL PRESIDENTS AND EXECUTIVE

DIRECTORS OF COLLEGE SOCIAL FRATERNITIES

BY

George Barry Hibbard

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

Department of Counseling, Personnel
Services and Education Psychology

1966

m;- a..¢

A... d,_
N ~§ YV
4?. James m ,

“~"~‘~W+ eff",
A.L _

Munoz,”
paw». ; ‘.
‘V“Se 3‘- 5::

   
      

c

"Y‘ e‘p"
5‘; .lsu
-

\
.., ‘.
ngesn CES

"‘$-o-

...-.;ee’ Dr. :,
5:339 and D:

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author expresses his sincere appreciation to
Dr. James W. Costar, chairman of his committee, for his
constant encouragement and assistance during the entire
course of this study.

An expression of gratitude for the criticisms and
suggestions is also due the members of the Guidance Com-
mittee, Dr. Eldon R. Nonnamaker, Dr. Richard L. Feather-
stone and Dr. Orden C. Smucker.

He also wishes to thank Dr. Walter F. Johnson and
Dr. Ivin Leman and Mrs. Norma Ray for their suggestions
concerning some of the statistical aspects of the study.
To his wife, Anne, whose constant encouragement

and understanding made the study possible, he expresses
his deepest gratitude.

***************

ii

.l ”at: '- wk. v‘h

all-r

 

 

 

George Barry Hibbard
Candidate for the degree of

Doctor of Education

Final Dissertation Date: Wednesday, May 11, 1966, 9:00 A.M.

Dissertation: A Comparative Study of Selected Personal
Characteristics and Perceptions of National
Presidents and Executive Directors of
College Social Fraternities.

Outline of Studies:
Major area - Guidance and Personnel Services

Minor area - Higher Education

Cognate area - Sociology

Biographical Items:
Born, April 10, 1934, Boston, Massachusetts

Undergraduate Studies - Boston University, Boston
Massachusetts - 1952—1955

Michigan State University,
Bachelor of Arts

East Lansing, Michigan -
1953-1956

Graduate Studies — Harvard University, Cambridge
Massachusetts, Summers of 1956 and
1958

Michigan State University,
Master of Arts,

East Lansing, Michigan -
1958-1959

Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan -
1959-1966

iii

i. .«v .3
Us. a; v.
E

.L

an

S.

J! ,P t ital.

Experience:

Military Service: United States Army, September 1956-
June 1958.

Education: 1958-1959,

1959—1962.

1962-1966.

Membership:

Graduate Resident Advisor
Michigan State University

Assistant Director of Men's
Division of Student Affairs,
Michigan State University

Associate Director, Division of
Student Activities, Office of the
Vice President of Student Affairs,
Michigan State University

National Association of College Personnel Administrators,
National Education Association - Association of Higher
Education, Phi Delta Kappa

iv

n..‘“~,v‘
h—‘u '-
‘.o.--—4a¥
*- FT‘
At A.
IT 3“
«- ..;
.
IT?
N
-*¢o )F‘
M.

In , H
V " ’13}:

DE):

t,
J- Am.
‘4

PDPC
‘JL

‘\

U) I!" 3x! ('1

CHAPTER

I.

II.

III.

IV.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Purpose of the Study . . . . . . . . . . .
Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . .
Definition of Terms. . . . . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . .
Delimitations of the Study . . . . . . .
Procedures Used in the Study . . . . . . .
Organization of the Study. . . . . . . . .

REVIEW OF LITERATURE. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Historical Perspective . . . . . . . . . .
Theses and Dissertations . . . . . . . . .
Periodical Articles. . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY. . . . . . . . . . . .

I. The Population and Method of Selection.
II. Instrument and Procedures Used in

Obtaining the Data for the Study. . . .

III. Analyzing the Data. . . . . . . . . . .

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA--PERSONAL CHARACTER-
ISTICS OF NATIONAL SOCIAL FRATERNITY PRESI-
DENTS AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS . . . . . . . .

Summary of Significant Findings. . . . . .
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA--PERCEPTIONS OF NATIONAL
PRESIDENTS AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS. . . . . .

Discussion of the Data . . . . . . . . . .
Areas of Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . .
Areas of Disagreement. . . . . . . . . . .
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page

OCOCDNQU‘IU‘HPH l-‘

41

42
46
49

50

92
95

95

139
140
144
146

 

v" 3‘2".)
"n-n

».u-- .. -.

Y"

\io t
”’“r'. '5.
N a! ‘.~~
~‘~L¢ K...

_—“ Vr‘
hp} .

.-
“‘ H‘\I ¢L

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS - Continued

CHAPTER Page

VI. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . 148
The Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

The Design and Procedures of the Study . . 149

Findings of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . 151
Discussion of the Data on Perceptions. . . 152
Recommendations for Further Study. . . . . 161
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o 163

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

vi

C. n.“
w,. “fig

C .3
w”
an a

Wyaafiu
w“ .wi
AD S
C E
v.
.n D.
fill.

532i

_
A
“g

nu ~a, ..«u e.
3 E T e C
.l . i a. n.“ e
t . . C r. v.
Au «4 a: .1.
.\. C A E D

-2

10.5,. x. 5.1.1.14} .
u .

tione
Collese

\d

J

. h CAN-n.-
v... C

a».

Xati

nn‘
you:

C. K C.
3.1 .1.
FL L.» .IL

«d Av
.nu VA on
7

re

nu; Pu wuq

w .u
n.»
18..

ANV

C at
.1 la
L; l
N C

o....:
T 3 6
AV .1 1L
C Lt; ‘lls
‘Q bu
aAu “in nL
A.V
I \

 

TABLE

1.

10.

LIST OF TABLES

Page
A Comparison of the Ages of National Presidents
and Executive Directors of College Social
Fraternities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
A Comparison of the Marital Status of National
Presidents and Executive Directors of College
Social Fraternities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
A Comparison of the Number of Children of
National Presidents and Executive Directors of
College Social Fraternities . . . . . . . . . . 55
A Comparison of the Highest College Degree
Earned by National Presidents and Executive
Directors of College Social Fraternities. . . . 57
A Comparison of the Place of Residence of
National Presidents and Executive Directors of
College Social Fraternities . . . . . . . . . . 58
A Comparison of Years in Present Community of
National Presidents and Executive Directors of
College Social Fraternities . . . . . . . . . . 59
A Comparison of Military Experiences of
National Presidents and Executive Directors of
College Social Fraternities . . . . . . . . . . 60
A Comparison of Present Military Status of
National Presidents and Executive Directors of
College Social Fraternities . . . . . . . . . . 62
A Comparison of First Employment Opportunities
of National Presidents and Executive Directors
of College Social Fraternities. . . . . . . . . 63
A Comparison of Present Employment Status of
National Presidents and Executive Directors of
College Social Fraternities . . . . . . . . . . 65

vii

 

’\
M-

(l)

(L)

’ S

l\)
C.)

(\7

I \

(\7
[\7

{V 3‘
‘ ()

()
'91"

(3

O
D

:3
('1.

*O (U
H
h'

C) r? 3‘
H
(D

' a
L: '2

LIST OF TABLES - Continued

TABLE

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

Page

A Comparison of Professional Memberships Held
by National Presidents and Executive Directors
of College Social Fraternities. . . . . . . . . 66

A Comparison of Incomes of National Presidents
and Executive Directors of College Social
Fraternities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-
tive Directors Who Belong to University Alumni
Clubs 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O O O 69

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-
tive Directors Who Were Officers of Alumni
Clubs 0 O C O O O O O O O O O O C O O O C O 0 O 7O

A Comparison of Attendance at Alumni Meetings
Between National Presidents and Executive
Directors of College Social Fraternities. . . . 71

A Comparison of the Number of Times National
Presidents and Executive Directors Have
Returned to Campuses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu—
tive Directors Who Belonged to Alumni Chapters
Before Their Current Positions. . . . . . . . . 74

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-
tive Directors Who Were Officers of Alumni
Chapters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-
tive Directors with Respect to the Number of
Alumni Chapter Meetings Attended. . . . . . . . 76

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-
tive Directors with Respect to Financial Dona—
tions to Their Fraternities Since Graduation. . 78

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execub
tive Directors with Respect to Holding a
Chapter Office. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-

tive Directors with Respect to Holding an Inter-
fraternity Council Office . . . . . . . . . . . 80

viii

m‘
‘."‘L
5;...
1'38
'7“.-
in

f
in

ST CF
25. A C

.v
a-

.l .
t. a.

i':

y

LIST OF TABLES - Continued

TABLE

23.

24.

25.

28.

29.

30.

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-
tive Directors with Respect to Their Interest
in Their Undergraduate Chapters. . . . . . . . .

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-
tive Directors with Respect to Attendances at
Their College Football Games . . . . . . . . . .

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-
tive Directors with Respect to Financial Dona—
tions to Their College Alumni Club . . . . . . .

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-
tive Directors Who Married Sorority Girls. . . .

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-
tive Directors with Respect to Having Sons in
COllege. O O O . C O O O O O O O C O O C C O O O

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu—
tive Directors with Respect to Having Sons in a
Fraternity O C O O 0 O O o O O O C O O O O O O O

31. A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-

32.

33.

34.

tive Directors with Respect to Having Sons in
Their Respective Fraternities. . . . . . . . . .

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu—
tive Directors with Respect to Church Membership

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-
tive Directors with Respect to Holding a Church
Office 0 O O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-
tive Directors with Respect to Belonging to
Civic Organizations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35. A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu—

36.

tive Directors with Respect to Holding Political
OfficeSo C 0 O C O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu—

tive Directors Concerning Membership on a
College Board of Trustees. . . . . . . . . . . .

ix

Page

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

9O

91

92

"T

LIST C.

11.4.! . iii

.,. A C
title
IS F

LIST OF TABLES - Continued
TABLE

37. A Comparison of the Responses of National
Presidents and Executive Directors with
Respect to Pledge Training. . . . . . . . . . .

38. A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-
tive Directors with Respect to the Importance
of the Chapter President. . . . . . . . . . . .

39. A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-
tive Directors as to Whether the Local Advisor
Should Be a Member of the National Fraternity .

40. A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-
tive Directors as to Whether Chapter Advisors
Should be a Member of the University Faculty. .

41. A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-
tive Directors with Respect to the Size of the
Fraternity House. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

42. A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-
tive Directors with Respect to Whether Dis-
ciplinary Action Should be Taken Against a
Local Chapter by The Deans Office Before the
National is Notified. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

43. A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-
tive Directors with Respect to Whether the
University Should Require First Term Freshmen
to Wait Until the End of the First Marking
Period Before Pledging. . . . . . . . . . . . .

44. A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-
tive Directors with Respect to Whether the
University Should Require All Fraternities to
have Housemothers or Resident Advisors. . . . .

45. A Comparison of the Responses of National
Presidents and Executive Directors with Respect
to the Teaching of Academic Subjects in Fra-
ternity Houses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

46. A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-
tive Directors with ReSpect to Whether Seniors
Should Live Outside the Fraternity House if It
Is Full . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page

97

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

 

 

-..-.—~

vJ‘

d-

(H (H

(N

(H

(II

(1.!

(L;

[\7

II-

C)!

31
0

(.3 m (t
14
0'0

- (D
W

( l

() Ph «1*
*4

a:

:1-
(l
(l

6

c
n’,
l

rt
: +1-
«D I
4‘? m

1
C

:l

'1.
«(1
I

I

0
()

ti"e
of V.‘
w...
5..»
A C:
tive

LIST OF TABLES - Continued

TABLE

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

A Comparison of National President and Execu—
tive Directors with ReSpect to Fraternity
Expansion in State Supported Institutions as
Opposed to Private Institutions. . . . . . . . .

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-
tive Directors with Respect to Whether Fra-
ternities are Considered by Many School Of-
ficials as In but Not a Part of the Academic
Community. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-
tive Directors Concerning Their Opinions of
Whether Fraternity Scholarship is Consistently
Higher than the All University Scholarship . . .

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-
tive Directors with Respect to Their Opinions
of Whether More Emphasis Should be Placed on

the Fraternity Ideal and Purpose . . . . . . . .

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-
tive Directors with Respect to Whether the NIC
Should Develop an Office of Educational Research

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-
tive Directors with Respect to NIC Developing
a National Leadership School . . . . . . . . . .

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu—
tive Directors with ReSpect to Establishment of
Fraternities in Teachers Colleges. . . . . . . .

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu—
tive Directors with Respect to Their Opinions on
Whether Undergraduates See the Relationship
Between Idealistic Purpose of Fraternities and
Day-to—Day Operations and Purposes of Their
Chapter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-
tive Directors with ReSpect to Whether National
Fraternities Should Maintain a Student Aid
Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xi

Page

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

A

a:
.C

t 3. H

. .. E .1. E I
L. t v... A t t P
I 8
n. L.
Iv I»
1:194

A
l.

1:
:u

.1‘ fi. .. .l v.
I CC t Lu +C EL
Wig
ah-

i r i r a - i L r i Ll. C . r
a v . . s. l y

A t F A. t P . 1. t t A t t t A. t mm

, i 2 5 5.. :3.

2. 5.. a: a: 2..

LIST OF TABLES - Continued

TABLE

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu—
tive Directors with Respect to Whether the
Executive Directors Should Have Experience in
Higher Education Before Assuming His Position .

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-
tive Directors with Respect to Whether the
National President Should Receive a Salary. . .

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu—
tive Directors with Respect to Whether Fra-
ternities Should have Organized Summer Rush
Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-
tive Directors with Respect to Whether Deans of
Students are Sympathetic to College Fraterni-

ties. . O O O O I) O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-
tive Directors with Respect to Whether College
Presidents are Sympathetic to Fraternities. . .

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-
tive Directors with ReSpect to Whether All
Fraternity Houses Should Have Chapter Libraries

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-
tive Directors with Respect to Initiating a
Prospective Member Immediately Rather than
Have a Pledge Period. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-
tive Directors with Respect to Having Universie
ties Finance New Houses . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-

tive Directors with Respect to Whether Universi-

ties Should Make Land Available for Construc-
tion. 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu—
tive Directors with ReSpect to Graduate Stu—
dents Being Allowed to Pledge Fraternities. . .

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-

tive Directors with Respect to Junior College
Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xii

Page

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

LIST OF TABLES - Continued

TABLE

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

76.

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu—
tive Directors with Respect to the Length of
the Pledge Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu—
tive Directors with Respect to Whether Fra—
ternities Require Too Much Time of Their
Pledges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-
tive Directors with Respect to Whether Being a
Fraternity Member Enables One to Secure Better
Employment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu—
tive Directors with Respect to Drinking in
Fraternity Houses . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-

tive Directors with Respect to Whether Fraterni-

ty Men Are More Civic Minded. . . . . . . . .

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu—
tive Directors with Respect to Fraternities

Encouraging the Moral and Spiritual Development

of the Individual . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-

tive Directors with ReSpect to Whether Fraterni-

ty Men Should be Encouraged to Participate in

Extra-curricular Activities of an All Universi—

ty Nature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu—
tive Directors with Respect to the Socio-
economic Background of Fraternity Men . . . .

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-

tive Directors with Respect to Whether Fraterni-

ty Men Who Fail to Meet Financial Obligations
by a Specified Time Should be Deactivated . .

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-

tive Directors with Respect to Whether Fraterni—

ty Houses Should be Used for Controversial
Speakers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xiii

Page

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

. I. .11. t a
E :

7 ~ 0
2 7:
. .w. i.
.. .

.
.M.

A:
7-

t D L.

11 iiiflj

LIST OF TABLES - Continued

TABLE Page

77. A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu—

78.

tive Directors with Respect to Whether Fraterni-
ties Should Encourage More Faculty and Profes-
sional Speeches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

A Comparison of National Presidents and Execu-

tive Directors with Respect to Whether the
Development of Residence Halls on Campuses Has
Limited Fraternity Growth . . . . . . . . . . . 138

xiv

APPESD :3

 

:11

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX Page
A. Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
B. Initial Letter and Follow-Up Letters. . . . ;178
C. Selected follow—up reSponses of National

Presidents and Executive Directors who did
not participate in original study .". . . . 182

XV

n.. r” 9.
ML .6 mi.
C I t
.3
.1 e ..
A M. n . me.

I .l

U V A:
aflw W. Qty
.5 .. i v .
r u :u v C.

IE--II1‘J

Since

ersiti

ES

.
“v 1 9'.
<AAL '4

-

ll'le mar; K"

'11

z
n}.
1.

d

34

\-

 

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

Introduction

 

The college social fraternity has been a part of
American higher education since the eighteenth century.

Phi Beta Kappa, now an honorary fraternity, was first estab-
lished in 1776 at William and Mary. Since its establishment
numerous other fraternities have been founded. Not all have
survived, and not all have become national in scope. At the
present time there are 59 social fraternities which are
members of the National Interfraternity Conference.

Since the inception of the college fraternity, American
higher education in both private and public colleges and
universities has had to face a future of large enrollments,
increased academic responsibilities, and the need to re-
examine many practices and policies in light of these changes.1

Among the issues gaining increased attention is that of
the college—fraternity relationship. This relationship has
been highlighted during several periods in the past, and it is
certain to remain a major t0pic of interest because of its

profound effect on higher education.

 

1Daniel B. Wolf, "Fraternity Perception as Related to
Educational Goals." Doctoral dissertation. Indiana Univer—
sity, June 1965, p. 1.

 

 

 

:i.:r.s of :1:

- . .
-r7‘Av“ t L:
~~3_C-_,l l...L

L“
t h

AnOthe

11‘5th Cf f

 

 

.—

Although the relationship between institutions of higher
learning and social fraternities is not the same on every
campus, there are many common conditions which apply to most
institutions. For example, the rapid increase in student en-
rollment is having a significant effect on fraternities as
well as on almost every college and university in the United
States.2 In addition, there are other conditions in institu-
tions of higher education today which are also affecting social
fraternities. Such things as the twelve-month campus calendar,
the larger number of commuter students, and the increased
proportion of students who need financial assistance are only
a few of these factors. The increasing cost of education,
for instance, has made it necessary for many young men to
more clearly examine the cost of their social activities.

Another aSpect of higher education receiving much atten-
tion recently is the area of changing student values. The
history of fraternities reveals that much of their strength
has come from their alignment with the values and purposes of
the institutions with which they are a part. However, as
college or university values change so must all of their com—
ponent areas, including organized social living units.3

Dr. William Butler, Vice-President, University of Miami,

predicts that the "political forces of our society and

 

2David B. Henry, "The Changing University," Banta's
Greek Exchanggj April 1965, pp. 108—109.

 

3Henry, loc. cit.

istrat-

.
. "I

--‘~
«yo-ougi‘

centin

«I.
1-.
... .

r i
3 .
C
v .
“V.
T.
9..

.0—

~44

”.85 WRIST.
‘
HS 3'

v-A.

c.
C

‘5‘
a.
3,.

h
44

‘.

'is

'Vv‘

.Q
‘IIIA‘

no
.A

. lelfi'emer

-
'1‘"
‘4‘ .

administrative actions of boards of trustees and faculties
will continue to exert pressure on fraternities to alter
their programs and to bring about significant changes in
fraternal policies which involve their economy, housing pro-
grams, membership qualifications, and the social and academic
roles which they play on the college campuses."4

As one reviews the history of college fraternities the
question is often asked, "Why is it that the fraternities
have been so able to withstand external pressures and criti-
cisms?" Perhaps this is best answered by Nevitt Sanford in
College and Character when he writes that fraternities have
survived because they "serve some very genuine legitimate
needs of the student. And today when the best college's aca-
demic demands have passed all rational bounds and the adult
world wishes to evaluate students solely on the basis of
achievement, they have a Special need for companions who will
accept them as they are."5

Underlying university interaction with fraternities is
a sociological phenomenon that starts with the fact that all
humans are members of some kind of group. Inasmuch as one

of man‘s most persistent needs is response from others, it is

to the group that the individual responds. Group mores

 

4William R. Butler, "Fraternities--2000 A.D.," The Jour-
nal of the Association of Deans and Administrators of Student

Affairs, Volume 3, Number 1, July 1965, p. 4.

5Nevitt Sanford, Ed. College and Character, New York,
John Wiley and Son, Inc., 1964, p. 295.

:-
VI-z'L ad

kfl:ence 1r.

:v-nvnu l A? i
uuhbd‘a UL

Obviot

CCCESIO‘I‘. DEE.

“"7571!" ‘1 It! ’
:‘aA-a- K. a‘l.\e

 

 

the facultxq

Character 5

A
v

‘ I
VA —‘ .
. 1 l“ V~y\ .
V‘c “ “All '
a

influence individual behavior, whether it is designed to gain
approval or to escape disapproval.6

Obviously, the prestige of the American college social
fraternity has fluctuated through the years. It has on
occasion been both praised and condemned by colleges and the
public alike. Yet with all of the controversy that has sur-
rounded it, little research has been done which really helps
the faculty, administration, or public better understand the
character of the American college social fraternity and its

role in university life.

Purpose of the Study

A few studies have been carried out which have examined
the characteristics of fraternity men and alumni. Several
have attempted to analyze certain aSpects of the fraternity
social system. Completely ignored, however, have been the
personal characteristics of executive directors and national
presidents of college social fraternities and how they per-
ceive the role of the American college fraternity.

The purpose of this study is two-fold: 1) to examine
and compare the selected personal characteristics of national
presidents and executive directors of college social fratern—
ities; and 2) to examine and compare selected perceptions
of national presidents and executive directors as to how they

View the role of the social fraternity in higher education.

 

6Ralph Linton, The Cultural Background of Personality,
Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., New York, 1945, p. 157.

.
3083

o

15
«~rv“
.‘V'J‘

‘

'o-
-.

is

r

an
"a.

: .l

S e C A

r .1

e t e.

o. .. .
:i ~i

ufiu AJ

G»

e . a.»

C .L

e A a

. . v .

1,!‘i'J

executin

"n
“HM

e1:

pa
.6

used to

am“
T.
.1.
Wv

CL

Q.»

..d

fie 86

T

‘f‘ Vv'
». filll 1-

Ptions

Q»
a.»

5»
av.

It is hoped that such a study will provide data which will
help fraternity leaders deveIOp a better understanding of
themselves and their organizations and, at the same time,
assist members of the university staff and the public to

acquire a better understanding of college social fraternities.

Statement of the Problem

 

This study compares national presidents and executive
directors of college social fraternities in regard to se—
lected personal characteristics and their perceptions of the
role of the social fraternity in higher education.

The first aSpect of the study is concerned with se-
lected personal characteristics of both national presidents
and executive directors of college social fraternities.

The information obtained from this part of the study will be
used to help analyze any differences in perception that may
be found in the second part of the study.

The second portion of this study deals with perceptions
of national leaders of college social fraternities. An at—
tempt will be made to analyze any differences between the
perceptions of national presidents and executive directors
in regard to the function of the American college social

fraternity in higher education.

Definition of Terms

 

The following is a list of fraternity terms and their

definitions as they are used in this study.

Q

A
_.L

.:eri:an C

u
7".
an

f‘
v

.
”'l
.k

1

~ya-~v\ '. '
a- sun-J "

‘7‘—
u.é\

.'
LEE

-van—
.. v...

,-

a;

CI

by
D.

“U.

1. fi.¢v§1l.

*7

L“
1.3

in t

t-fiD
a

.5

a lis

t

ernit

f’a

Social Fraternity. For the purpose of this study, the

definition social fraternity found in Baird‘s Manual of

 

American College Fraternities, a fraternity publication, will
be used. It "is a mutually-exclusive, self—perpetuating
group which organizes the social life of its members in ac—
credited colleges and universities as a contributing factor
to their education program; and draws its membership primarily
from the undergraduate body of the institution.”

Professional Fraternity. It is a specialized fraterni-
ty which confines its membership to a specific field of
professional or vocational education in accredited colleges
and universities, and maintains mutually exclusive member-
ship in that professional field, but may initiate members of
the social college fraternities.

The Decalog of Fraternity Policy. The decalog consists
of a list of ten principles on which the National Inter-
fraternity Council takes a positive position. It was adopted
in 1944 at the National Interfraternity Conference.

National Interfraternity Conference. This term refers
to an association of national college social fraternities
which meet to discuss questions of mutual interest. Fifty—
nine national fraternities are members of this organization.

Interfraternity Council. This term refers to an organ-
ized undergraduate body representing all the social fraterni-
ties on a given campus. The letters IFC have been used to
designate this body. The IFC is not to be confused with the

National Interfraternity Conference.

Chapter. The term chapter refers to a single organ-
ized fraternity unit, whether local or national.

National Chapter. This title is used to designate the

 

headquarters of a national fraternity.

College Fraternity Secretaries Association. The

 

College Fraternity Secretaries Association is an affiliation

of the National Interfraternity Conference.

Breathssis

The study is divided into two parts. The first part
deals with the personal characteristics of national college
social fraternity presidents and executive directors. The
second part of the study deals with the perceptions of these
two groups regarding the role of the college social fraterni-
ty in higher education. It is hypothesized that presidents
of national social fraternities will differ from executive
directors of national social fraternities in both selected
personal characteristics and in their perceptions of the
function of the social fraternity in American colleges and
universities. Differences will be tested for significance

by use of the Chi-square statistic.

Limitations of the Study

 

The study is limited by the factors inherent in the
use of any questionnaire. These include the difficulties in
tabulating, validating, and securing the complete cooperation

of the respondents. It is also limited by the bias of the

2 .2
C t
S
o.
5
fl.

— .

\

... a
3 e
C X
. e
a...

.. . .3
T. T.
A . .3

AL

respondents, their interest in the study, the truthfulness
of their replies. Although questionnaires were sent to all
presidents and executive secretaries, the small number of
national college social fraternities is expected to be a

limiting factor in the statistical analysis of the data.

Delimitations of the Study

 

One of the delimitations of this study is that it only
tests those personal characteristics of both the national
presidents and executive directors of the American college
social fraternity thought to be related to their perceptions
of the function of the social fraternity in American colleges
and universities.

Another delimitating factor of the study is that it is
only concerned with those perceptions of national presidents
and executive directors of American college social fraterni-
ties concerning the function of social fraternities in Ameri-
can higher education.

An additional delimitation of the study is that it is
concerned only with the personal characteristics and per-
ceptions of national presidents and executive directors. It
does not examine other national officers, local board presi-

dents, or local college social fraternity officers.

a...

e e
y. r
3

.1 S
C .l
ad.

I. a.
2. Z“

1‘

a

: ,.

slat ivj

h...
T.

Eu.
A.
L.
r?

E

‘
lu

Procedures Used in the Study

POpulation

The population of this study consisted of all the execu—
tive directors and national presidents of the social fraterni-
ties who hold membership of good standing in the National
Interfraternity Conference. The National Interfraternity
Conference as an organization consists of 59 national social
fraternities. The executive director of the fraternity is
appointed to his position by the fraternity governing board.
He is reSponsible to the board for the operation of the
fraternity. This position is considered a career position.
The national president, on the other hand, is an official
elected usually for a period of one or two years.

In developing this study it was decided that a question—
naire would be the best means of gathering data because of
the large geographical dispersement of national officers.

The population in the study was made up of the 110
people who constitute the two top positions of national
leadership in the 55 fraternities of the NIC that are in good
standing with the association.

Chi-square, a non-parametric statistic, was used in
Parts I and II of this study to determine if there were any
significant differences between the personal characteristics
and the perceptions of executive directors and national
presidents of social fraternities. Because this is primarily
a descriptive study in its purpose, it was decided to examine

all findings at the .05 level of confidence and beyond.

1
‘4‘
at

‘

L

presents a
5::1a‘

.

.C . .
.7. C,
FL AD
11L

do

. Ru
.3. 3
.3 L...
n 5 C

.6 v a»
.2 ~ .

l... a: .n ifluaj
E r

N
\

11

h
\.

titres
e con

s,—

-a.

10

Organization of the Study

 

For the purpose of convenience and systematic consider—
ation, this study is reported in six chapters. Chapter I
presents an introduction of the study, the purpose of the
study, a statement of the problem, the population examined,
and the limitations of the study. Chapter II encompasses the
literature depicting the historical perspective of college
social fraternities and a review of research related to this
study. Chapter III consists of a detailed report of the
methodology used in developing the questionnaire and the pro-
cedures used to analyze the data. The findings are reported
in Chapter IV and V. A summary of the findings along with
the conclusions and recommendations for further study are

presented in Chapter VI.

-A.\

m‘

.

E t A
T

t t c E
Q

.11.: Ts 4. E 7. 1* a“
. i a... I e 3 a i e u a -
T I P C. S a C 31?. a a T
.l 8

~..
W... yr“
r
3 n1.
1. .1‘

 

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Historical Perspective

The college fraternity is as old as the republic it
serves, for it was in 1776 that Phi Beta Kappa, the first
‘ secret Greek letter society came into existence in America.
It was founded December 5, at the college of William and
Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, the second oldest college

in America.

Phi Beta Kappa had all the characteristics of the
present day fraternity: the charm and mystery of
secrecy, a ritual, oath of fidelity, a grip, a motto,
a badge of external display, tie of friendship and
commandship, an urge for sharing its values through
nationwide expansion. It was formed for social and
literary purposes and held regular and frequent
meetings. In December 1779 the parent chapter
authorized the establishment of branches at Harvard
and Yale.7

The chapter at Yale, when it actually was established,
November 15, 1780, took the name of Alpha of Connecticut.
It was quite formal in nature, and its membership was con—
fined to the two upper classes. It soon lost the vitality

and fraternal spirit that existed in the original organization.

 

7George Starr Lasher, Baird's Manual of American College
Fraternities (Menasha, Wisconsin: The Collegiate Press, 1957),
p. 5.

11

 

.c +,. A c ~ «L Wu G .l
.14 1. #s f,» Av H... e .h . .v

.T. .

a m A 3 . .3 C .l e S b 3 be M be .v .Ut

i a a r. n . E e t S E .2 .t . l S S

.3 M. a. C Q I C. 3 .l E .l V; A. S C 1. O

E t. a? e a. . A o «L S I .C l .C E a. p

T + E B . . C 3 C. e l E u e I E .l 1 mt . Q
.11. f c i . i O. “C C. .L a S C. S SJ 0. .C S C moi n... he
1 3 .l a. .1 e .5 T. i f. I. .4 . . a... C 1.. l E S .3. :
. ,. 5. . . hf. .3 C . “ C «pd. M: mtg Mac. d .1 .. W... x: but Moo s 4 Wu Hts :.

1 ... iln
aklrk 1 .

p

12

The Harvard Chapter, called Alpha of Massachusetts, was
established September 5, 1781. Another chapter was estab-
lished at Portsmouth in 1787. There was no further expansion
for thirty years and when half a century of the fraternity's
life had passed, there were only five active chapters.

Phi Beta Kappa soon became, and has since remained, a scholar-
ship honor society.8

In the following years different types of societies
developed which were for the most part of a literary character.
The object of these societies was to train its members in
composition and oratory through debates, orations, essays,
and presentations of papers. Usually there were two such
. societies at each college and the student body was divided
equally between them.

About 1850 the increased membership in these societies
caused them to become unwieldy. In some colleges separate
cliques within the societies controlled student elections.
These cliques soon crystallized into formal clubs. Literary
programs were neglected and rival factions fought for leader-
ship positions on campuses.

The traditional literary society slowly perished. The
student hero was no longer the writer of a verse or the
president of the debate team, but instead was the man of

muscle and perhaps, a little intellectual achievement.9

 

81bid., p. 4.

9John Wayne Henderson, "A Follow-Up Study of the Members
of Greek Letter Social Fraternities at Michigan State Univer—
sity" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State Uni-
versity, 1958), pp. 11-12.

”rm-a.

1

_‘o l

—A~""‘Y
._.:....2:-S 3
~ ‘
c::‘ to
-bau‘ul \r“‘

.. . . ,
Will". flail

. u

.r‘fi",-vrj s?"

vicuu~4AA e4.-‘\.
‘.

,
’r’ “A '1 “v

-1 Lac/g“ C1
. -

*3
{T
(D

15

In the autumn of 1825 the Kappa Alpha Society was
formed at Union College by John Hunter and several other
members of the Class of 1826. In external features, at
least, this Society had a close resemblance to Phi Beta Kappa,
which had been established at Union in 1817. The new society,
though exceedingly small, met much opposition. It was secret-
ly popular with the students, however, who paid it the sin-
cere compliment of imitation by the foundation of Sigma Phi,
March 4, 1827, and of Delta Phi, November 1827. These three
fraternities, called sometimes the "Union Triad," were the
patterns for the American college fraternity system. Imitation
of these three fraternities accounted for the establishment
of nearly all of the 59 Greek letter fraternities which are
members of the National Interfraternity Conference.

Few American colleges were left untouched by this move-
ment which so ably characterized the enterprise and initiative
of the nineteenth century college student.10

The literary society declined in the decades after the
introduction of fraternities. In the East, by 1870, literary
societies were remnants of their former selves. By then
many of them had given up altogether. As fraternities were
being introduced, literary societies declined. The pattern
almost everywhere was the same. The literary societies de-

clined not because fraternities robbed them of their purpose

 

loFrederick Rudolph, The American College and University:
A History (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Co., 1962), p. 144.

 

n t*

A
V

S
a
E
v .

‘

Tararie

‘

l-

 

a _
C
C
C

.1.

‘

na‘

1 C

1 Beta
lOI’la:

‘rn‘
.'.g y
p;

r\ '
Iqat

C~

nu.
.. u
.0

an.

.3
sh

«Q
AL

14

but because fraternities created a higher level of loyalty
and introduced a new and political dimension into literary
society elections. They also declined as the colleges
themselves took over some of their purposes, such as build-
ing up a broader collection of books, the opening of the
libraries more than once a week, and the expansion of the
sciences.

Fraternities began at a time when it was natural that
they should succeed literary societies. They adopted literary
exercises as one of their functions, but that was not the
reason they were founded. The Greek letter fraternity and
its counterpart, the social club, were intended to fill an
emotional and social, rather than a curricular vacuum.

A Kappa Alpha historian concluded: "The atmosphere of
Phi Beta Kappa, strictly academic, stimulated in the imagi-
nation a dream of new and more intimate relationships. . . .
The yearning of the unsatisfied was for fellowship of kindred
souls."ll

The Greek letter fraternities were intended to bring
together the most urbane young men on the campus into small
groups. Such groups were organized to fill the vacuum
caused by separation from family and home community, but they
served and fulfilled many other purposes.

By 1854, seven secret Greek letter fraternities were

in existence. There was considerable opposition to these

 

llIbid., p. 146.

E
v .
~ 3

e
.2

f.

v.

e

‘a
LA.

noul‘

15

groups. Two of the most important opposition movements took
place at Williams College. The first, in 1854, with the
launching of anti—secret society movement. The second was
the evangelical religious revival which began in 1840.12

The evangelical religious prescriptions, however, were
unable to beat fraternal loyalties. Forced to choose between
the evangelical injunction to reveal the nature of their new
brotherhoods and the fraternal injunction to bare no secrets,
the young Greeks made a choice. Their decision to tell noth-
ing succeeded in frustrating a revival that had promised to
be a great success. Evangelical religion could not cope with
the fraternity movement. Neither could the Spirit of politi-
cal liberalism which animated the anti—secret societies.13

About this time, and as a result of the increasing
pressure against secret fraternities, Delta Upsilon was
founded at Williams College. It was an organized protest
against the domination of college affairs by secret societies.
It should be pointed out, however, that the purpose of the
Delta Upsilon fraternity has since changed from one of open
warfare to amicable rivalry and this fraternity is now a
member of the NIC, sharing similar aims, objectives, purposes

and programs with other fraternities.l4

 

121bid., p. 117.
13Ibid., p. 147.

'14College Fraternities, Their Origin, Purpose and Value.
(New York: National Interfraternity Conference, 1962).

,
p.
x

.85

9
ff

1
i

7A
Lv"

a.

.‘cflv
1‘

.-

-s
ude

a
at

v:
f
g

<

5 bail

SE
3

Q'VCS as
a,

eke S
wr‘a
ahtr

”4.4
-..

PAID

an

16

In addition to the opposition presented by Delta Upsi-
lon, the secret fraternal organizations faced another
adversary on campus. The college authorities not only failed
to lend their support to these secret fraternities but also
viewed them with open suspicion. On occasion the faculty
and staff presented active opposition. Such opposition
caused numerous chapters to become inactive and others, ggb
Eggaj conducted their activities in a surreptitious manner.

It was during this period that the first fraternity
house was established at the University of Michigan. This
happened when the president of the University demanded that
the students discontinue their fraternity membership. The
students reacted by using an abandoned log cabin in a nearby
woods as a place for their meetings. The utilization of this
house changed the character of fraternities perhaps more than
any other single factor. The first fraternity house, as such,
was built in 1864 at Williams College. Soon such houses
were used as a living place and dOrmitory for fraternity
members.15

Harvard University, the first American college, followed
the pattern of the English college; Yale did likewise. Else-
where on the American continent the English college pattern

became considerably modified. In part this was due to the

influence of the state universities, which developed during

 

15Henderson, op. cit., pp. 15—14.

MM .' W" 'W

fie period \

IE minglinq

"‘ . ‘7‘ ‘ \
wgtfl 5..e 1:8.

. (‘2
- :«1
f);
L)

W I‘

3
Q) P
"(Lu

7

(D L

O PJO
3
H\Q
r1

e 23‘
elect
50395
M‘

iapoa
tn L
CC an

L...

w
I a Cormn.v
“ V. .

8..

WC:

 

17

the period when German universities were held in high esteem.
The mingling of the two conflicting systems produced a pat-
tern which is typically American--a pattern in which the
university assumes some responsibility for providing students
with shelter and with some control of their social activities.

Undoubtedly the German influence on the philosophy of
higher education in the United States during the latter
part of the nineteenth century resulted in an increas-
ing role of importance for the fraternity house.
German universities' ideas of student housing, free
elective principles, co—education and individual re-
sponsibility for conduct were introduced by Chancellor
Tappan at the University of Michigan. As president of
the University in 1856, President Tappan attempted to
do away with the college dormitory system and have the
students live in houses of the community. Practically
all of the land-grant universities of the mid—west and
far-western states followed this pattern. Thus, the
lack of student housing and the period of fraternity
expansion from the eastern schools to the mid—western
and far-eastern colleges and universities gave the
fraternities a real foothold.16

Prior to the Civil War fraternities had begun to attain
their full development. In this period they were united only
by a common name and common principle. Each chapter was in-
dependent and did pretty much as it pleased. At times indi-
vidual chapters even opposed the expressed wish of the national
fraternity of which it was a member.

Few changes of organization were made until after the
Civil War, however. Between 1870 and 1872 fraternities began
to expand and multiply. With expansion it was plain that the

old system was no longer adequate to supply the needs of a

 

16Henderson, op. cit., p. 14.

5‘

e
S
e .

.4.

-v—‘

J...\

t m h. H... e o r 31.... C e a .r. E a
I a t S v. C Q C D.t t S E t T v?
~

e

t

a

r

Ci

8...... up ..rfil.lvfl.1i

a“

C.
.3

s J

.5

7 E

18

growing organization.17

A new system of overall government
began to appear. The national convention, however, still
retained supreme legislative power and in many cases reserved
to itself the right to grant new charters. Administrative,
executive and, in some cases, judicial functions of the
fraternity were gradually vested in alumni.
The increased expansion also brought a need for some
national coordination.
It would seem from the foregoing summary of features
and practices common to American-letter fraternities
that there would naturally be some exponents of the
system as a whole; that while possessing points of di-
vergences, the separate fraternities have so much in
common that there would naturally arise some central
organization capable of representing and speaking
collectively.' The first meeting of this nature took
place in 1885. However, it wasn't until 1909 that
the NIC was formed bringing bonifide fraternity men
together, to discuss questions of common interest, for
self-appraisal and self-criticism, and for inquiry into
each others experience in search of a better life for
their group.18
The formation of the NIC did much to solidify the
fraternity system. For example, in 1958 the Conference adopted
a brief declaration known as the "fraternity criteria." This
document defined the standards by which fraternities might be
judged in their ideas and activities. In addition, it outlined
in some detail the fraternity's place in the educational and

social system of our country. Once the NIC defined the di-

rection of fraternities, it proceeded to develop the decalog

 

l7Lasher, op. cit., p. 12.

laIbid., p. 7.

C
C

E
0

a3

tie

p
s

I

Y!“

eir €011

‘

halle

9-3-0 f‘
Kr .‘

Wi

, .
SKIES .

r? L
at
ad

.IL
A.»

AJ
‘ w

1|; an... m.i‘nl!w.,!
'

P

b

fie

T

I

fullest

u I

1 ~
I

f
C

«l«
.3
LI.

its

'5‘

3

19

of fraternity policy. This policy outlined the responsibili-
ties of college fraternities to their respective members,
their colleges, and the public.19

During the depression years, many chapters barely met
the challenge of survival. World War II caused further hard—
ships. With a large number of men in uniform many houses had
to close for the ”duration." With the ending of the War the
fraternity situation changed almost overnight. Men flocked
back to the campus not only to resume their studies but also
to enjoy campus life. Fraternities faced a new challenge.
Colleges were flooded with groups of older men of varied
socio—economic backgrounds and different religious preferences.
The government subsistence check now made it possible for
"GI Joe" to affiliate with a fraternity.

The veteran, though participating in social life to the
fullest, was nevertheless a practical-minded person who en—
tered college for a definite purpose. He visualized the path
to his success as a required passage through the ivy covered
halls of education.

The post—war period had its problems as well as its
merits. Many campuses, where the problems related to women
and alcohol had not yet become significant, found themselves
tested as never before during the post-war period. Fraternity

houses became the social centers on many college campuses.

 

19Decalog of Fraternity Policy. NIC Constitution, 1910.

WitD
TE

‘

.er 9‘
.

595C“
g.

uA-l"

‘
r‘
\A t

pp312te

.3

 

"V
y
«C

With

a.
es ha..

fi

e
0

dif
7.3.“

1:1:
idle bi.

.n
H
l
«‘
~.

-:.‘;sing at.

i

o-

u

AA
,—

my.
NA
“NV“ v

20

With the influx of veterans, fraternities began to
prosper economically and soon the depression days were for-
gotten. The size of the post-war fraternity became a problem
for national offices and alumni however.

During this post-war period there were a number of
other forces that definitely affected the fraternity system.
One of the forces that brought about great change was the
professionally trained student personnel worker who was being
appointed to administrative positions on many college campuses.
Dean of students, deans of men and assistant deans were devot-
ing considerable time to fraternity affairs. These peOple had
definite expectations for the quality of fraternity programs.
The professional student personnel worker placed new and often
more difficult expectations before the college Greek.

Another factor that had considerable effect on the
fraternity system following World War II was the building of
residence halls on many college campuses. Because of the
favorable conditions for obtaining Federal loans for college
housing after World War II, there has been a steady increase
in the building of university housing facilities. On only a
few campuses were the Greeks able to keep pace with univer—
sity building programs.20

With the tremendous growth of student bodies, many

changes have taken place in fraternities over the past 20

 

20William Butler, "Forces at Work in the Development of
Fraternities," The Journal of College Student Personnel (June
1965), pp. 240-245.

. .C t .l a. l I r. C. I t C.~-J Va. 5 C C 4|. .C E yr.
n... a I S I E n“ .l .I .l t .9 .l .l C C I e .l C n h. Lu. 0
a r t C 3 . I n C e l .W n n A. C t f b t C a i T N
. .F. : . 3 C. S. e I t e a r I .
S D T r e S S K .d e E I
v. +. w: .. .1... ”g e; 7‘ 1.. t t t r
a 3 C 8 e n t. a a S w n C a a E
S. .r” :4 V. Cy S a“ *4 Av :v .1¢ a. V‘ Y‘ H
U . .6. Us“ 2‘ v. .7. i. C. d: a: v».. .7. 2. f D

. .H.qulu,§|i

I»:

21

years. Many of these changes are due in part to the changes
that have taken place in the entire area of higher education.
Many fraternity people are aware of these changes and many
are not, however, if fraternities are to maintain their cur-
rent position and meet the challenges of higher education it
is important that they evaluate themselves to prepare for the
future.21
In the future there will be an increasing need for the
fraternity system to modify and change to harmonize with the
goals of the university. The fraternity can, if it wishes,
assist in the emotional growth of the student and it can help
him meet the increasing demands of the university for intel-
lectual growth.22
We know all too little about the characteristics of
fraternities which appeal to students. One idea of what the
fraternity is, and can be, has been expressed by Alvan E.
Duerr.
A gradual change has overtaken the attitude of the
college toward the fraternities, and of the fraternities
toward the college° Oddly enough in the days when the
fraternities were perhaps most serious of purpose and
because of the limited resources of educational institu-
tions relatively did their most constructive work, the
college reciprocated by viewing them with suspicion
and distrust. This broke out gradually, and especially
in certain parts of the country, into open hostility.

Then the college began to tolerate its fraternities.
Now it has begun to embrace them.

 

21Butler, op. cit., pp. 240—245.

22William Craig, "Do Fraternities Keep Pace with Higher
Education?" Delta Upsilon Quarterly, Volume 79 (April, 1961).
pp. 97-99, 112-115, 120.

f. . a I E VA . . .5... If. .r. .r. . . .u. r\. .01 W~ .414 (~- v/Fx ‘\ C.. .r\ ‘.\ VAL .3 $A .C .J
8 e K C v. .3 3 .3 . e S H. .1 E C I I I S C 7i C r .3 .4 I l T l e .1...
.2 y... e f C 2.1 r. .3 a C E .21 E .3 C 8 HM I E .7. C a a wi C E E 5 E .7. h. a
t t .C a C a ti T b Cu Ft w .h .w f K r G. S t f .8 .F. f n .01 C S w I K.

Can

s

22

During the past few years the intellectualistic concept
of education which has dominated the policies of Ameri—
can colleges for three quarters of a century, has been
attacked from within and is slowly yielding to the
theory that it is the function of education to prepare
the student for life as he will find it beyond aca—
demic gates and for assuming a place of leadership
among his fellows. The advocates of this new, or re-
covered, philosophy calls it educatingithe whole man,
and this means that the college must direct its instruc-
tions toward the personal and social problems of the
individual if he is to be well educated.

 

0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

The fraternity group is formed by mutual selection,
based on congeniality and common purpose. It is self-
governing, with guidance. Here the young member learns,
perhaps for the first time, to submit to the will of
the majority and to shape his own conduct in accordance
with the interests and standards of the group in which
he lives. Here in assuming his allotted share of the
work of the group he develops a sense of responsibility
for the well being of something outside himself. He is
merged with the group; must work with and for the group,
must fight to emerge as a leader who will direct the
group. He learns the valuable lesson of subordinating
self and selfish desires for the good of others. He
thus learns to think in terms of those about him; to do
for those about him; to lend his strength to those who
have less; to give of his abundance to those who do not
have enough. No public Opinion exercises so deep an in-
fluence upon youth as that of youth itself; neither home
nor college can effect sweeping results with so little
delay or friction. But perhaps the greatest strength
in the chapter house is that it is the one place on
campus where men have the courage to be their best
selves; where idealism is expected, not scoffed at;
where altruism is the tradition, not the rare practice.
In an academic atmosphere which has been too fond of
making its own rules for living, the fraternity group
is a realistic struggle to evolve those principles of
community living upon which our form of government de-
pends. . . . The fraternity chapter is democracy in
action without fear of favor.

. . . Certainly no one will understand the fraternity
system of America until he regards it as a great youth
movement, inarticulate, too often misdirected, but
sound in its instincts, and finally discovering that
all the time it has been on the right road.

w 1.2 t n t 1. a f 1?. t h." t 3 t .L S .t. .7. .d a. I
5.: .3 3. C no a 371 C t. E . .3 n. a t S t S C
e v“ n a 2 e 3 r E C C f .4 .2 t f t E 3 E r a E R C n... h
8.3.1.: C F. .l S 8 Ch t . I 3.1a t.lc. C ci.l.C A. C t
.L
‘3 a
e
S e
.3 .u..
.3 a.

W
e

 

E

a

25

We would wish, however, that it had spent less time in
exploring the by-ways, that it had followed the shallow
enthusiasm of the gay nineties with less eagerness and
had substituted a leadership of its own more in keep-
ing with its basic purpose; that it had been less in-
fected by the spirit of inflation which swept the
country including the very institutions in which the
fraternities had their roots. But perhaps that is wish-
ing that the fraternity had not been the product of the
soil which brings it forth. It is neither historically
accurate nor necessary to gloss over the futile character
of fraternity life during much of this period; for it
but reflected college life as a whole and the spirit of
the homes from which the students came.

0 O O C O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O 0 O O C

It has taken a century to bring about this orientation
of the fraternities in the educational program. But now
it would seem that they have served their apprenticeship
and are approaching the era of their greatest usefulness
to their members and to the college. To be sure, this
involves as radical a change in the thinking of many
fraternity men as it calls for a broader concept of edu—
cation on the part of college administrators and pro-
fessors. But there is something too compelling to ignore
in the opportunity which is offered to the leaders of
both fraternity and college.23

A survey of fraternity literature reveals few articles
based on anything but personal experiences or observations.
The author has reviewed existing literature in the fraternity
area and has classified it into theses and dissertations, re-
search studies, and periodical articles. A review of these

sources appears in the following section.

Theses and Dissertations

 

Based on a study of social fraternities at Ohio State

University, William Yardly concluded: (a) the fraternity

 

23Henderson, op. cit., pp. 17-19, quoting George Starr
Lasher, Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities
(Menasha, Wisconsin: The Collegiate Press, 1957), pp. 26-28.

CE

.VCFEr
.u» H

Y. .C 11 .C ., (x «k n .
3 ,2 e {x e e S n C
C. t e .f\ S Q 1
DA PI 9! VI‘ 1 wfiu
3 f .I 7 J C . E
O a .l. S C H ....
i e e C 3 e
a t n.“ S ”a l u.
C r. .7. . . e I f
~v. .1 .1 «a .d nu .3 .q
s. C. 3. 5L n. i t 3. S

a! ... 83.4.1 (I

8;;

s

,.
\

2e
bi11~

aiVis'

If} @-
fh-h re t
..si‘

24

system does not adhere to social and religious democracy;

(b) fraternities defend the individual's right to liberty and
equal opportunity; (c) there is reasonable adherence on the
part of the fraternities to a policy of causing members to
gain a feeling of responsibility to society, to college and
to self; (d) the fraternity system fails to stress spiritual
values; (e) fraternities support the country's championing of
the course of democracy.24

Close to the theme of this study was Crookston's investi—
gation, integrating the fraternity with the college. Crookston
surveyed college-fraternity relationships in such areas as
housing, chapter business, management, housemother and resi-
dent advisors, rushing and fraternity scholarship, and dis—
cipline.

In evaluating this relationship, Crookston found that
where the fraternity assumed a large measure of responsibility,
the institution had little desire for fraternity assistance.

On the other hand, where the fraternity had not assumed re-
sponsibility, the college or university sought general and
continued fraternity participation. Crookston concluded that
the future of college-fraternity relationship is dependent

upon the degree of responsibility and leadership that the

 

24William A. Yardley, ”An Analysis of Greek Letter Social
Fraternities as a Factor in Student Life at the Ohio State
University" (an unpublished doctoral thesis), Dissertation
Abstracts, 20:175 (July, 1959).

 

F

all:

L181.

J

ivities

.5 838 as

Stcial Fra
:M-
v-A‘
....L

1 1

n“

| f. .... .f i t r... a ing
3 . S V. t S h u a a m“
a d .1 .D t a e h. r
n e C .l .G e m .l e e
a e a .l R n n l e f p t
r S. f Y. 14 nu. C C a
3. .3 UV. ab 8 «9 vi v; u
ti 4“ .l «1. CL +.. by .l “mu .flu
. . .11. C a c a S f E C a e
A o +L .: I 3.. a o w... k .. C r‘ L ..
a . .3 to a. i 3.. mm. a. «L :g 3. LL

u" .3“ A mill-31v.“

A
\
\—

25

college assumes or fails to assume.25

Dr. James Harding Siske, in 1956, reported on "The
Development of the Guidance Concept in the College and
Social Fraternity." The study was concerned with guidance
activities which were provided by fraternity chapters for
their members. He discovered that guidance activities were
not usually found in any definite or formally organized pro—
gram. Siske found that fraternity life was considered an
integral part of the college program by nine-tenths of the
college and university administrators participating in the
study and that fraternity members also seemed to be well
satisfied with their membership.26

Robb Gardiner made an appraisal of selected areas of
fraternity operation on the Michigan State University campus.
He found that Michigan State University fraternities were
most pleased with the quality of members they select, their
enforcement of rules and regulations, their social programs,
their financial management, their kitchens, and dining and
food operation. At the other end of the scale, these under-

graduate men thought less highly of their relationship with

the university administration, their scholastic program, the

 

25Burns Bollantyne Crookston, "Integrating the Fraterni—
ty with the College" (unpublished doctoral thesis, Columbia
University, New York, 1955).

26James Harding Siske, "The Development of Guidance
Concept in College Social Fraternities" (unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Virginia, 1956).

u? .

kg. "AL. ‘3' ‘ h

assistance

E
<7
~49 C

26

assistance from alumni, the rush program, and the alumni and
fraternity advisors. Regarding the profile of the typical
undergraduate fraternity man at Michigan State, he found that
the average man came from a family whose annual income was
less than $10,000 per year. The fraternity member was a
Protestant and joined the fraternity seeking fellowship and
group identification.27

An analytical study of factors associated with scholas-
tic achievement in high and low achieving fraternities at
the University of Kansas was made by William R. Butler. 0n
the basis of his analysis of the data, he concluded that
scholastic ability and educational achievement in high school
did not account for all of the differences in college achieve-
ment between pledges of the high achieving fraternities and
pledges of the low achieving fraternities. He developed nine
hypotheses which suggested relationships between certain en-
vironment factors and scholastic achievement, and presented
data in support of the hypothesis.28

The purpose of a thesis by Charles E. Warwick was to
determine whether factors of group cohesiveness and scholas-

tic aspiration were related to academic achievement of male

 

27Robb Golder Gardiner, "A Study of Selected Areas of
the System of Social Fraternities" (unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation, Michigan State University, 1956).

28William Butler, ”An Analytical Study of Factors
Associated with Scholastic Achievement in High School and Low
Achieving Fraternities" (unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas).

5

Q

.en 5
their

.—-
.L..

' V
:res
;;3n

f

i t
a
. l
e

u y

e Uni:

t

S“
F.
55‘

27

freshmen at Cornell University. The major hypothesis tested
was whether those groups which had a considerable influence
upon their members and also had a desirable level of
scholastic aspiration would perform better scholastically
than those groups which did not have these qualities. The
results of this study indicated that there was a slight posi-
tive relationship between favorable aspirations and academic
performance, but a strong negative relationship existed be-
tween high cohesiveness and scholastic achievement. Thus
the major hypothesis was not accepted.29

In 1958, Dr. John W. Henderson made a follow-up study
of the members of Greek letter social fraternities at Michigan
State University. This study was concentrated in four major
areas and sought:

1. To determine what selected socio—economic factors
distinguished the male graduates of Michigan State
University who have been undergraduate members of
Greek letter social fraternities.

2. To ascertain how fraternity alumni evaluated various
aspects of the fraternity program in light of their
experiences since graduation.

5. To learn whether or not the degree of fraternity
involvement is associated with life style and
opinions of the fraternity alumni.

4. Whether selected broad areas of "The Decalog of Fra-

ternity Policy" are associated with the present-day
activities of fraternities.

 

29Charles Edward Warwick, "Relationship of Scholastic
Aspiration and Group Coherence to the Academic Achievement of
Male Freshmen at Cornell University" (unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Dissertation Abstracts, 25:516).

V
‘

a
st

 

fl

b

'.
~q‘v‘” ‘

Ni
and

“4&3“..L

nzv-
V-Aao’

.l A: .C i L r C C r. E A: m: A: r.
.. t A: . m n... f l E l 3* h u .v C
.l. A i Mi ~ u I I S R A; .i m. C. ) E 3
n. e A A c e t .. a O C S O.

m». n . C fin“. .l V‘ fiL a ( Us 8

i t F“ A: t t C l

a n.1,. VL g S Amw ) a“ “V ‘1‘

v. t; T. C A: T. A; . . A: T. r 3

9.. A. a A... Au i. .1 LL II A: 3. C

 

28

With regard to socio-economic attributes, the fraterni-
ty graduate was generally married, had children, lived in
a suburban middle—sized city, was salary employed, a Republi-
can, and a churchgoer, and had obtained an education and
salary at a higher level of occupational hierarchy.

With regard to the second aspect, the alumni were satis-
fied with their fraternity experience. Many fraternity
alumni strongly believed, however, that the practices of the
fraternities should be brought more in line with the ideals
of the fraternity program.

In area three little evidence was obtained that showed
any comparison between the life style and opinions of those
more or less involved in fraternity affairs.

In the last area of investigation many were not aware
of the fraternity decalog and there was mixed opinion regard-
ing its content.30

Richard Trumpe attempted to construct an analytical
instrument which would represent the operational concept of
the college social fraternity.

His research was divided into basically three phases:
(a) a questionnaire phase, (b) a psychophysical scale phase,
and (c) an analytical scale validation phase. Three distinct
groups were canvassed for their opinions concerning the

college social fraternity. One group consisted of college

 

30Henderson, op. cit.

u C v. . C n c yU .. u l
a I a C. a S e
YL e HI“ :. e V‘
t ft n C a C I M:
.l r. w“ .3 S
n :L e h” C. .i C.
.l .au T1. ”J a: «A
. H AD .1 «v A» Av
.; a A. b . r. A . v.
:3 an A: A: 3.. . i a:

al

A
.

._,
=“e“1r
'3 ~— ‘1

 

+C

CA

I
.

I"311183

my
?.

e '4 ,_
Slueuce

I

Ential

F~’\
sqt

29

administrators, a second of national officers and the third
was fraternity chapter presidents.31

An attempt to answer certain questions concerning the
academic potential and achievement of various housing groups
at Indiana University was made by Robert E. Matson. Three
groups of ten fraternities each, ranked according to their
local prestige, a residence hall group, and an off-campus
group were used in the study. For these five groups the
specific areas of concern were differences in the academic
potential of student members, in achievement by members of
similar ability in group patterns of accomplishment, and in
drop—out rates.

Of the areas tested, significant differences were found
to exist in the percentage of student drop—outs. According
to Matson‘s findings there was a higher drop-out rate for
residence hall and off-campus students than for fraternity
members. It seems apparent from this study that group self-
identity is a significant factor to consider in analyzing the
potential of people who belong to different groups.32

The latest dissertation that has been reported is by

Daniel B. Wolf, entitled, "Fraternity Perception as it Relates

 

31Richard Martin Trumpe, "The Development and Validation
of an Analytical Instrument for Evaluating the College Social
Fraternity" (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue Univer-
sity, 1962, Dissertation Abstracts).

32Robert E. Matson, "A Study of Academic Potential and
Achievement in Prestige Rated Fraternity Groups as Compared
with Dormitory Residents and Off-Campus Student." Indiana
University, Dissertation Abstracts 22:782.

 

Tu

Av
5.

'A‘ v”.
EH 3
uv~"'“l‘

A:
C.

.3

.3

- A:
S v.
. L
a f.
A o . A
C. n

an. East is;

30

to Education Goals." It was the intent of this study to
determine how'university-affiliated groups, including
fraternity and sorority members, independent men and women,
fraternity depledges, fraternity presidents, faculty, alumni,
and parents, perceived fraternities at Indiana University

in light of their contribution to student fulfillment of
educational objectives in higher education.

The study was mainly concerned with the areas of values,
goals, fulfillment, and the perception of the fraternity as
"it related to higher education.“ This investigation was
designed to determine how well men's social fraternities at
Indiana University were fulfilling their responsibilities.

According to the final analysis of the study, fraterni-
ty members appeared to be most successful in achieving goals
that have little in common with the educational objectives

of post-Sputnik university education.33

Periodical Articles

 

During the last five years, several significant research
studies that relate to fraternities have been reported in the
professional journals.

Thomas D. Bacig and Matthew R. Sgan prepared a ten-year

fraternity membership study at the University of Minnesota.

 

33Daniel B. Wolf, "Fraternity Perception as Related to
Educational Goals" (unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Indiana University, June, 1965).

u

‘
5",

C ,

“SW.

:1...-
--h'

1""
V‘s.
I"
a!
Drn

fiv-A
_

Y" eY
4‘ “
1 -fi.
_.
*onivt
b’r
...C
v: a
.‘n.

5r
...u-

I

I‘J — c ‘. l1! . y» ‘. ‘1.

AN“ .1: v” “V; A» «ma t 1 CC hi h\
V. ~l A Av e by 1.,‘ .n .. fiua

A o .D .l a S ,C A: .2. t A. o 3
A C A.. it e A: A. A » . 5. C s
A. v. .. A 3 .l . . C; .E r e 11
‘7 nth. . . .C d s ab 3.» v~ anU Va \Q

.. :1... al.-

51

In examining the figures it seemed evident to the authors
that fraternities have failed to appeal to those groups which
make up the bulk of the increasing enrollment. It also ap-
peared that fraternity membership has been affected by the
expansion of university residence halls. The analysis also
indicated that the fraternities have been unable to induce
the commuter student to join.34

Gary R. Anderson recently published an article in the
NASPA Journal entitled, ”Fraternities——Their Problems Today."
According to Anderson there are many immediate and critical
problems facing fraternities today. Their solution (or reso-
lution) will directly influence the future of the movement
as a part of higher education. He feels that the difficul-
ties center in areas of fraternity ideals--the gap between
stated purposes and actual practice, membership selection,
effective relationships with non-Greeks, the problem of the
rambling and power-happy IFC and the vanishing ideal of
brotherhood or fraternity friendship.

He went on to state that fraternities in 1965 must
recognize the above as areas of concern and that they must
also contribute to the total educational purposes of higher
education. The day is past when they can be idle spectators

of the educational process. Anderson claims that any college

or university dean would willingly welcome on his campus a

 

34Thomas D. Bacig and Matthew R. Sgan, "A Ten Year
Fraternity Membership Study," Journal of College Student
Personnel, December, 1962, pp. 95-102.

 

‘
NA?» '1“r‘9-
‘44.» -

\

yvA.

:5r-x—V

~IV -- A.

l .

 

 

52

fraternity chapter which would creatively seek to meet these
challenges. He feels that such a chapter would make a most
meaningful contribution to its members and to the campus.35

The subject of student attitudes and opinions towards

fraternities was the basis of a University of Michigan survey
conducted in 1962. Included among the answers to a 46-item
instrument were the following opinions of the undergraduate
men regarding fraternities on the Michigan campus.

1. Students believe that parental membership in a
college fraternity or sorority was the moSt important
pre-college factor influencing a student to seek
membership.

2. Fraternities, according to the general consensus
of both fraternity and non—fraternity men, provide
their members with social shells and social confi-
dence. '

5. Fraternities are seen by non-fraternity students
as giving less emphasis to intellectual values than
do non-fraternity groups. Moreover, these non-
members believe that membership in a fraternity
hinders academic achievement.

4. Both fraternity and non-fraternity members were
more likely to believe that fraternity members made
lower grades than non-fraternity men.

In addition, the study provided information regarding

undergraduate male attitudes towards the fraternity's role
in giving members an opportunity to experience self-govern-

ment; the fraternity's influence in raising or lowering

intellectual standards on campus; and the fraternity's role

 

35Gary R. Anderson, “Fraternities--Their Problems Today,‘
Journal of the Association of Deans and Administrators of
Student Affairs, Volume 5, Number 1 (July, 1965), pp. 6-7.

,w
~ 4

1AA
LV

9"
Vin

‘ a

b.-

AC

S“WQ
'JA-.\'

3.
L,”
a.

, .
\

.

e CICCES

OF

5 ”ere

A

v-Lc
A
vi
.A

-u

r..4.|n:v!-|l.

C

or.._
H Ah
"“‘lv.t

55

in encouraging or discouraging democratic forms of selecting
pledges.38

Some years ago the University of Minnesota, through
the office of the Dean of Students, attempted to accelerate
the process of getting fraternities to comply with university
regulations. As a step in the process, existing restrictions
on social behavior, particularly on the drinking of alcoholic
beverages in fraternities and at fraternity-sponsored activi-
ties were severely enforced. As might be expected many
fraternities reacted with hostility and accused the adminis-
tration of being arbitrary and in effect denounced its author-
ity. Hence, an experiment was performed to determine whether
the attitude of college fraternity members toward university
control over student activities could be modified. The in-
tended modification was to be in the direction of increased
acceptance of the university as an authority with respect to
drinking.

Eleven fraternities most opposed to the university
regulation.on alcohol took part in the experiment: six as
experimental and five as control fraternities. The results
of the study were as follows: there were significant in-
creases in the acceptance of the university administration as
authority was enforced. This change was also accompanied,

and may be partly explained by increases in the belief that

 

36University of Michigan, "Attitudes of Undergraduate
Men Towards Fraternities," University of Michigan Survey
Research Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1962, p. 41.

y"

2: unl‘xoe‘-fi
II::-.':*.‘ef, .

u

\

a ,

t
C

«v.
:v

S

I
A:

e ITLCSt

‘n
...

 

34

the university was interested in the welfare of fraternities.
However, no significant differences were obtained with re—
spect to acceptance of Specific and current university regu-
lations. It appears that one of the reasons for the negative
result is that the fraternity members were not convinced by
the discussions that the particular form of control discussed
was necessary for the welfare of the university.37

Perry Gresham, who is the president of Bethany College,
made several very significant comments in an article in the

April 1959 issue of Personnel and Guidance Journal. Two of

 

the most significant are:

1. The fraternity should be a center of responsible
citizenship and creative communication and thought.

2. The manner should exemplify a culture without snob-
bery. The human relation should be based on con—
siderate candor rather than maudlin conformity.

In summary, it was Gresham's opinion that Greek chapters
on a campus must give major attention to the over-all purpose
of the college or university with which they are identified.
According to Gresham, college officers can no longer tolerate
fraternities which attempt to thwart or pervert the solid ob-
jectives hammered out by the academic offices. The fraternity
is a useful part of the campus; but it is not a policy-making

body for the whole institution.38

 

37Ben Wellermen, "Changing the Attitudes of Fraternity
Members Toward University Control," Personnel and Guidance

Journal, April, 1959.

38Perry E. Gresham, I’The Fraternity and College Pur-
poses," School and Society, Volume 90, November 17, 1962,
p. 2216.

 

H .—.
MK

tea: at B'

‘

igatc
endent

:nyest
.121'.’€1’Slt‘\’-

K. t;
mu
8 S
s. we“
“n e
.l +t
.l
n. .
..|. :v
i. r1;

 

r .--,l.-L

I“
0‘

55

The purpose of a study by Thomson and Paplia was to
investigate the possible inequality of social opportunities
available to independent men at a fraternity orientated
university. The study was conducted in the 1961-62 school
year at Bucknell University.

To measure the social attitudes and feelings of the
independent men at a fraternity oriented environment, a
questionnaire was devised consisting of 25 items. The speci—
fic intent of the survey was to focus attention on 4 of the
25 items that were designed to measure possible inequalities
of the social opportunities available to independent men.

In the study independents and fraternity men agreed
that equal social opportunities on the campus did not exist
for both groups. The majority agreed that fraternity men
have greater social opportunity.

Independent men were asked if they felt that a fraterni-
ty man had an advantage in terms of social status, simply
because of his affiliation with a fraternity. In their re—
sponses, the independent men indicated that an association
with fraternal groups appears to connote greater social status
on campus.

Independents were asked to rank the advantages of be-
longing to a fraternity. Social activities, taking part in
college activities as a group, and brotherhood were the three
top choices. Gresham concluded that independent men at

fraternity—oriented schools see themselves as somewhat

\

.C r. C
.—

 

 

 

ltS

n
K.
\—

A

it

.1 MN“.

[1025 .' I

<‘nv‘

_
,n
- .A
c‘

9

. .v l r. 35 Av: y» l l E C» r: .f. £4 4» CA

Ms. 9 a r n n s 3.... P r .., e d a a. n F e .
S R .3 ”a F S I O 34 e a I .\ a 9.1 C 3 E E

I l C d U C .l .S r r C. d. t e
e S ”In .1 e .Q Q e L e .sl.‘ h... H... Wu.
.3 LL 3. .C r e .K +. wh. PM .A. I E .

5 r... I C t .3 C A. r C .l l
E A: 3 A: F“ e :M 3 WA 01 3 a; c‘ v. A;
l. I C D. 1. ..... T. A- C. y." P. u... 3 0 ....1

 

56

socially deprived as opposed to those who join Greek organ—
izations.39

According to W. H. CrOwley, in his article "Evaluating
the Fraternity," every social institution should occasionally
submit itself to a thorough analysis. Ceaseless change
creates new emphases, new philosophies, new problems. Only
a periodic assessment of its social utility can furnish the
leaders of any social institution with the charts and instru-
ments needed to capitalize on its present opportunities and
to guide its future. This generalization applies with
particular force to the American college fraternity.

For over a hundred years the fraternity has been an
increasingly important factor in American higher education;
yet during all this time no significant attempt has been
made to study its contribution to the life of the college or
to weigh its limiting characteristics. The following are
quotes which Crowley obtained from several college presidents
with respect to how they viewed the situation in May, 1934.
Former President Clarence W. Little of the University of
Michigan, writes:

It seems fair to ask these questions from the point of

View of the college. What has the fraternity done in

aiding the university to solve the problems of under-

graduate life? Has it increased honor and decent liv-

ing among students? Has it devised any original and
constructive methods of increasing undergraduate

 

39Edward A. Thomson and Anthony S. Paplia, "Attitudes
of Independent Men Toward Social Opportunities at a Fraternity-
Oriented College," The Journal of College Student Personnel,
Volume 6, Number 2 (December, 1964), pp. 88-89.

 

 

'"h if?! H

£1) (1’ Ola
*1 m1:

H r) «f:
(L :3” I1!

/

1
M5

T

C)
H)
r
g.

57

interest in scholarship? Has it by its own example
paid sufficient attention to selection of members to
encourage and to support those who are trying to intro-
duce more careful methods of selection in admission

to college and in the retention of students once ad-
mitted? Has it built a loyalty to the university
which is above that to the fraternity itself? Has it
contributed to a true sense of values on such matters
as democracy and responsibility for one's fellow man?
To all these and to a number of other equally pertinent
questions the practical evidence from the vast majority
of cases at hand dictates a negative answer.

From President Clothier, of Rutgers:

I have long felt that the college fraternity has tre-
mendous opportunities for constructive education effort,
but it has failed to utilize them. It may be said
fairly, I think, that a fraternity can so stimulate and
guide a student that he will derive the greatest edu-
cational benefit from his college career, and that, on
the other hand, it can so misguide and discourage him
as to make it impossible for him to do so.

A third pointed criticism comes from President Coffman,
of the University of Minnesota, who refers to

The schism between fraternities and universities
(caused by national chapters). There has been a most
cordial kind of cooperation in certain respects, . . .
but in others there has been none at all; as a matter
of fact, there has been open opposition.

The situation is becoming increasingly more critical
every year. . . . Many persons, including former
fraternity men, are raising questions as to the percent
to which fraternities actually contribute to the intel-
lectual life of the institutions at which they are
located.

Vice-President McClelland, of the University of Penn-
sylvania, remarks:
Valuable as the fraternity is, I think it would have to

change fundamentally before it could be termed "an
ideal setting for intellectual development."40

 

40W. H. Crowley, "Evaluating the Fraternity," The Jour-
nal of Higher Education, Volume 5, May, 1934, pp. 281-284.

 

 

ed w.
on.

‘

cording

‘

fie J

a
m.
-.

Afiw'fi
,"
I‘y

Vv‘..u

.. . c| t S S S C A... e 1.. . ..
A. O o m u f e e h r e Oh n r X .A. .A. a lion 6 e h r
hempt Cu..0b.3 TchCTiAfe T m... DIEM g P AW. TE
.1
T.
.5
Q.
LL

 

,..,.I ._ 7.1%;

38

The comments of the college presidents in 1934 can be
compared with the comments of Dr. William G. Craig in his
article, "Fraternities in Higher Education," that appeared

in The Journal of College Student Personnel in March of 1962.

 

According to Craig the basis of the fraternity controversy
can be categorized into four major problems.41

The first problem has to do with their being 'in' but
not 'of' the university. That great and nebulous arm
known as 'national' placed fraternities in a unique
position in the university. Perhaps it is analogous

to the power struggle of states rights and federal
control. Although the national defers to local control,
the element of 'outsideness' is ever present. A review
of central control by the national organization would
be profitable, exploring the possibilities of greater
decentralization and more local autonomy.

The second problem is inherent in the privilege the
fraternity enjoys in being allowed to select its mem-
bers. This placed it in special-privilege status and
consequently subject to the charge of snobbishness.
This privilege (rushing) usually carries confusion

into the academic routine. The only acceptable counter
from the fraternity is exceptional service and academic
excellence.

The third problem is racial and religious discrimination.

The fourth area has to do with the unfortunate label of
'anti—intellectualism' in fraternities. Hell weeks,
pledge sneaks, extra-curricular overemphasis and identi-
fication of fraternities as the center of the social
whirl on most campuses, reinforce this view until the
generalization becomes fixed and hard to uproot.

Perhaps this last quote by Dr. Craig sums up the fra-
ternity problems of the 1960's the best.

The traditional 'culture' of the fraternity (with its
emphasis on social life, de—emphasis of intellectual

 

41William C. Craig, "Fraternities in Higher Education,"
The Journal of College Student Personnel, March, 1962, pp. 113-
114.

 

o O m 0

H
r4 (n \0

S:

(T H‘HQ H-0 0

T"
(D

’(S
( )
U
I
(T)
L!
U)
r?

I

(N

“.
Q)
J
L):

' \

iissertatj

:0 (ENE 13725

 

39

pursuits, a premium on being one of the group, etc.)

is in conflict with the newly emerging 'culture' of the
institutions of higher learning. If mature and respons-
ible students and faculty can perceive these problems
in a common frame of reference, it is likely that the
codes of the fraternity can be moved in the direction
of greater concern with, and reward for, those behav-
iors which more directly contribute to educational
goals without losing in the process their primary group
functions——which are important both for individuals and
the institutions in which they are located.

Summary

Although many attempts have been made to evaluate the
problems that have existed in the fraternity system between
1934 and 1962, nowhere in the literature is there a thesis,
dissertation, research article, or periodical that attempts
to analyze the nature of national fraternity leadership and
how it views the role of the social fraternity in higher edu—
cation.

A review of the literature indicates that relatively
little actual research has been conducted in the area of
social fraternities. There seems an increase in periodical
articles but there is still a definite lack of significant
research in this area of college student life. 0f the research
conducted, most of it was concerned with scholastic achieve—
ment of fraternity members as compared with independent
students.

A large amount of the available literature regarding
Greek fraternities is in the form of Speeches presented by

advocates or critics of the social fraternity. These are

 

 

.’1 f|\ ’ .
. l v . r . .
D. a C S .C I Am 8 C
0 e C e u C L: s
S .3 t e t .D i
V». e h... u S S C
a i r. C t e .3
n Y. :1 t e "\r \ll. 8
.1. t. a v; a n. .1 u .1 .
a. C A: +. .2 .l a. C C
vi n.” A: .3 L t t C “W V .

 

40

mainly opinions based on personal feelings or observations,
not research. There appears to be a definite need for re—
search concerned with areas other than scholarship and
attitudes of undergraduates. Hence it has been concluded
that study of the personal characteristics of national execu—
tive secretaries and national presidents and how they per-
ceive the role of their organizations in higher education
would be desirable and worth-while in trying to chart the

role of college fraternities in a changing society.

 

In C
Included 1
tions, an:
The prese:
M‘lCD WEI“;
didiEd it
selection

 

CHAPTER III

DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

In Chapter I a brief review of the study was presented.
Included in the chapter were the study's purposes, limita-
tions, and organization. Chapter II includes a review. . . .
The present chapter is a discussion of methods and procedures
which were followed in conducting the study. This chapter is
divided into three parts: I. The population and method of
selection, II. The instrument used in obtaining the data for
the study, and III. The procedures used for analyzing the

data.

I. THE POPULATION AND METHOD OF SELECTION

The population in this study was all the national
presidents and executive directors of American college social
fraternities in good standing with the National Interfraterni—
ty Conference and the College Fraternity Secretaries Associ-
ation. As mentioned earlier NIC, with permanent headquarters
in New York City, consists of 59 national social fraternities.
This organization was founded in 1909.

The executive director of each national fraternity is

appointed by its governing board. He is primarily responsible

41

 

f: the da
rectly res
|
t; and its

fiat:
annually c
have giver.

“- $-
CIRCLEIS

(l 1

Of :

H
1
(U
Q)
H.
F‘
C);
I)

 

 

5r

42

for the daily operation of the fraternity itself. He is di-
rectly responsible to the national president of the fraterni-
ty and its board of directors.

National presidents of social fraternities are elected
annually or bi-annually. They are generally persons who
have given a great deal of time and energy to both local
chapters and the national organization.

Of the 59 national college social fraternities listed
in Baird's Manual, 1957 edition, only 55 national fraternities
were included in this study. The 55 national fraternities
were the ones that are in good standing with the NIC and are
also members of the College Fraternity Secretaries Associ-
ation.

II. INSTRUMENT AND PROCEDURES USED IN
OBTAINING THE DATA FOR THE STUDY

A questionnaire was developed to examine selected per-
sonal characteristics and selected perceptions of national
presidents and executive directors of the national social
fraternities.42 The questionnaire method was used because
it seemed the best way to gather the data and to reach the
widely dispersed national officers.

The first part of the instrument was concerned with

selected personal data on both national presidents and

 

42A complete copy of the questionnaire is located in
Appendix A.

 

executive
ducation:

mamershig

and civic
cfthe in_
quested if

that the

national j
infernati
CE]. deans
camPuses.

The
eliCiting
CollEge S

1

 

 

45

executive directors. The descriptive data included age,
educational background, family background, military service,
membership in professional and honorary organizations,
marital status, size of family, and level of professional
and civic experiences. The information from this section
of the instrument was used to evaluate some of the data re-
quested in Part II of the questionnaire. It was theorized
that the demographic data might be helpful in understanding
any differences existing between executive directors and
national presidents of college social fraternities. Such
information might also be helpful to college student person-
nel deans who work with national fraternities on their
campuses.

The second part of the instrument consisted of questions
eliciting perceptions of the national officers of American
college social fraternities with respect to how they perceive
the function of their organization in higher education. It
was theorized that there would be differences of perception
between national presidents and executive directors in the
areas selected. An attempt was also made to determine how
national officers of social fraternities in general View the
role of the American college fraternity in higher education.

Specifically the questions in Part II were designed to
determine differences in perception in selected areas if
such differences do actually exist. Questions were designed

to determine perceptions of the role of the local college

 

chapter w;
relations?
of the it‘l
and $39993
celleague3

traveling

tra'.‘ .
Vellnc
Pr:
3* am a

 

 

44

chapter with respect to its internal operations and its
relationship to its college or university. The development

of the items came as a result of soliciting the opinions

and suggestions of members of the Office of Student Affairs,
colleagues, members of the Fraternity Advisors Cabinet,
traveling secretaries, house presidents and personnel in the
Office of Institutional Research at Michigan State University.

Items were developed to determine how national officers
view their national organizations' relationship in selected
areas of higher education. The instrument was designed in
such a way that the information gathered would give executive
directors, national presidents, and deans of students a better
understanding of the national officers of social fraternities
and the role they think their organization should play in
higher education.

Many of the questions in Part II of the instrument were
derived from the fraternity decalog. Some were designed to
determine the extent to which the stated goals of the American
college social fraternity are expressed in the activities and
perceptions of national officers.

In order to refine the questionnaire, a pilot study was
conducted. The pilot questionnaire was administered to six
traveling secretaries who were then engaged in our graduate
program at Michigan State University. It was also administered
to members of the local Fraternity Advisors Cabinet and house

presidents.

 

I

After

zent as a 1'
:pesticma:
:f Researci‘

refinement

:f Saciclc,

s: that it

The i
iistinct pl
iT‘

r
\

 

:iapter 1v

45

After making several significant changes in the instru—
ment as a result of the pilot study, the final copy of the
questionnaire was submitted to Dr. Irvin Lehmann of the Office
of Research and Evaluation. Dr. Lehmann suggested several
refinements. Dr. Orden Smucker, a member of the Department
of Sociology and Anthropology, also suggested that the data
be processed on the IBM 5600 computer. As a result of this
suggestion, structural changes were made in the questionnaire
so that it could be tabulated by means of the computer.

The final questionnaire consisted of 78 items with two
distinct parts. The first part consisted of 56 items cover-
ing personal data of the respondents and is analyzed in
Chapter IV.

The second part of the questionnaire consisted of 41
questions that pertained to perceptions of national presidents
and executive directors of the American college social fra-
ternity with respect to how they perceive the function of the
fraternity in higher education. The analysis of this data
is reported in Chapter V.

The population in this study consisted of 110 people,

55 of whom were national presidents and 55 of whom were execu-
tive directors. A questionnaire and instruction sheet were
mailed out to both national presidents and executive directors
of each of the fraternities. Approximately 50 days after

the first mailing, a follow-up letter was sent to all national

presidents and executive directors. A second questionnaire

was also e:
identifica'
fallow-up *

As a final

 

 

46

was also enclosed in all follow—up letters where positive
identification of a response could not be determined. The
follow-up procedures produced eight additional questionnaires.
As a final follow—up prior to tabulation of the data, the
author attended the National Interfraternity Conference in
Washington D.C. A number of copies were given to national
presidents and executive directors who indicated they had not
filled out the mailed questionnaires. As a result of this
personal contact, no additional questionnaires were returned
other than those returned by the second mailing.

Of the 110 questionnaires mailed out, 78 were returned.
This constituted 65 percent of the national presidents, 75
percent of the executive directors, and a little over 70 per—
cent of the total population. However, two of the question-
naires that were returned were not filled out properly and
one was received long after the deadline for tabulation,
therefore, they were disregarded.

Of the 75 usable questionnaires, 55 were returned by
national presidents and 40 were returned by executive direct-
ors. This constituted a total of 68 percent of the question-

naires that were mailed out.43

III. ANALYZING THE DATA

In order to analyze the data, several preliminary steps

were taken. First, the instrument was constructed in such a

 

43See Appendix B for a cover letter and follow-up
letters.

 

W31" that t?

Z
2:!
(D
o;
:3
m
0

A
(\l

(I)
H .

47

way that the questions could be answered for the most part

by means of circling a designed response. Second, the final
draft of the questionnaire was modified so that the data
collected could be processed by means of the IBM 5600 computer.
Third, an appropriate computer program was selected in order

to analyze the data.

The basic hypotheses for this study were stated in
Chapter I. To be tested statistically they were formulated
into operational or null hypotheses. They are:

(1) There is no significant difference between selected
personal characteristics of national presidents and
executive directors of college social fraternities.

(2) There is no significant difference between the se—
lected perceptions of national presidents and execu-
tive directors of college social fraternities.

The statistic used for analyzing the data in this study
was chi square. This non-parametric statistic was used in
Part I to determine if there were any significant differences
between the selected personal characteristics of executive
directors and national presidents of American college social
fraternities. The same statistic was used in Part II to de-
termine if there were any significant differences between the
national presidents and executive directors of social fraterni-
ties with respect to their perceptions of the function of the

sc>cial fraternity in higher education.

For the purpose of interpreting the statistical data,

the: .05 level of confidence was used to determine statistical

Siglaificance in both Part I and Part II.

 

.C . w 4. ”.4 .... . M41 flull mu 4»
.> t a my. F. g

n S C .1 C E .l .l S t O

I .T. I e r. 7d re
9 a 3 Au 5 B .3

.n“ r. 1 r. r. e r.

a . as .l s; a e \uw ?. AC

.flv w-u Nufi nu fi» 1"“

“A w. .1. Lu“ A. .ai n l v.

1A A. .3 e. e. a.. .1; - Au

. i4
jnhrK I ..\

r. L... i

44
S

r“
¥

ll”.
L We

56
7a

cegree
~ 1: mm

9!!
IIOE
be ‘
n
1.. t1"
7",
AMP-

48

In addition, all of the responses of the two groups used
in the study were reported in percentages. This was done in
order to more easily draw conclusions about the extent of the
similarities and differences that were found. It was thought
that a careful analysis of the data in this form could lead
to a deeper understanding of the way national fraternity of-
ficers in general view the function of the social fraternity
in American higher education.

As a final follow—up, Part I of the study was re-sub-
mitted to the national presidents and executive directors in
order to determine if there was any difference between the
personal characteristics of the 70 percent that reSponded
and the 50 percent of the national officers who failed to
reSpond. It was thought that additional data regarding the
personal characteristics of the latter would help determine
the degree to which valid recommendations or conclusions could
be drawn from the data. Of the 110 questionnaires mailed out
in the final follow-up, 18 questionnaires were returned.

These included questionnaires from 2 national presidents and

4 However, no observable‘differ-

l6 executive secretaries.4
ences were found between the personal characteristics of
those who originally responded to the instrument and the ones

that were recently received.

 

4f‘See Appendix C.

 

 

 

c... .C .3
.l n ‘0 by
ifli. a D» .1

mi 10 Lt o

n -l S «flu

O r; .1 AC

.1. a C LL L .

+ . .3 a no

a s. L c a.

Q- . «A a CU Q} ‘

 

49

SUMMARY

This chapter has presented a description of the popu-
lation and methodology used in the study. It has also
described the instrument used for collecting the data and the
statistical procedures for analyzing the data that were col-

lected.

111'...”

ADJALY i

Thi.
ing selec
national
Stated tt-
was:

The.

lecl

and

All

 

CHAPTER IV

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA--PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF
NATIONAL SOCIAL FRATERNITY PRESIDENTS
AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS

This chapter includes an analysis of the data concern—
ing selected personal characteristics of social fraternity
national presidents and executive directors. More precisely
stated the null hypothesis tested in this part of the study
was:

There is no significant difference between the se—

lected personal characteristics of national presidents

and executive directors of college social fraternities.

All items were reported in percentages as well as raw
scores. The chi-square statistic was selected to interpret
the data on all of the items. The .05 level of confidence
was used to determine if there were any significant differences
between the national presidents and executive directors on
each of the selected personal characteristics.

Two of the original items, 26 and 27, have been deleted
from this part of the study since they are answered at least
in part by Item 10 and Item 22 of Part I of the study.
Responses to the rest of the items are reported in table form

starting with Table 1. The data was collected through the

use of a questionnaire.

50

 

spsnses f:
presidents
All

are 56331”.

 

51

As indicated in Chapter III, 110 questionnaires were
mailed to the national presidents and executive directors
of college social fraternities. Some 78 responded; however,
only 57 questionnaires were usable. The data includes re—
sponses from a total of 40 executive directors and 55 national
presidents.

All items, whether statistically significant or not,
are reported and interpreted since it was felt that each
item could provide some insight into the personal character-
istics of national leadership in the college social fraternity
system.

Item 1 is concerned with a comparison of the ages of
national presidents and executive directors. The chi—square
test indicates that there is a significant difference in age
between national presidents and executive directors. The
null hypothesis is therefore rejected.

As indicated in Table 1, 60 percent of the national
presidents are either 46 years of age or older while only 42
percent of the executive directors are in this category.
There were no national presidents less than age 56; however,
approximately 12 percent of the executive directors were in
this category. Over 50 percent of the total group sampled
were over 46 years of age.

Item 2 deals with the marital status of national presi—
dents and executive directors. The chi-square test indicates
there is no significant difference between the responses on

this item. The null hypothesis is therefore accepted.

.mocmoflwcoo mo Hm>mH mo. may um uCMUHMHGmAm

d u Eopmmum mo mmmumma

moa.¢a u mx

 

 

 

loo.ooavms Aam.omvmm loo.mavmaimm.savma 100.858 Aoo.mvm loco loco Hmuoe
100.004404 Aom.m¢vka Aom.sacs Aoo.oacw loo.mavm loo.mavm loco loco mHOpomuHa
m>Husomxm
2

.s loo.ooavmm loo.omvam Amm.aavm Aas.mmvm ono loco loco loco muameammum
HMGOHumz

e z e z a z e z e z a z a z s z

sauce +84 mwuas oaumm mmuam omumm «Nuam .mmmm

oz

 

 

 

mmfluflcumumnm HMHoom mmmaaou mo
muouowuflo m>Husomxm paw mucmpflmmum HmGOHumz mo mood map mo somHHMQEOO < .a magma

55

A large proportion of both national presidents and
executive directors are married. As indicated in Table 2,
about 80 percent of the national presidents are married
and 85 percent of the executive directors are married.

Item 5 is a comparison of the number of children of
national presidents and executive directors. A chi-square
test indicates that there is no significant difference between
the response of national presidents and executive directors
on this item. The null hypothesis is therefore accepted.

As indicated in Table 5 there was quite a wide but
equal dispersement in the number of children between national
presidents and executive directors. Approximately 57 percent
of the presidents reported they had two children. About 42
percent of the executive directors reported they also had
two children. On this particular item the mean for presidents
was 2.89 children and the mean for executive directors was
2.65 children and the average total mean was 2.75. From the
data in Table 5 the average size family of both the national
presidents and executive directors is between two and three
children.

A comparison of the highest college degree earned be-
tween national presidents and executive directors is pointed
out in Item 4. A chi-square test indicates that there is no
significant difference between the responses of the national
presidents and the executive directors in this area. The

null hypothesis is therefore accepted.

4.
5

.ucmoflwflsmflm haamoflumwumum uoz

m n Eopmmum mo mmmumwn

 

 

 

oma.a u «x
loo.ooavms Amm.ava ono ono Aoo.amvmm Asm.4fivaa ono Hmuoe
Aoo.ooavoa Aom.mva ono ono Aoo.mmvam Aom.mavm ono mnouomuflo

m>HuDUmxm
loo.ooavmm ono ono ono Amm.mm4mm Aaa.savm ono mucmoammnm
Hmcoaumz
& z R z e z R z .R z A z o z
HMuOB Umumummmm mHmBOUHB Umouo>fla Umflnumz mamCHm . mom
02

 

m>Husomxm paw mucmpflmwum HMCOHumZ mo msumum Hmuflumz mnu mo comflHmmEoo d

mmfluflcumumum amaoom mmmaaoo mo muouomnwa

.N mHQMB

 

®>HHSU®XM MUCH. MUCOUflmQMQ HQCOHDGZ MO EOMUHMCU “HO LOSEZZ 22¢ WC CmefihmdrcCyu fix. .m. CNQCL.

 

.ucmoflmacmflm haamoflumflumum uoz

 

 

s u Eoommum mo mmmummn
wmo.m u NX
Aoo.ooavm> Amm.avafinm.mvm Amm.mvw Asm.Ofivm Aoo.owvom Amm.amvma Amm.>avmaflmm.fivfi Hmuoe
muouomuflm
AO0.00HVO¢ onofioo.mvm Aom.mvfi Aom.>vm Aom.m¢4>a Aom.mmvm Aom.>aV>Aom.Nva m>Husomxm
% mucmoflmmum

Aoo.ooavmm Amm.mva ono Ahm.mvm Amm.¢avm Awfi.>mvmfi AO0.0NV> Awacmfivm AOVO HMCOHDMZ

 

s2 e2 .42 e2 sz sz 42 e2 msz
Hmuoe +m m w m m a mcoz . mom
oz

 

mmfluflcumumnm Hmwoom mmmaaoo mo muouumufln
m>Husumxm Ucm mucmoflmwum HMCOHumz wo cmupaflco wo anESZ mnu mo comHHmmEoo d .m magma

Tat
“'esiden:
’ I

Y’“.
cent hail

Tr.» D ny-
QU‘ O V-

('3

her 12 L
RID. or

 

pcrted ir_
:nly 5 pa

Iti
3533.05 li
Significa
Pfes'iclen:

therefor:

aver O:-
a‘d 27,5

pregent -

 

56

Table 4 indicates that about 54 percent of the national
presidents have either a B.A. or B.S. degree. Some 25 per-
cent have M.A. or M.S. degrees and about 8 percent have an
Ed.D. or Ph.D. In the last category of "other," over 8 per-
cent of the presidents are included. A higher percentage
(72.50) of the executive directors have a B.A. or B.S. degree.
Over 12 percent had an M.A. or M.S. degree and 2.50 had an
Ed.D. or Ph.D. Ten percent of the executive directors re—
ported in the category of "other." Of a total sample of 75,
only 5 people or 4 percent did not respond.

Item 5 compares the size of the town in which both
groups lived. A chi-square test indicates that there is no
significant difference between the responses of national
presidents and executive directors. The null hypothesis is
therefore accepted.

There are two distinct groups, suburbanites and those
who live in cities over 100,000. Some 17 percent of the
national presidents live in suburban areas and 57 percent
live in cities over 100,000 in population. A slightly higher
number of executive directors (52.5) live in suburban areas
and 27.5 in cities over 100,000.

Item 6 is concerned with the number of years that the
national presidents and executive directors have lived in
tzheir present community. A chi-square test indicates that
tiuere is a significant difference (at .05 level) in years in

Pr<asent community. The null hypothesis is therefore rejected.

 

. >A v-
. ,‘w .‘ .
* HM.” .L pv..v-_~vrvfi— vhug
.J A _ u _/_ W p — ~f\ \ ‘UC'
v uh.\-.Nh (a

P . ‘1‘ unrx‘ (0":
. !|‘¢Jl!.'\ ‘
‘\ (Rain FF—

1JF IF!

.ucmoHMHCmHm maamoflumflpmum uoz

 

 

7

 

4 u Eoommum mo mmmummo
mmm.m u mx
Aoo.00fivms Amm.mvn ono ono ono Amm.mv¢ Amm.eavaAoo.¢mvmw Aoo.¢vm Hmuoe
loo.00fivowhoo.oava ono ono ono Rom.m4a Aom.ma4m Aom.msvmm Aom.mvfi muouoouao
m>Husumxm
5
Aoo.ooavmm Awm.mvm ono ono ono Asm.mvm Amm.mmvm Amm.wmvmfi Ads.mvm mucmoflmmum
HMCOHumz
& z e z e z s z e z e z e z e z as Z
Hmuoe umnuo mmummo z>o oz .o.:m mzumz mmumm . mmm
sum u.o.om oz
Inocom

 

 

 

USN mUCQUHmQHm

mmfluflcumumum HMfloom mmmaaoo mo muouomufln m>Husumxm

HMCOAumz >9 owcumm common mmwaaoo umwnmflm mnu mo comwummfiou ¢ .4 magma

Ir * — - «1
It: 1 . _ ' [a

8
5

.pcmoHMAcmHm maamoflumflumum #02

m I Eopmmnm mo mmmumma

 

 

 

4am.m u mx
100.005005 100.mmvwm As0.0ac0 Amm.savma 100.0v0 150.040 Amm.mm000 A00.¢cm 1000 Hmuoa
100.005404 100.amcaa 100.0504 100.5acs 100.0044 ono Aom.mmvma 100.005 1040 whosomeflo
m>Hpsomxm
100.005me iwfi.smvma 10¢.aav4 Aaa.sav0 Ass.mvm Age.mvm 145.5500 Aes.mvm 1050 mucm0flmmum
HMQOHumz
e z e z e z e z a z e z e z e z e z
Hmuoe 000.005 000.004 000.00 000.00 000.0 swam: Hausa .mmmm
Hm:6 -a00.0m -500.0a .500.0 4000: -Qsm oz
mc3OB

mmfluflcumumum Hafioom ommaaou mo muouomuflo
m>Husomxm mam mucmpflmmum HMQOHumz mo mocmpflmmm mo momam may no GOmHHmmEOU m .m mHQmB

59

.mocmpflmcoo mo Hm>ma mo. mnu Ucowmn u:muamacmflm

 

 

 

w u Eoommum mo mmmumma
www.md u mx
Aoo.ooavmm Ahm.mwvmm Anm.wavafi A>®.¢avfifi A>©.¢Hvaa Amm.mHVOH ono Hmuoa
Aoo.OOfivow Aom.0mvfia Aom.0vm Aoo.mmvoa Aoo.omvm Aoo.omvm A040 muouomnfla
m>wudomxm
Aoo.ooavmm Aoo.omvam Amm.mmvm Amm.m4fi Aem.wvm Afi>.mvm ono mucmoflmmum
HchHumz
.02 s2 s2 s2 .02 0&2 mosz
Hmuoe +mfi manoa Qanm mlw mufi . mom

02

 

mmfluflcumumum amaoow mmmaaoo mo muouomnfla m>wusomxm
Ucm mucmoflmmnm Hmcowumz mo huflcsfifioo ucmmmum CH mummw mo comflummfioo 4 .m wanme

”1

vvvvvvv
L

L):

lfferen.
Exacut iv *1
therefor.

Table 7.

\

 

60

As pointed out in Item 6, 60 percent of the presidents
have lived in the same community over 15 years. Only 27.5
percent of the executive directors however, have lived in the
same community for over 15 years.

A comparison of military experience is contained in
Item 7. As indicated in the table, 60 percent of national
presidents have military experience and about 40 percent have
not served. Some 65 percent of the executive directors have
had military experience and about 55 percent have no military
experiences.

A chi-square test indicates that there is no significant
difference between the responses of national presidents and
executive directors on this item. The null hypothesis is

therefore rejected.

Table 7. A Comparison of Military Experiences of National
Presidents and Executive Directors of College
Social Fraternities

No
Res . No Yes Total
N N% N% N75

 

 

National

Presidents 0(0) 14(40.00) 21(60.00) 55(100.00)

Executive

Directors 0(0) 14(55.00) 26(65.00) 40(100.00)

Total 0(0) 28(37.55) 47(62.67) 75(100.00)
x2 = 0.199

Degrees of Freedom = 1

Not statistically significant.

61

Item 8 is a comparison of present military status of'
both the national presidents and executive directors. A chi—
square test indicates that there is no significant difference
between either group on this item. The null hypothesis is
therefore accepted.

As would be expected, the largest majority of both
national presidents and executive directors do not have any
present military commitment. However, it is interesting to
note that a little over 15 percent are still in the inactive
reserve.

Item 9 deals with first employment opportunities of
national presidents and executive directors. A chi-square
test indicates that there is a significant difference (at
.05 level) between the first employment opportunities of
national presidents and executive directors. The null hypothe-
sis is therefore rejected.

As indicated in Table 9, 40 percent of the national
presidents were contacted by employers and the next largest
percentage (17.4) obtained employment by means of a friend.
All of the other categories that the national presidents indi-
cated were of a much lower percentage. The majority (52.5
percent) of the executive directors had first employment
opportunities by means of fraternity contacts. The next most
significant percentage (25 percent), were contacted by the
employer. The remaining percentage was distributed among the

other categories.

62

.ucmoHMHcmHm maamoflumfiumum #oz

m u Eopmmum mo mmmumma

 

 

 

050.4 u mx
100.00500s 100.00004 loco 100.04005 100.400 1000 100.00000 Hmuoe
100.000004 100.emvmm 1000 100.0400 100.svm 1040 100.0000 weepomuaa
m>Husumxm
100.000000 1.0.04054 A000 100.4000 4040 1000 Afla.amcma mucmeammua
HMCOHumZ
a z a z a z e z .4 z a 2 as 2
HMDOB Hmnuo Unmso m>ummmm m>ummmm %wsn . mom
Ummumsomfla HMCOHumz m>HuUwcH m>Huo< m>HuU¢ oz

 

 

mmfluflcuwumum Hafioom mmmHHou mo muouomufln
m>Husomxm paw mucmoflmmum HMCOHumZ mo msumum >nmuflaflz ucmmmum mo somwummfiou < .m manme

.mocmpflmcoo mo Hm>mH mo. mnu ocowmfl unmoHMHcmHm

 

 

 

0 n Eopmmum mo mmmumma
mmm.bd n mx
Aoo.ooavmw A>®.¢Hvaa Amm.mv¢ Aoo.mmV¢N Awm.oavm Amm.mv¢ Aoo.omvmfi Amm.fivfi A00.0fivm ono Hmuoe
Aoo.ooavow Aom.savm Aom.0vm Aoo.mmvoa Aoo.mvm onvom.mmvmfi Aom.mva Aoo.oav¢ ono muouoouaa
O>Husomxm
fifloo.ooavmm Am¢.fiavw Awm.mva Aoo.o¢v¢a Awfi.wavm Amw.aav¢ Aam.mvm ono Am¢.HHV¢ ono mucmoflmmum
Hmcoflumz
.42 e2 .42 .42 sz .42 $2 0&2 42 AZ
Hmuoe umnuo ucmE umhoamEm pcmflum m>HumHmm pumucoo mcfl ucmE .mmmm
Imflu >Q Um wuflcumu Icmmo ImomHm oz
+Hm>©< Iuomucoo umum UHHQDm mmmaaoo

 

 

mmfluflaumumum HMHUom mmmaaoo mo muouomufla
m>flusomxm paw mucmpflmmum HMCOAumz mo mmfluflcsvnommo ucmfionQEm umuflm mo somflummEOO ¢ .m canoe

64

Item 10 presents a comparison and comprehensive outline
of the present employment status of national presidents and
executive directors. A chi—square test indicated that there
is a significant difference (at the .05 level) in the present
employment status between national presidents and executive
directors on this particular item. The null hypothesis is
therefore rejected.

As pointed out in the table, the majority of national
officers are full-time salary employed. As indicated, 57
percent of the national presidents are full-time salaried
employees and 95 percent of the executive directors are in
the same category.

The other significant category is the presidents, where
52 percent are self-employed as opposed to 2.5 percent of the
executive directors.

Item.11 is related to membership in associations between
the national presidents and executive directors of college
fraternities. A chi-square test indicates that there is no
significant difference between the groups on this item. The
null hypothesis is therefore accepted.

As indicated in the table, 60 percent of the national
presidents belong to professional associations, another 54.5
percent belong to trade associations and a little over 5 per-
cent did not respond to the question. )A slightly lower per-
centage, 40 percent of executive directors belong to profes—
Siomal associations, 42.5 percent to trade associations, 2.5 to

learned societies, 2.5 to other and about 12.5 did not respond.

.mocmpflmcoo mo Hm>ma mo. msu ocommn unmoHMHcmHm

m u Eoommum mo mmmumma

 

 

 

www.mfi n mx
AO0.00fiVm> ono Aoo.«vm ono ono ono ono Amm.ava Amm.>04mm Amm.>aVMfi ono Hmuoe
Aoo.00fivow A040 A040 ono ono ono ono Aom.mva Aoo.mmvmm Aom.mva A040 muouomnam
m>Husooxm
%

Aoo.OOvam ono Amm.mvm A040 on0 ono ono ono Awa.0mvom Awm.wmvma ono mucmoflmmum
HMCOHumz

s2 .02 .42 .\z .z .z 0z .z z .z .z

Hmuoe Hmnuo coflmcmm mmMHHOU ommoam mawsom mamsom humamm >WmHmm powmeEm .mem

mcfl IEmCD wEflu mafia mEHu mEHuIHHsm mamm .oz

uvcmuh< .6509 :pumm uaaum nuumm

 

mmHUchmumum HMfloom mmmaaou mo mnouomufla
m>Husomxm Ucm mucmpflmmum HMCOHumZ mo msumum usmfihoamEm ucmmmum mo somHHmmEOO d .oa magma

.uGMUHMHcmHm maamowumwumum uoz

 

 

66

 

« u Eopmmnm mo mmmummo
oam.¢ u mx
Aoo.00fivm0 Amm.avfi Amm.ava ono Amm.m¢v>m Ahm.mmvmm Amm.mv> Hmuoe
Aoo.ooavow Aom.mva Aom.mva A040 Aoo.owvma Aom.m440fifiom.mavm muouomuao
m>Husomxm
80.0039». 840 840 840 80.03am Ammémvmfi SKA-Sm mucmgmmum
Hmcoflumz
4. a. a. a. a. a. a.
Hmuoa muonuo mmflumfloom mCOHCD mCOHumaoomm4 mGOHUMHoomm< .mmmm
owcummq nonmq HMSOHmmmmOum mUMuB oz

 

 

mmfluflcumpmum amaoom mmmaaoo mo muouowufla m>Husomxm
paw mucmpflmmum HmCOHumz >9 paw: mmflnmquEmE HMCOHmmmmon mo conflummfioo 4 .aa magma

67

Item 12 compares the level of incomes between the
national presidents and executive directors of college fra-
ternities. A chi-square indicates that there is a significant
difference (at .05 level) in income between the national
presidents and executive directors. The null hypothesis is
therefore rejected.

As indicated in Item 12, 28.5 percent of the presidents
earn between $15-25,000, 22.86 percent earn between $25-50,000
and 14.29 percent earn between $50-100,000. As seen in the
chart, the remaining percentage is distributed over the lower
income brackets and those who did not respond. The largest
percentage, 45 percent, of the executive directors earn be-
tween $10-15,000. Some 50 percent earn between $15-25,000.
The remaining portions are divided among lower income
brackets and those people who desired not to respond.

Table 15 compares those national presidents and execu-
tive directors who belong to their university alumni clubs.

A chi-square test indicates that there is no significant dif-
ference between the responses on this particular item. The
null hypothesis is therefore accepted.

As pointed out in Table 15, 74.2 percent of the national
foresidents indicated in the affirmative and only 25.7 percent
annswered negatively to the question. A slightly lower per—
cenutage, 70 percent, of the executive directors indicated they

betlonged, about 25 percent do not, and some 5 percent of the

exeacutive directors did not respond to the question.

8
6

.mocmpflmaoo mo Hm>mH mo.

m

mnp ocommfl ucmoHMHcmHm

Eoommum mo mmmummo

 

 

 

 

 

mmm.om u mx
Aoo.ooavm0 A040 Amm.wvm Amw.oavm Amm.mmvmm Anw.¢mv©mAnn.MfivoaA>w.NvN A040 on0 A>©.NVN Hapoe
AO0.00dvow ono A040 A040 Aoo.omvmfi Aoo.m¢vmafiom.wavm Aoo.mvm A040 on0 Aom.mva muouomufla
m>flusomxm
AO0.00fime ono Ammwfivm A©®.mmvm AmmmNVOH Amw.mmvm Anm.mvm ono ono ono Amm.mva mucmpfimoum
Hmcoaumz
a. a. 42 a. 42 42 42 a. a. az a.
amuOB ooo.ooalooo.om ooo.mm ooo.mfi 000.0a oom.0 ooo.m -ooo.m .mmmm
Iaoo.om aoo.mm Iaoo.mfi Ifioo.OH Iflom.m uaoo.m Idoo.m IOOO.H oz
mmfluflcumumum

HMHoom ommaaoo mo muouowuflo m>Husomxm Ucm

mucmoflmmum HMCOHumZ mo mmEoocH

Mo comflHmmEOU d .NH mHQME

69

Table 15. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors Who Belong to University Alumni Clubs

 

 

NO

Resp. No Yes Total
N % N % N % N %

 

 

 

National

Presidents 0(0) 9(25.71) 26(74.29) 55(100.00)

Executive

Directors 2(5.00) 10(25.00) 28(70.00) 40(1oo.oo)

Total 2(2.67) 19(25.55) 54(72.00) 75(100.00)
x2 = 1.801

Degrees of Freedom = 2

Not statistically significant.

Item 14 is a follow-up response to Item 15 and compares
the groups with respect to whether the groups held offices in
their alumni clubs. As indicated in Table 14, the majority
of both the national presidents and executive directors had
not held an office or position. Some 4 percent failed to
respond to the question.

A chi-square test indicated that there was no signifi-
cant difference between the responses of national presidents
and executive directors on this item. The null hypothesis

is therefore accepted.

70

Table 14. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors Who Were Officers of Alumni Clubs

 

 

 

 

 

 

No

Resp. No Yes Total

N% N% N% N35
National
presidents 2(5.71) 22(62.86) 11(51.43) 55(100.00)
Executive
Directors 1(2.50) 27(67.50) 12(50.00) 40(100.00)
Total 5(4.00) 49(65.55) 25(50.67) 75(100.00)
x2 = 0.556

Degrees of Freedom = 2

Not statistically significant.

A comparison of the number of alumni meetings that the
national presidents and executive directors attended is con-
tained in Item 15. A chi-square test indicates that there is
no significant difference between the two groups on this
particular item. The null hypothesis is therefore accepted.

As indicated in the data there is a wide variation of
responses to Item 15. However, in the case of both national
presidents and executive directors, the category receiving
the highest percentage was that of 50+ meetings. About 14
percent of the presidents and some 20 percent of the executive
directors responded to Category 7. There was a total overall
percentage of 17.5 percent. It is evident from the data that
these people are interested and aware of'what is taking place

at their respective colleges or universities.

.ucmoHMHamHm waamoflumflumum “oz
0 u Eopmmum m0 mmoum09

mmmom " NU”

 

Aoo.ooavm0 Amm.wdvmfi Aoo.mfivm Amw.wvm Ahw.®vm Aoo.deNdAoo.Nva A>©.¢fivafi Amm.¢HVHH HMHOB

 

Aoo.ooavo¢ Aoo.omvm Aom.>vm om.mva Aom.mvm Aom.>av> Amo.mavm Aom.mavm Aom.>avm mu0u00HHQ
0>Husomxm

1
fl180.0039.” Amm.¢avm Aea.savw Amw.aave Aah.mvm Amm.efivm Asm.mvn Awfi.>avm Am¢.aav¢ mucmoflmmum
HchHumz

 

e2 002 .02 &2 s2
H0009 +00 00:00 0musfi 0s-0

LOSS

POZ

& z R z QR z.
NIH mcoz . mom

02

mmfluflcuflumum Hmwoom mmmaaoo mo muouomnfia 0>Husowxm .
paw mucmoflmmum HMCOHumz cmmBumm mmCHummz Headae um mocmpcmuu< mo comHHmmEoo e .na magma

72

Item 16 indicates the number of times the national
presidents and executive directors have returned to their
campuses since graduation. A chi-square test indicates that
there is no significant difference between the responses of
national presidents and executive directors regarding this
item. The null hypothesis is therefore accepted.

As indicated in Item 16, 58.5 percent of the national
presidents said that they have returned between 11-50 times.
About 57.5 percent of the executive directors indicated that
they have returned between 11—50 times to the campus.
Approximately 5 percent of the combined group did not re-
spond to the question.

Item 17 is concerned with whether national presidents
and executive directors belonged to a fraternity alumni
chapter prior to their current positions.

As pointed out in the table, 88.5 percent of the
national presidents answered affirmatively, 8 percent nega-
tively, and less than 5 percent did not respond to the
question. Some 75 percent of the executive directors indi—
cated an association and about 25 percent reported no affilia—
tion prior to the current position.

A chi-square test indicates that there is no significant
difference between the responses of national presidents and
executive directors on this item. The null hypothesis is

therefore accepted.

.ucmoHMflcmHm hfiamoflumflumum 002

0 u Eopmmum mo mmmumwn

 

 

75

 

000.0 u 0x
100.000000 000.00000 100.00000 000.00000 “00.00000 000.000 00000
100.000400 100.0000 100.0040 000.00400 100.00000 000.040 000000000
m>flusomxm
100.000400 100.0000 100.0000 100.00000 000.0040 000.000 0000000000
Hmcoaumz
e z e z e z e z e z e 2
00000 00:00 00-00 00-00 00-0002 .0000
oz

mmmsmEmo ou omcusumm 0>mm mnouumufln
0>00500xm Ucm musmpflmmum 00:00002 00809 mo amnesz 030 m0 cowfiummEoo e .00 00909

74

Table 17. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors Who Belonged to Alumni Chapters Before
Their Current Positions

 

 

 

 

 

NO

Res . No Yes Total

N N% N76 N70
National
Presidents 1(2.86) 5(8.57) 51(88.57) 55(100.00)
Executive .
Directors 0(0) 10(25400) 50(75.00) 40(100.00)
Total 1(l.35) 15(17.53) 61(81.55) 75(100.00)

x2 = 4.472

2

Not statistically significant.

Degree of Freedom

Item 18 compares the numbers of national presidents and
executive directors who were officers of alumni chapters.

A chi-square test indicates that there is a significant dif-
ference (at .05 level) on this item. The null hypothesis is
therefore rejected.

As indicated in Item 18, 80 percent of the national
presidents held office, some 14.2 did not and about 6 percent
of the national presidents failed to respond to the question.
A lower percentage (56.4 percent) of the executive directors

held office, 42.5 did not and they all responded to Item 18.

75

Table 18. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors Who Were Officers of Alumni Chapters

 

 

 

 

 

No

Resp. No Yes Total

N% N% N% N%
National
Presidents 2(5.71) 5(14.29) 28(80.00 5S(100.00)
Executive
Directors 0(0) 17(42.50) 25(57.50) 40(100.00)
Total 2(2.67) 22(29.55) 51(68.00) 75(100.00)

X2 = 8.741

2

Significant beyond the .05 level of confidence.

Degrees of Freedom

Item 19 shows a comparison of the number of alumni
chapter meetings the national presidents and executive di-
rectors have attended. A chi-square test indicates that
there was no significant difference between the groups on
this particular item. The null hypothesis is therefore
accepted.

Once again the majority of national presidents and
executive directors together indicated by their responses
to Item 19 that the greater percentage of them have attended
50 or more alumni chapter meetings. The remaining responses
are fairly equally distributed over other categories.

About 4 percent of the total group did not respond.

.0000000cm00 >00000

0000000 0oz

0 n 5000000 00 0000m0a

 

 

 

000.0 u 00
000.000000 000.00000 000.00000 000.00400 000.040 000.000 000.000 000.000 000.000 00000
000.000400 000.00000 000.0000 000.0000 0000 000.040 000.000 000.000 A00.0vm 000000000
0>00500xm
00100.000000 100.00400 Amm.00vm0 000.0000 000.040 1000 0000 000.000 000.000 0000000000
7 00:00002
e z e z e z e z 0 z e z 0 z 0 z 0 z
00000 +00 00-00 00-00 00-0 0-0 0-0 000z .0000
oz

U00:000< mmc0000z 000m050 Headad 00 003852
0:0 00 000mm0m 3003 000000000 0>00500xm 0:0 00:000000m Hmcoaumz mo comflnmmeoo 4

.ma 00905

77

A comparison of financial donations to the fraternity
since graduation is the substance of Item 20. A chi-square
indicates that there is no significant difference between
the national presidents and executive directors on this item.
The null hypothesis is therefore accepted.

As indicated in Item 20, 91.4 percent of the national
presidents have contributed at least 100 dollars or more
since graduation. A slightly lower percentage, 82.5 percent,
of the executive directors have contributed at least the
same amount. The remaining categories are somewhat insig-
nificant compared to the one stated above, however, one
executive director failed to respond.

Item 21 compares the number of national presidents and
executive directors who held chapter offices as undergraduates.
As indicated, 80 percent of the national presidents held a
chapter office and about 20 percent did not hold office.

A slightly higher percentage (87.5) of the executive directors
held office, about 10 percent did not, and one failed to
respond. As pointed out in the total computations, 84 percent
of the national presidents and executive directors held an
undergraduate chapter office.

A chi—square test indicates that there is no significant
difference between the national presidents and executive di-
rectors on this particular item. The null hypothesis is

therefore accepted.

78

.0c000m0cm00 >000U0

0000000 0oz

w N 2000000 00 0000m0Q

 

 

 

MNNoN H NN
AO0.00de> A>®.mmvm® A>©.mvm AOO.¢VW AOVO AOVO AWM.HVH AMM.HVH HMUOB
AO0.00fiVO¢ Aom.mmvmm Aom.>vm AOO.mVN AOVO AOVO Aom.Nvfi Aom.NVd mHOuomuHQ
0>00500xm
Aoo.ooavmm Amw.0mvmm 000.mvm Amw.mv0 ono ono AOVO ono 00:000000m
00000002
0000 .00 00 00 00 0:0 0.0 000z
HmuOB +OOd mmlom mfilmm ¢NIOH mid 0GOZ . mmm
OZ

 

 

c000050000 0oc0m 000000000000 00059 00 0c0000coo 0000:0C0m
00 000000& £003 000000009 0>00900xm 0:0 00:0p0m0um 00:00002 mo c00000mEoo d

.ON 00908

79

Table 21. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Holding a Chapter Office

 

 

 

 

NO
Res . No Yes Total
N%p N70 N% N%
National
Presidents 0(0) 7(20.00) 28(80.00) 55(lO0.00)
Executive
Directors 1(2.5) 4(10.00) 35(87.SO) 40(100.00)
Total 1(2.5) 11(14.67) 65(84.00) 75(1oo.oo)
x2 = 2.273

Degrees of Freedom = 2

Not statistically significant.

Item 22 compares the responses of national presidents
and executive directors to see if they were members of their
college Interfraternity Council. A chi-square test indicates
that there is no significant difference between the responses
of national presidents and executive directors on this particu—
lar item. The null hypothesis is therefore accepted.

As indicated in Table 22, 65 percent of the national
presidents and executive directors did not hold an Interfra-
ternity Council position. Some 54.6 percent of the total
group did have a cabinet position. All of the national

presidents and executive directors responded to this item.

80

Table 22. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Holding an Interfra-
ternity Council Office

 

 

 

 

 

No

Res . No Yes Total

N N % N % N %
National
Presidents 0(0) 23(65.71) 12(54.29) 35(100.00)
Executive
Directors 0(0) 26(65.00) 14(35.00) 40(100.00)
Total 0(0) 49(65.55) 26(34.67) 75(100.oo)

x2 = 0.004

1

Not statistically significant.

Degrees of Freedom

Item 25 is concerned with the amount of interest nation-
al presidents and executive directors had as undergraduates
in their particular chapters.

A chi-square test indicates that there is no significant
difference between the responses of the two groups. The null
hypothesis is therefore accepted.

As pointed out in Item 25, 80 percent of the national
presidents indicated they were very interested as opposed to
55 percent of the executive directors. Some 11 percent of
the national presidents were quite interested and only 2
percent mildly interested. A no response was recorded from

5 percent of the national presidents. On the other hand,

81

15 percent of the executive directors were quite interested

and none indicated that they were only mildly concerned.

Table 23. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Their Interest in Their
Undergraduate Chapters

 

 

No
Res . Very Quite Mildly Total
N %p N % N % N % N %

 

National
Presidents 2(5.71) 28(80.00) 4(11.43) 1(2.86) 35(lO0.00)

 

 

Executive

Directors 0(0) 34(85.00) 6(15.00) 0(0) 40(100.00)

Total 2(2.67) 62(82.67) 10(13.3§) 1(1.53) 75(100.00)
x2 = 5.664

Degrees of Freedom = 5

Not statistically significant.

Item 24 reflected the number of national presidents and
executive directors who indicated they returned to their
respective campuses for football games. As indicated in the
table, 74.29 percent of the national presidents responded
affirmatively, 22.86 percent responded negatively, and only
2.86 indicated no response at all. The affirmative per-
centage (67.5) of executive directors was slightly lower than

the presidents. The negative responses were slightly higher.

82

A chi-square test indicates that there is no signifi-

cant difference between the responses.

is therefore accepted.

The null hypothesis

 

 

 

 

Table 24. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Attendances at Their
College Football Games
No
Res . No Yes Total
N N % N % N %
National
Presidents 1(2.86) 8(22.86) 26(74.29) 55(100.00)
Executive
Directors 5(7.50) 10(25.00) 27(67.50) 40(100.00)
Total 4(5.55) 18(24.00) 55(70.67) 75(1oo.00)
x2 = 0.912

Degrees of Freedom

Not statistically significant.

Item 25 is a comparison of national presidents and execu-

tive directors who donate regularly to their college alumni

clubs. A chi-square test indicates that there is no signifi-

cant difference between either group on this particular item.

The null hypothesis is therefore accepted.

As indicated in Item 25 a total of some 75.5 percent

of the national presidents and executive directors contribute

to their college alumni club.

Approximately 20 percent

85

indicated that they did not contribute and about 5 percent

failed to respond to the question.

Table 25. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Financial Donations to
Their College Alumni Club

 

 

 

NO

Resp. No Yes Total

N% N75 N% N%
National
Presidents 0(0) 9(25.71) 26(74.29) 55(100.00)
Executive
Directors 2(5.00) 9(22.50) 29(72.50) 40(lO0.00)
Total 2(2.67) 18(24.00) 55(75.55) 75(100.00)

x2 = 1.858

Degrees of Freedom = 2

Not statistically significant.

Item 28 deals with those national officers who married
sorority girls.45

As indicated in the chi—square test there is no sig-
nificant difference between the responses of the national
presidents and executive directors on this particular item.

The null hypothesis is therefore accepted.

 

45Items 26 and 27 have been delected from the study
(see page 50 for the explanation).

84

As indicated 48.5 percent of the national presidents
reported a negative response and 45.7 percent indicated an
affirmative response. A little over 5 percent did not
respond to the question. An even larger percentage (65 per-
cent) of the executive directors did not marry a sorority
girl and only 50 percent responded positively to the question.
Once again, some 5 percent of the executive directors failed

to respond.

Table 28. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors Who Married Sorority Girls

 

 

 

 

 

No

Res . No Yes Total

N 0 N % N % N %
National
Presidents 2(5.71) 17(48.57) 16(45.71) 55(100.00)
Executive
Directors 2(5.00) 26(65.00) 12(50.00) 40(100.00)
Total 4(5.55) 45(57.55) 28(57.55) 75(100.00)

x2 = 2.151

2

Not statistically significant.

Degrees of Freedom

Item 29 is concerned with those national presidents
and executive directors who have sons in college. A chi-
square test indicates that there is no significant difference
between the responses of the groups on this particular item.

The null hypothesis is therefore accepted.

85

As indicated in Item 29, 60 percent of the national
presidents said "no" and only 17.1 percent indicated "yes"
to the question. Some 22 percent did not respond. A small
percentage (55) percent of the executive directors had a
negative response and only 15 percent had an affirmative

response. An even greater percentage (50 percent) did not

respond to the question.

Table 29. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Having Sons in College

 

 

 

 

 

No

Res . No Yes Total

N N72 N% N%
National
Presidents 8(22.86) 21(60.00) 6(17.14) 55(100.00)
Executive
Directors 12(50.00 22(55.00) 6(15.00) 40(100.oo)
Total 20(26.67) 45(57.55) 12(16.00) 75(100.00)

x2 = 0.492

Degrees of Freedom = 2

Not statistically significant.

The main substance of Item 50 was whether national
presidents' and executive directors' sons were in a fraternity.
A chi—square indicates no significant difference between
either response on this particular item. The null hypothe—

sis is therefore accepted.

86

Table 50. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Having Sons in a

 

 

 

 

 

Fraternity

NO

Resp. No Yes Total

N% N% N75 N%
National
Presidents 10(28.57) 17(48.57) 8(22.86) 55(100.00)
Executive
Directors 21(52.50) 11(27.50) 8(20.00) 40(100.00)
Total 51(41.55) 28(57.55) 16(21.55) 75(1oo.oo)

X2 = 4.877

2

Not statistically significant.

Degrees of Freedom

As indicated in Item 50, 48 percent of the national
presidents answered "no," some 28.6 percent answered "yes,"
and an unusual number (28 percent) of the national presidents
did not respond to the question. A much lower percent of
executive directors (27.5 percent) responded negatively,
some 20 percent affirmatively and once again a very large
proportion (52.5 percent) did not respond to the question.

Item 51 is a comparison of national presidents and
executive directors and whether they have a son in the same
fraternity. A chi-square test indicates that there is a
significant difference (at .05 level) between the national
presidents and executive directors on this particular item.

The null hypothesis is therefore rejected.

87

Table 51. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Having Sons in Their
Respective Fraternities

 

 

 

 

 

No

Resp. No Yes Total

N75 N96 N% N%
National
Presidents 10(28.57) 20(57.14) 5(14.29) 55(100.00)
Executive
Directors 25(57.50) 12(50.00) 5(12.50) 40(100.00)
Total 55(44.00) 52(42.67) 10(15.55) 75(100.00)

X2 = 6.818

Degrees of Freedom = 2

Significant beyond the .05 level of confidence¢

The table indicates that 57.1 percent of the national
presidents responded negatively, 14.2 positively and 28.5 had
no response. About 50 percent of the executive directors had
a negative response, 15.5 percent responded affirmatively
and some 57.5 did not respond to the question at all. It
can be assumed from this large "no reSponse category" that
they do not have a son.

Question 52 deals with a comparison of national presi—
dents and executive directors and whether they belonged to
a Church. A chi-square test indicates that there is no sig-
nificant difference between the responses of national presi—
dents and executive directors on this item. The null hypothe-

sis is therefore accepted.

88

Table 52. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Church Membership

 

 

NO

Resp. No Yes Total
N % N % N % N %

 

 

 

National
Presidents 0(0) 5(8.57) 52(91.45) 55(100.00)
Executive
Directors 0(0) 4(10.00) 56(90.00) 40(100.00)
Total 0(0) 7(9.55) 68(90.67) 75(100.00)
x2 = 0.045
Degrees of Freedom = 1

Not statistically significant.

As indicated in Item 52, 91.4 percent of the presidents
said they did belong to a church and about 8.5 percent indi-
cated they did not belong to a church. Some 90 percent of
the executive directors answered affirmatively and only 10
percent answered negatively to the question. All of the
national presidents and executive directors responded to the
question.

Item 55 is a follow—up question of Item 52 with respect
to the national presidents and executive directors that hold
a church office. As pointed out in the table, there are
more presidents that hold an office than executive directors.
However, the overall percentage (64 percent) of the national

presidents and executive directors indicated they did not

89

hold an office. Some 52 percent of the combined group indi—
cated they did hold a church office.

A chi-square test indicates that there is no significant
difference between the national presidents and executive di-
rectors on this particular item. The null hypothesis is

therefore accepted.

Table 55. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Holding a Church Office

 

 

 

 

No

Res . No Yes Total

N N70 N70 N75
National
presidents 2(5.71) 19(54.29) 14(40.00) 55(100.00)
Executive
Directors 1(2.50) 29(72.50) 10(25.00) 40(100.00)
Total 5(4.00) 48(64.00) 24(52.00) 75(100.00)

x2 = 2.762

2

Not statistically significant.

Degrees of Freedom

Item 54 is a comparison of the national presidents and
executive directors that currently belong to civic organi—
zations. A chi-square test indicates that there is no sig-

nificant difference between the groups on this item.

90

Table 54. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Belonging to Civic

 

 

 

 

Organizations
NO
Resp. No Yes Total
N % N % N % N %
National
Presidents 0(0) 4(11.45) 51(88.57) 55(100.00)
Executive
Directors 1(2.50) 11(27.50) 28(70.00) 40(100.00)
Total 1(1.55) 15(20.00) 59(78.67) 75(100.00)
x2 = 4.104
Degrees of Freedom = 2

Not statistically significant.

As indicated in Item 54, 88.5 percent of the presidents
answered affirmatively, some 11.4 percent answered negatively
and they all responded to the question. About 70 percent of
the executive directors responded affirmatively, some 27.5
percent negatively, and a little over 1 percent failed to
respond to the question.

Item 55 deals with those national presidents and execu-
tive directors who hold political offices. A chi-square
test indicates that there is no significant difference be-
tween the reSponses of the groups. The null hypothesis is

therefore accepted.

91

Table 55. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Holding Political Offices

 

 

 

 

 

NO
Res . No Yes . Total
N0 N70 N% 151%
National
presidents 0(0) 50(85.71) 5(14.29) 55(100.00)
Executive
Directors 1(2.50) 57(92.50) 2(5.00) 40(100.00)
Total 1(1.55) 67(89.55) 7(9.55) 75(100.00)
x2 = 2.696
Degrees of Freedom = 2

Not statistically significant.

As pointed out in Item 55, 89.5 percent of the combined
group responded negatively to the question and slightly over
9 percent answered affirmatively to the question. Approxi—
mately 1 percent did not respond to the item.

Whether any of the national presidents or executive
directors are members of any college board of trustees is the
main issue in Item 56. A chi-square test indicates that
there is no significant difference between the national presi-
dents and executive directors on this particular item. The
null hypothesis is therefore accepted.

As evaluated in Item 56, 94.2 percent of the national
presidents said they were not members of any board and only

2.8 percent indicated they were members of a college board.

92

Table 56. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors Concerning Membership on a College
Board of Trustees

i1

 

 

 

NO
Res . No Yes Total
N N70 N% N%
National
presidents 1(2.86) 55(94.29) 1(2.86) 55(100.00)
Executive
Directors 0(0) 59(97.50) 1(2.50) 40(100.00)
Total 1(1.55) 72(96.00) 2(2.67) 75(100.00)
x2 = 1.172
Degrees of Freedom = 2

Not statistically significant.

A slightly higher percentage, 97.5 percent of the executive
directors answered negatively and only 2.6 answered affirma-
tively. A little over 2 percent of the national presidents

failed to respond to the item.

SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS

The following is a list of those items reported in
Chapter IV that were statistically significant at .05 level
and beyond.

1. National presidents are older than executive di-

rectors of college social fraternities.

95

2. National presidents have lived longer in their
present community than executive directors of

college social fraternities.

5. More executive directors than national presidents
obtained their first job after graduation from

college through a fraternity contact.

4. More executive directors than national presidents

are full-time salary employed.

5. National presidents have a higher annual income than

do executive directors of college social fraternities.

6. More national presidents than executive directors

have held alumni chapter offices.

7. More executive directors than national presidents of
college social fraternities have sons who hold

membership in the same fraternity.

SUMMARY

According to the analysis of the data in Chapter IV,
there are some significant differences between the selected
personal characteristics of the national presidents and
executive directors of college social fraternities.

Statistically significant differences were found in
those areas dealing with age, length of time in present com-
munity, method of obtaining first job, type of employment,

income, chapter alumni office, and son in same fraternity.

94

No significant differences were found between national
presidents and executive directors in these areas related
to the highest college degree earned, financial donations
to the university, membership in a civic organization,
membership on a college board of trustees, military experi-
ences, and amount of interest in undergraduate chapter

affairs.

CHAPTER V

ANALYSIS OF THE DATA--PERCEPTIONS OF NATIONAL
PRESIDENTS AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS

Chapter V includes an analysis of the data concerning
selected perceptions held by national presidents and execu-
tive directors of the role of the college social fraternity
in higher education. More specifically, the null hypothesis
tested in this part of the study was:

There is no significant difference between the se-

lected perceptions of national presidents and

executive directors with respect to how they viewed

the role of their organization in higher education.

All items in this chapter were reported in percentages
for the two groups. In addition a Chi-square test was used
to interpret each of the items in the chapter. For the pur-
pose of this study the .05 level of confidence was used to
determine if there were significant differences between the
national presidents and executive directors. Responses
from a total of 40 executive directors and 55 national presi-
dents are included. All items whether statistically signifi—
cant or not are reported in this chapter since it was felt
that every item could provide some understanding of the way
in which both groups included in the study perceive the

function of the social fraternity in American higher educa—

tion.

95

96

Item 57 concerns the importance of including history
and philosophy of the educational institution in pledge
training. A chi-square test indicates that there is no
significant difference between the responses of national
presidents and executive directors on this item. (The null
hypothesis is therefore accepted.

As indicated in the table, 60 percent of the national
presidents agreed that the inclusion of educational history
and philosophy are important in the pledge training program.
Some 25 percent disagreed, about 5 percent expressed no
opinion and slightly over 8 percent did not respond.

A slightly higher percentage (65 percent) of all executive
directors agreed, 17.5 percent disagreed, 15 percent had no
opinion, and 2.5 percent did not respond. Thus, it is evi-
dent from the data that a large majority of both executive
directors and national presidents believe that it is important
to include some of the individual institution's history and
philosophy in the pledge program.

In Item 58 an overwhelming number of presidents and
executive directors considered the president the most im-
portant position in the chapter house.

As indicated in Table 58 over 85 percent of the presi-
dents agreed with the item, over 5 percent disagreed, over
2 percent had no opinion, and 2.86 did not respond. A slight-
ly lower percentage of executive directors (8.2 percent)

agreed, 10 percent disagreed, 2.5 percent had no opinion and

97

Table 57. A Comparison of the Responses of National Presidents
and Executive Directors with Respect to Pledge

 

 

 

Training

No No

Res . Agree. Disagree Opinion ”Total

N N % N % N % N %
National
Presidents 5(8.57) 21(6.00) 9(25.71) 2(5.71) 55(100.00)
Executive
Directors 1(2.50) 26(65.00) 7(17.50) 6(15.00) 40(100.00)
Total 4(5.55) 47(62.67) 16(21.55) 8(10.67) 75(100.00)

x2 = 5.464

Degrees of Freedom = 5

Not statistically significant.

Table 58. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to the Importance of the

Chapter President

 

 

 

No No

Res . Agree Disagree Opinion Total

N N% N% N N
National
Presidents 1(2.86) 51(88.57) 2(5.71) 1(2.86) 55(100.00)
Executive
Directors 2(5.00) 55(82.50) 4(10.00) 1(2.50) 40(100.00)
Total 5(4.00) 64(85.55) 6(8.00) 2(2.67) 75(100.00)

x2 = 0.752

5

Not statistically significant.

Degrees of Freedom

98

5 percent did not respond. Over 85 percent agreed that the
president's is the most important position in the chapter.

A chi-square test indicates that there is no significant
difference between the response of the national presidents and
the executive directors. The null hypothesis is therefore
accepted.

Item 59 is concerned with the local advisor and whether
he should be a member of the national fraternity. A chi-
square test indicates that there is no significant difference
between the responses of national presidents and executive
directors on this particular item. The null hypothesis is

therefore accepted.

Table 59. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors as to Whether the Local Advisor Should
Be a Member of the National Fraternity

 

 

 

 

 

No No

Res . Agree Disagree Opinion Total

N N % N % N % N %
National
Presidents 0(0) 26(74.29) 5(14.29) 4(11.45) 55(100.00)
Executive
Directors 0(0) 52(80.00) 8(20.00) 0(0) 40(100.00)
Total 0(0) 58(77.55)15(17.55) 4(5.55) 75(100.00)

x2 = 5.002

2

Not statistically significant.

Degrees of Freedom

99

As indicated in Table 59, over 74 percent of the nation-
al presidents agreed that the advisor should be a member of
the group. Some 14 percent disagreed and about 11.45 ex-
pressed no opinion. A slightly higher percentage (80 percent)
of the executive directors agreed, while 20 percent disagreed.

Item 40 is concerned with whether the local chapter
advisor should be a member of the university faculty. A chi-
square test indicates that there is no significant difference
between the responses of national presidents and executive
directors on this item. The null hypothesis is therefore

accepted.

Table 40. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors as to Whether Chapter Advisors Should
be a Member of the University FaCulty

 

 

No No
Res . Agree Disagree Opinion Total
N N % N % N % N %

 

National
presidents 5(8.57) 11(51.45) 16(45.71) 5(14.29) 55(100.00)

 

 

Executive

Directors 0(0) 16(4.00) 17(42.50) 7(17.50) 40(100.00)

Total 5(4.00) 27(56.00) 55(44.00) 12(16.00) 75(100.00)
x2 = 5.974

5

Not statistically significant.

Degrees of Freedom

100

According to the table, the percentage break-down be-
tween those who agree and disagree on Item 40 is quite close.
Of the national presidents, 51.45 percent agreed, 45.71 dis-
agreed, and 14.29 had no opinion and 8.5 did not respond.

Of the executive directors who responded to the question, 40
percent agreed, 42.5 disagreed, and 17.5 had no opinion.

The main concern of Item 41 is to determine if there
are any significant differences between the views of the
national presidents and executive directors as to the ideal
size of a fraternity house. A chi-square test indicates that
there is no significant difference between the two groups.

As indicated in the table, there is a wide range of
ideas as to size. However, the majority of the national
presidents and executive directors (52.7 percent) prefer the

category of 51-75 men.

Table 41. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to the Size of the Fra-
ternity House.

 

No
Res . 25-50 51-75 76-100 100+ Total
N%p u% N% N% N% N76

 

National
Presidents 1(2.86) 12(54.29) 16(45.71) 6(17.14) 0(0) 55(100.00)

Executive
Directors 1(2.56) 12(50.77) 25(58.97) 5(7.69) 0(0) 40(100.00)

 

Total 2(2.70) 24(52.45) 59(52.70) 9(12.16) 0(0) 75(100.00)

 

x2 = 2.046
Degrees of Freedom = 5

Not statistically significant.

101

Item 42 is concerned with the importance of notifying
the national office before any disciplinary action is taken
against a local chapter by the Dean of Students Office.

A chi-square test indicates that there was no significant dif-
ference between the responses of national presidents and
executive directors on this item. The null hypothesis is
therefore accepted.

As indicated in Table 42, 71.4 percent of the national
presidents agreed that the national office should be notified
prior to a disciplinary decision. Some 25.7 disagreed and no
one withheld an opinion. However, one president did not
respond. An even higher percentage (80 percent) of all the
executive directors agreed, 12.5 disagreed, 5 percent had no

opinion and 2.5 did not respond.

Table 42. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Whether Disciplinary
Action Should be Taken Against a Local Chapter by
the Deans Office Before the National is Notified

 

 

 

No No

Res . Agree Disagree Opinion Total

N %p N % N % N % N %
National
Presidents 1(2.86 25(71.45) 9(25.71) 0(0) 55(100.00)
Executive

Directors 1(2.50) 52(80.00) 5(12.50) 2(5.00) 40(100.00)

 

Total 2(2.67) 57(76.00) 14(18.67) 2(2.67) 75(100.00)

 

x2 = 5.686

Degrees of Freedom

5

Not statistically significant.

102

The reaction of national presidents and executive
directors to Item 45 was that they generally did not think
that first term freshmen should wait until the end of the
first marking period to pledge. The chi-square test indi-
cates that there is no significant difference between the
responses of the national presidents and executive directors.
The null hypothesis is therefore accepted.

A summary of the responses are recorded in Table 45.

It is interesting to note that the national presidents dis-
agreed 62.88 percent, as opposed to 57.14 percent that agreed.
The executive directors disagreed 65 percent, as opposed to

17 percent who agreed. About 7.5 percent of the executive

directors indicated no opinion.

Table 45. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Whether the University
Should Require First Term Freshmen to Wait Until
the End of the First Marking Period Before Pledging

 

 

 

 

No No

Res . Agree Disagree Opinion Total

N N% N% N% N%
National
Presidents 0(0) 15(57.14) 22(62.88) 0(0) 55(100.00)
Executive
Directors 0(0) 11(27.50) 26(65.00) 5(7.50) 40(100.00)
Total 0(0) 24(52.00) 48(64.00) 5(4.00) 75(100.00)

x2 = 5.181

Degrees of Freedom - 2

Not statistically significant.

105

The main concern of Item 44 is whether the university
should require all fraternities to have housemothers.

A chi-square test indicates that there is no significant dif-
ference between the responses of national presidents and
executive directors on this item. The null hypothesis is
therefore accepted.

As pointed out in Table 44, 68.5 percent of the national
presidents agreed that the university should require house-
mothers or resident advisors. About 22.86 percent disagreed
and 8.5 had no opinion. A slightly lower percentage of execu-
tive directors (52.5 percent) agreed with the statement, some

52.5 percent disagreed and 15 percent had no opinion.

Table 44. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Whether the University
Should Require All Fraternities to have House-
mothers or Resident Advisors

 

 

 

No No

Resp. Agree Disagree Opinion Total

N70 N70 N72 N% N70
National
Presidents 0(0) 24(68.57) 8(22.86) 5(8.57) 55(100.00)
Executive
Directors 0(0) 21(52.50)15(52.50) 6(15.00) 40(100.00)
Total 0(0) 45(60.00)21(28.00) 9(12.00) 75(100.00)

x2 = 2.066

2

Not statistically significant.

Degrees of Freedom

104

Item 45 shows the reaction of the national presidents
and executive directors with respect to teaching academic
subjects in fraternities. A chi-square test indicates there
is no significant difference between the responses of the
national presidents and the executive directors on this par-
ticular item. The null hypothesis is therefore accepted.

Even though there was no significant difference on this
item, it is important to note that a total of 61.55 percent
of the national presidents and executive directors agreed
that fraternities should encourage academic teaching in their
houses. A combined total of 16 percent disagreed, 21.5 had

no Opinion and 1.5 percent did not respond.

Table 45. A Comparison of the Responses of National Presidents
and Executive Directors with Respect to the Teaching
of Academic Subjects in Fraternity Houses

No No
Res . Agree Disagree Opinion Total
N0 N% N% N% 151%

 

National
Presidents 1(2.86) 21(60.00 7(20.00) 6(17.14) 55(100.00)

 

 

Executive

Directors 0(0) 25(62.50) 5(12.50) 10(25.00) 40(100.00)

Total 1(1.55) 46(61.55)12(16.00) 16(21.55) 75(100.00)
x2 = 2.558

Degrees of Freedom = 5

Not statistically significant.

105

Item 46 is concerned with the age-old problem of
seniors moving out of the fraternity house. A chi-square
test indicates that there is no significant difference be—
tween the national presidents and executive directors on this
item. The null hypothesis is therefore accepted.

As indicated in Table 46, 45.7 percent of the national
presidents agreed that if the house was full, seniors could
move out° Some 40 percent disagreed, about 11 percent had
no opinion, and over 2 percent did not respond. A slightly
lower percentage (57.5 percent) of all of the executive
directors agreed. However, a larger percentage (55 percent)

disagreed and 7.5 had no Opinion.

Table 46. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Whether Seniors Should
Live Outside the Fraternity House if It Is Full

 

No No
Res . Agree Disagree Opinion Total
N N 7 N 7 N 7 N %

 

National
Presidents 1(2.86) 16(45.71) 14(40.00) 4(11.45) 55(100.00)

 

 

Executive

Directors 0(0) 15(57.50) 22(55.00) 5(7.50) 40(100.00)

Total 1(1.55) 31(41.35) 56(48.00) 7(9.55) 75(100.00)
x2 = 2.651

Degrees of Freedom = 5

Not statistically significant.

106

The expansion of fraternities into state supported
schools rather than private colleges is the main concern of
Item 47. A chi-square test indicates that there is no sig-
nificant difference between the responses of national
presidents and executive directors. The null hypothesis is
therefore accepted.

As indicated in Table 47, 76 percent of the national
presidents and executive directors disagreed with this item.
Only 5.5 percent of the national presidents and executive
directors agreed, about 14.6 percent had no opinion, and 4

percent did not respond to this item.

Table 47. A Comparison of National President and Executive
Directors with Respect to Fraternity Expansion in
State Supported Institutions as Opposed to Private

 

 

Institutions
No No
Resp. Agree Disagree Opinion Total
N7 N7 N7 N7 N7

 

National
Presidents 5(8.57) 1(2.86) 26(74.29) 5(14.29) 55(100.00)

 

 

Executive

Directors 0(0) 5(7.50) 51(77.50) 6(15.00) 40(100.00)

Total 5(4.00) 4(5.55) 57(76.00) 11(14.67) 75(100.00)
x2 = 4.215

5

Not statistically significant.

Degrees of Freedom

107

Item 48 points out a serious problem that has confronted
fraternities on many campuses, that they are in but not a_part
of the academic community. A chi-square test indicates that
there is no significant difference between the responses of
national presidents and executive directors on this item.

The null hypothesis is therefore accepted.

As indicated in the table, 54.29 percent of the national
presidents agreed that many school officials see fraternities
as in but not a part of the academic community. Some 28.5
percent of the presidents disagreed and 17.14 had no opinion.
A much higher percentage, 70 percent, of the executive directr
ors agreed, 20 percent disagreed, 7.5 had no opinion and a

little over 2 percent did not respond to the question.

Table 48. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Whether Fraternities are
Considered by Many School Officials as In but Not
a Part of the Academic Community

 

 

 

No No

Resp. Agree Disagree Opinion Total

N7 N7 N7 N7 N7
National
Presidents 0(0) 19(54.29) 10(28.57) 6(17.14) 55(100.00)
Executive

Directors 1(2.50) 28(70.00) 8(20.00) 5(7.50) 40(100.00)

 

Total 1(1.55) 47(62.67) 18(24.00) 9(12.00) 75(100.00)

 

x2 = 5.628
Degrees of Freedom = 5

Not statistically significant.

108

Scholarship has long been a major concern of most fra—
ternities. Table 49 points out the mixed feeling that many
national officers have as to whether the level of fraternity
scholarship is consistently higher than the level all-
university scholarship. The chi-square test indicates however,
that there is no significant differences between them on this
item. The null hypothesis is therefore accepted.

Even though there is no significant difference between
the two groups, it should be noted that 45.5 percent of the
national presidents and executive directors agreed that
scholarship was higher, 52 percent disagreed, 17 percent had

no opinion, and 5.5 percent did not respond.

Table 49. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors Concerning Their Opinions of Whether
Fraternity Scholarship is Consistently Higher
Than the All University Scholarship.

 

No No
ReSp. Agree Disagree Opinion Total
N 7 N 7 N 7 N 7 N 7

 

National
Presidents 2(5.71) 15(42.86) 15(57.14) 5(14.29) 55(100.00)

Executive
Directors 2(5.00) 19(47.50) 11(27.50) 8(20.00) 40(100.00)

 

Total 4(5.55) 54(45.55) 24(52.00) 15(17.55) 75(100.00)

 

x2 = 1.001
Degrees of Freedom = 5

Not statistically significant.

109

Item 50 deals with the importance of placing more
emphasis on the fraternity ideal and purpose. A chi-square
test indicates that there is no significant difference be-
tween the responses of national presidents and executive
directors on this item. The null hypothesis is therefore
accepted.

As indicated in Table 50, 94.29 percent of the national
presidents think more emphasis should be placed on the fra-
ternity ideal. None of them disagreed and a little over 5
percent had no opinion. A slightly higher percentage, 95
percent, of the executive directors agreed, there are no
disagreements, 2.5 percent had no opinion, and a little over

2 percent did not respond.

Table 50. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Their Opinions of
Whether More Emphasis Should be Placed on the
Fraternity Ideal and Purpose

 

 

 

 

 

No No

Res . Agree Disagree Opinion Total

N N7 N7 N7 N7
National
Presidents 0(0) 55(94.29) 0(0) 2(5.71) 55(100.00)
Executive
Directors 1(2.50) 58(95.00) 0(0) 1(2.50) 40(100.00)
Total 1(1.55) 71(94.67) 0(0) 5(4.00) 75(100.00)

x2 = 1.558

Degrees of Freedom = 2

Not statistically significant.

110

Item 51 compared the opinions of national presidents
and executive directors as to whether NIC should develop an
educational office. A chi-square test indicates that there
is no significant difference between the responses of
national presidents and executive directors on this particu-
lar item. The null hypothesis is therefore accepted.

As indicated in Table 51, 42.8 percent of the national
presidents agreed that an educational office should be de—
veloped. About 28.5 percent disagreed and some 28.5 percent
had no opinion on this item. A much higher percentage (70
percent) of the executive directors agreed, 10 percent dis-
agreed, 17.5 percent had no opinion, and only 2.5 percent

did not respond on the item.

Table 51. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Whether the NIC should
Develop an Office of Educational Research

 

No No
ReSp. Agree Disagree Opinion Total

N7 N7 N7 N7 N7

 

National
Presidents 0(0) 15(42.80) 10(28.57) 10(28.57) 55(100.00)

Executive
Directors 1(2.50) 28(70.00) 4(10.00) 7(17.50) 40(100.00)

 

Total 1(1.55) 45(57.55) 14(18.67) 17(22.67) 75(100.00)

 

x2 = 7.752

Degrees of Freedom

5

Not statistically significant.

111

It is evident from the data in Table 51 that the major-
ity of national presidents and executive directors believe
it is important for NIC to have an educational research office.
The possible explanation for the higher percentage of execu—
tive directors who agreed as compared to the national presi-
dents is that possibly the executive directors are working
more closely with the on-going program.

Table 52 compares the national presidents and executive
directors with respect to NIC developing a leadership school
for executive directors. A chi-square test indicates that
there is no significant difference between the responses of
the groups on this particular item. The null hypothesis is

therefore accepted.

Table 52. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to NIC Developing a National
Leadership School

 

 

 

No No

Res . Agree Disagree Opinion Total

N N7 N7 N7 N7
National
Presidents 0(0) 12(54.29) 15(42.86) 8(22.86) 55(100.00)
Executive

Directors 1(2.50) 16(40.00) 21(52.50) 2(5.00) 40(100.00)

 

Total 1(1.55) 28(57.55) 56(48.00) 10(15.55) 75(100.00)

 

X2 = 5.864
Degrees of Freedom = 5

Not statistically significant.

112

As indicated in Item 52, 42.8 percent of the national
presidents disagreed, about 54.2 percent agreed, 22.8 had
no Opinion and all of the presidents responded to the ques—
tion. A slightly higher percentage, 52.5 percent Of the
executive directors disagreed, some 40 percent agreed, about
5 percent had no opinion, and a little over 2.5 percent
failed to respond to the question.

The question of expansion into teachers' colleges has
long been a question of debate among the national fraternity
officers. Table 55 points out a distinct trend in their
thinking in this area. A chi-square test indicates, however,
that there are no significant differences between the re-
sponses of the national presidents and the executive directors

on this item. The null hypothesis is therefore accepted.

Table 55. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Establishment of Fra-
ternities in Teachers Colleges

 

 

 

NO No

Resp. Agree Disagree Opinion Total

N7 N7 N7 N7 N7
National
Presidents 0(0) 22(62.86) 7(20.00) 6(17.14) 55(100.00)
Executive
Directors 0(0) 54(85.00 2(5.00 4(10.00) 40(100.00)
Total 0(0) 56(74.67) 9(12.00) 10(15.55) 75(100.00)

x2 = 5.440

2

Not statistically significant.

Degrees of Freedom

115

This positive thinking on the part of national presi-
dents and executive directors in regard to expansion into
teachers' college is a relatively new concept. The most
significant point is the overwhelming total percentage that
agreed to expanding in this area. As indicated in the chart,
76 percent agreed, about 12 percent disagreed and some 15,
percent had no opinion.

Item 54 deals with one of the most basic concerns of
all national Officers, why undergraduates see little relation-
ship between the idealistic purpose of the fraternity and
the day-to-day progress and Operation of the chapter. A chi-
square indicates that there is no significant difference
between the responses of each group. The null hypothesis is

therefore accepted.

Table 54. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Their Opinions on Whether
Undergraduates See the Relationship Between Ideal-
istic Purpose of Fraternities and Day-to-Day
Operations and Purposes of Their Chapter

 

 

—0

No No
Resp. Agree Disagree Opinion Total
N7 N7 N7 N7 N7

 

National
Presidents 0(0) 51(88.57) 2(5.71) 2(5.71) 55(100.00)

Executive
Directors 1(2.50) 52(80.00) 6(15.00) 1(2.50) 40(100.00)

 

Total 1(1.55) 65(84.00) 8(10.67) 5(4.00) 75(100.00)

 

x2 = 5.029

Degrees of Freedom

5

Not statistically significant

114

Once again the total computation of both groups seems
to point out the need and the concern they have for this area.
As you can see in Table 54, the presidents show an even
greater concern than the directors over the comparatively
small relationship that exists between the idealistic purpose
of the fraternity and the day-to-day operation and progress
of the chapter. From the total group it is interesting to
note that some 84 percent agreed, only about 10 percent dis-
agreed, 4 percent had no Opinion, and a little over one per-
cent did not respond.

Table 55 portrays the willingness of the national presi-
dents and executive directors to support a student aid program
for undergraduate members. A chi—square test indicates, how—
ever, that there is no significant difference between them on

this item. The null hypothesis is therefore accepted.

Table 55. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Whether National Fra-
ternities Should Maintain a Student Aid Program

 

 

No NO

Resp. Agree Disagree Opinion Total

N 7 N 7 N 7 N 7 N 7
National
Presidents 0(0) 29(82.86) 4(11.45) 2(5.71) 55(100.00)
Executive

Directors 1(2.50) 52(80.00) 4(10.00) 5(7.50) 40(100.00)

 

Total 1(1.55) 61(81.55) 8(10.67) 5(6.67) 75(100.00)

 

x2 = 1.019
Degrees of Freedom 5

Not statistically significant

115

As indicated in the table, 52 percent of the national
presidents agreed that they should maintain a student aid
program. Only about 11 percent disagreed and less than 6 per-
cent had no opinion. The attitude expressed by the executive
directors with regards to this item was that about 80 percent
of them agreed, some 10 percent disagreed, and slightly over
7 percent did not respond. One, however, failed to respond
to the question.

A comparison of national presidents and executive di-
rectors as to whether they should have experience in higher
education prior to assuming their current positions is the
essence of Item 56. A chi-square indicates that there is no
significant difference between the responses of national
presidents and executive directors. The null hypothesis is

therefore accepted.

Table 56. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Whether the Executive
Directors Should Have Experience in Higher Education
Before Assuming His Position

T
J

 

 

 

NO NO

Res . Agree Disagree Opinion Total

N N7 N7 N7 N7
National
presidents 5(8.57) 10(28.57) 16(45.71) 6(17.14) 55(100.00)
Executive
Directors 0(0) 16(40.00) 15(57.50) 9(22.50) 40(100.00)
Total 5(4.00) 26(54.67) 51(41.55) 15(20.00) 75(100.00)

X2 = 4.704

5

Not statistically significant.

Degrees of Freedom

116

There seemed to be a lack of understanding of this
question on the part of national presidents since about 8 per-
cent of them did not respond and slightly over 17 percent had
no Opinion. A similar situation also exists with the execu-
tive directors, 22 percent of whom had no Opinion though they
all responded. The total percent Of national presidents and
executive directors who agreed and disagreed seems to point
to a feeling Of mixed concern over this item.

With the tremendous amount of time a national president
spends on the job, the question has often been raised whether
this person should receive a salary from the national fra-
ternity. However, the attitude of both the national presidents
and executive directors regarding this issue is pointed out

in Table 57 very explicitly.

Table 57. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Whether the National
President Should Receive a Salary

 

 

 

 

No No

Res . Agree Disagree Opinion Total

N N7 N7 N7 N7
National
Presidents 0(0) 0(0) 55(94.29) 2(5.70) 55(100.00)
Executive
Directors 0(0) 1(2.50) 52(80.00) 7(17.50) 40(100.00)
Total 0(0) 1(1.55) 65(86.67) 9(12.00) 75(100.00)

x2 = 5.475

2

Not statistically significant

Degrees of Freedom

117

An overwhelming 94 percent of the national presidents
do not feel they should receive a salary and about 80 percent
Of the executive directors feel the same way. Only 2 percent
of both national presidents and executive directors agreed
that they should, 12 percent had no Opinion and everybody
responded to the question.

A chi-square indicates no significant difference. There-
fore the null hypothesis is accepted.

Item 58 is concerned with the importance of a summer
rush program since many universities are operating on a 12
month campus calendar. A chi-square test indicates that there
is no significant difference between the national presidents
and the executive directors on this item. The null hypothe-

sis is therefore accepted.

Table 58. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Whether Fraternities
Should have Organized Summer Rush Programs

 

 

NO No
Res . Agree Disagree Opinion Total
N7p N7 N7 N7 N7

 

National
Presidents 1(2.86) 22(62.86) 5(14.29) 7(20.00) 55(100.00)

 

 

Executive

Directors 1(2.50) 29(72.50) 5(7.50) 7(17.50) 40(100.00)

Total 2(2.67) 51(68.00) 8(10.67) 14(18.67) 75(100.00)
x2 = 1.152

5

Not statistically significant.

Degrees of Freedom

118

As indicated in Item 58, 62 percent of the national
presidents agreed that an organized summer program was im-
portant; some 14 percent disagreed, 20 percent had no Opinion
and about 5 percent did not respond. A slightly higher per-
centage (72.15) percent of the executive directors agreed.
Approximately 7.5 percent disagreed, 17.5 had no opinion and
a little over 2.5 percent did not respond.

The purpose of Item 59 was to get the actual perception
of national presidents and executive directors as to whether
they thought deans of students were sympathetic to college
fraternities. A chi-square test indicates that there is no
significant difference between the national presidents and
executive directors as to show they view the deans' feelings

towards fraternities. The null hypothesis is accepted.

Table 59. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with ReSpect to Whether Deans of Students
are Sympathetic to College Fraternities

 

No NO
ReSp. Agree Disagree Opinion Total
N7 N7 N7 N7 N7

 

 

 

National

Presidents 0(0) 22(62.86) 4(11.45) 9(25.71) 55(100.00)

Executive

Presidents 0(0) 25(57.50) 5(12.50) 12(50.00) 40(100.00)

Total 0(0) 45(60.00) 9(12.00) 21(28.00) 75(100.00)
X2 = 0.250

Degrees of Freedom = 2

Not statistically significant.

119

The total percent points out significantly, however,
that there is a relatively good feeling on the part of nation-
al Officers with respect to how deans Of students feel toward
fraternities. As indicated, some 60 percent agreed that
deans of students are sympathetic, 12 percent disagreed, 28
percent had no opinion and everybody.responded to the question.
A similar question was asked in Item 60. However, this
time the question was how they thought college presidents
View fraternities. Since most of these people have very little
contact with presidents, it was interesting to note that
about 55 percent of the national presidents had no opinion
and some 52.5 percent of the executive directors felt the

same way.

Table 60. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Whether College Presidents
are Sympathetic to Fraternities

 

 

 

 

 

No No
Res . Agree Disagree Opinion Total
N7p N7 N7 N7 N7
National
Presidents 0(0) 20(57.14) 5(8.57) 12(54.29) 55(100.00)
Executive
Directors 0(0) 22(55.00) 5(12.50) 15(52.50) 40(100.00)
Total 0(0) 42(56.00) 8(10.67) 25(55.55) 75(100.00)
x2 = 0.505

Degrees of Freedom = 2

Not statistically significant.

120

As indicated in the table, with the combined group of
national presidents and executive directors there is an over-
all total of 57 percent who agreed. A chi-square indicates
that there is no significant difference between the responses
of national presidents and executive directors on this item.
The null hypothesis is therefore accepted.

A comparison of how the fraternity presidents and execu-
tive directors feel about having a library in fraternity
houses is very evident as pointed out in Item 61. A chi-
square test indicates no significant difference between the
groups. The null hypothesis is therefore accepted.

It is interesting to note from the responses in Table 61
that both the national presidents and executive directors

agree almost 100 percent on this item.

Table 61. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Whether All Fraternity
Houses Should Have Chapter Libraries

 

 

 

 

 

No No

Res . Agree Disagree Opinion Total

N N7 N7 N7 N7
National
Presidents 0(0) 54(97.14) 0(0) 1(2.86) 55(100.00)
Executive
Directors 0(0) 40(100.00)O(O) 0(0) 40(100.00)
Total 0(0) 74(100.00)0(0) 0(0) 75(100.00)

x2 = 1.158

Degrees of Freedom = 1

Not statistically significant.

121

Item 62 deals with a comparison of national presidents

and executive directors as to whether the fraternity should

consider initiating a prospective member immediately rather

than have him go through a pledge period.
indicates that there is no
the national president and

particular item.

presidents disagreed,
responded to the question.

percent) of the executive directors disagreed,

As indicated in Item

The null

some

62,

A chi-square test

significant difference between
executive directors on this

hypothesis is therefore accepted.

97.1 percent of the national

2.8 percent agreed,

all presidents
A slightly lower percentage (85

some 7.5 per-

cent agreed that members should be initiated immediately,

5 percent had no Opinion,

question.

 

and 2.5 failed to respond to the

 

 

 

 

 

Table 62. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with ReSpect to Initiating a Prospective
Member Immediately Rather than Have a Pledge Period
No NO
ReSp. Agree Disagree Opinion Total
N7 N7 N7 N7 N7
National
Presidents 0(0) 1(2.86) 54(97.14) 0(0) 55(100.00)
Executive
Directors 1(2.50) 5(7.50) 54(85.00 2(5.00) 40(100.00)
Total 1(1.55) 4(5.55) 68(90.67) 2(2.67) 75(100.00)
x2 = 5.685
Degrees of Freedom = 5

Not statistically significant.

122

The substance of Item 65 is whether the national officers
think the university should assume more responsibility in the
building of fraternity houses. A chi-square test indicates
that there is no significant difference between the responses
on this item. The null hypothesis is therefore accepted.

There is a great deal of similarity among the national
presidents and executive directors on this item. As indicated
in the table the total affirmative feeling was about 48 per-
cent, and the negative response was a little over 57 percent.
Some 14 percent had no Opinion in this area and only one per-

cent of the presidents failed to respond.

Table 65. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Having Universities
Finance New Houses

 

 

No No
Resp. Agree Disagree Opinion Total
N 7 N 7 N 7 N 7 N 7

 

National
Presidents 1(2.86) 16(45.71) 16(45.71) 2(5.71) 55(100.00)

 

 

Executive

Directors 0(0) 20(50.00) 12(50.00) 8(20.00) 40(100.00)

Total 1(1.55) 56(48.00) 28(57.55) 10(15.55) 75(100.00)
x2 = 5.506

5

Not statistically significant.

Degrees of Freedom

125

There seems to be a more positive feeling about making
university land available for the construction of fraternity
houses as opposed to university financing of the construction
as indicated in Item 64 by the responses of the national
presidents and executive directors. A chi-square test indi—
cates that there is no significant difference between the
responses of national presidents and executive directors on
this item.

As indicated in the table, some 76 percent of the
Officers are in favor of the university making land available,

only 11 percent disagree, and 15.5 had no opinion.

Table 64. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Whether Universities
Should Make Land Available for Construction

 

 

 

 

 

NO No

Resp. Agree Disagree Opinion Total

N7 N7 N7 N7 N7
National
Presidents 0(0) 26(74.29) 6(17.14) 5(8.57) 55(100.00)
Executive
Directors 0(0) 51(77.50) 2(5.00) 7(17.50) 40(100.00)
Total 0(0) 57(76.00) 8(10.67) 10(15.55) 75(100.00)

x2 = 5.722

2

Not statistically significant.

Degrees Of Freedom

124

Item 65 is concerned with a comparison of the national
presidents and executive directors with respect to how they
feel about the pledging of graduate students to fraternities.
A chi—square test indicates that there is no significant
difference between the responses of the national presidents
and the executive directors on this item. The null hypothesis
is therefore accepted.

The commonality of responses from both the national
presidents and the executive directors is somewhat surprising
from a percentage viewpoint. When combined about 78.5 perpent
of the national presidents and executive directors agreed.

Only 14.6 disagreed and less than 7 percent had no Opinion.

Table 65. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Graduate Students Being
Allowed to Pledge Fraternities

 

 

NO NO
Res . Agree Disagree Opinion Total
N 0 N 7 N 7 N 7 N 7

 

 

 

National “

Presidents 0(0) 25(71.45) 7(20.00) 5(8.57) 55(100.00)

Executive

Directors 0(0) 54(85.00) 4(10.00) 2(5.00) 40(100.00)

Total 0(0) 59(78.67)11(14.67) 5(6.67) 75(100.00)
x2 = 2.067

2

Not statistically significant.

Degrees of Freedom

125

Whether fraternities should expand into junior colleges
meets with mixed emotions by the national presidents and
executive directors. Table 66 does point out, however, that
there is a desire on the part of some national officers to
expand the fraternity system to junior colleges.

As indicated in the table, 51 percent of the national
presidents agreed, about 49 percent disagreed, and about 20
percent had no Opinion. A slightly higher number of executive
directors (50 percent) disagreed, some 57.5 agreed, and about
12.5 refrained from answering the question. The interesting
aspect of this item is the number of people who had no
opinion on the item at this time.

A chi—square test indicates no significant difference
between the responses. The null hypothesis is therefore

accepted.

Table 66. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Junior College Expansion

 

No No
Resp. Agree Disagree Opinion Total
N 7 N 7 N 7 N 7 N 7

 

 

 

National

Presidents 0(0) 11(51.45) 17(48.57) 7(20.00 55(100.00)

Executive

Directors 0(0) 15(57.50) 20(50.00) 5(12.50) 40(100.00)

Total 0(0) 26(54.67) 27(49.55) 12(16.00) 75(100.00)
x2 = 0.862

2

Not statistically significant.

Degrees of Freedom

126

Item 67 illustrated the attitude of the national presi-
dents and executive directors toward the length of a pledge
period. A chi—square test indicates that there is no sig-
nificant difference between the responses of the national
presidents and executive directors on this particular item.
The null hypothesis is therefore accepted.

As indicated in Table 67, 22.8 percent of the national
presidents thought 8 weeks was the most appropriate length
of time. About 5.8 percent indicated 2 weeks, 8.5 indicated
4 weeks, 8.5 percent indicated 6 weeks, 11.4 indicated 12
weeks, 20 percent indicated 1 term, 17.4 percent indicated
1 semester, and 8.5 percent indicated 6 weeks, 11.4 indicated
12 weeks, 20 percent indicated 1 term, 17.4 percent indicated
1 semester, and 8.5 percent did not respond. A slightly
higher percentage (25 percent) of the executive directors
indicated 12 weeks. Five percent indicated 2 weeks, 10 per-
cent indicated 4 weeks, 20 percent indicated 6 weeks, 20 per-
cent indicated 8 weeks, 7.5 percent indicated 1 term, 7.5
percent indicated 1 semester, and 5 percent failed to answer
the question.

Item 68 is concerned with the attitude of the national
presidents and executive directors as to whether fraternities
require too much time in pledging. A chi-square test indi-
cates that there is no significant difference between the
responses of the national presidents and executive directors

on this item.

127

.00000000m00 >00000

n

0000000 0oz

8000000 00 0000000

000.0 u «x

 

AO0.00HVm> AOO.NOVmAmm.m0vO0 Amw.m0v¢0 Amm.0mv000>m.¢0v00 Amm.mvw 000.000 Awm.mvm

000oe

 

Aoo.OO0VO¢ 00m.nvm 00m.>vm Aoo.mmVO0 Aoo.omvm Aoo.oNvm AO0.00V0 Aoo.mvm Aoo.mvm

000.000me 000.50vm 00.0Nvm Amw.00v¢ Amm.mmvm Amm.mvm Amm.mvm Amm.mv0 Amm.mvm

000000000
0>00000xm

0000000000
0000000Z

 

R Z R Z R Z R Z R Z R Z R Z R Z R Z
00009 00000500 0 E000 0 00003 N0 00003 m 00003 0 0x003 0 00003 N .000m
OZ

 

 

000000 0m000m 000 00 00m000
000 00 0000000 0003 000000000 0>00000xm 000 0000000000 0000000Z 00 0000000800 4

.mm 00908

128

Table 68. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Whether Fraternities
Require Too Much Time of Their Pledges

 

 

No No
Resp. Agree Disagree Opinion Total
N % N % N % N % N %

 

National
Presidents 2(5.70) 6(17.14) 25(65.71) 4(11.45) 55(100.00)

Executive
Directors 2(5.00) 14(55.00) 17(42.50) 7(17.50) 40(1oo.00)

 

Total 4(5.35) 20(26.67) 40(53.35) 11(14.67) 75(100.00)

 

x2 = 4.605
Degrees of Freedom 3

Not statistically significant.

As indicated in the total percentage of both national
presidents and executive directors some 40 percent did not
agree that fraternities require too much time, about 27 per—
cent agreed, and a little less than 15 percent had no opinion.

It is apparent from Table 69 that the national presidents
and executive directors think that being a member of a fra-
ternity enables one to secure better employment. A chi-square
test indicates however, that there is no significant differ-
ence between the responses of both groups on this item.

The null hypothesis is therefore accepted.

As pointed out in the table, 52 percent of the combined
group of national officers agreed. Some 18.5 percent disagreed,
almost 50 percent had no opinion and all of the presidents

and executive directors responded.

129

Table 69. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Whether Being a Fraternity
Member Enables One to Secure Better Employment

 

 

 

 

 

No No

Res . Agree Disagree Opinion Total

N N% N% N% N95
National
Presidents 0(0) 16(45.71) 8(22.86) 11(51.43) 55(100.00)
Executive
Directors 0(0) 23(57.SO) 6(15.00) 11(27.50) 40(100.00)
Total 0(0) 59(52.00)14(18.67) 22(29.55) 75(100.00)

x2 = 1.214

Degrees of Freedom = 2

Not statistically significant

One of the most important questions that has confronted
personnel deans for a long time is whether the college or
university should allow fraternity men to drink in fraternity
houses. Table 70 indicates how the national officers of fra-
ternities feel about this question. A chi-square indicates
that there is no significant difference between the responses
of either group on this item. The null hypothesis is there-
fore accepted.

As indicated in Table 70, 20 percent of the national
presidents agreed that the university should allow drinking
in the fraternity houses. Some 68.5 percent disagreed, and
about 11 percent had no opinion. A slightly larger per-

centage (27 percent) of all executive directors agreed, some

130

62.5 percent disagreed, and 10 percent had no opinion.

Everyone responded to this question.

Table 70. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Drinking in Fraternity

 

 

 

 

 

Houses

No No

ReSp. Agree Disagree Opinion Total

N % N % N % N % N %
National
Presidents 0(0) 7(20.00) 24(68.57) 4(11.45) 55(100.00)
Executive
Directors 0(0) 11(27.50) 25(62.50) 4(10.00) 40(100.oo)
Total 0(0) 18(24.00) 49(65.55) 8(10.67) 75(100.00)

x2 = 0.579

2

Not statistically significant.

Degrees of Freedom

The attitude of the national officers with respect to
Item 71 is consistent with the overall goals and objectives
of fraternity system. A chi—square test indicates that there
is no significant difference between the responses of the
national officers on this item. The null hypothesis is
therefore accepted.

As indicated in the combined total of national presidents
and executive directors, some 86.6 percent agreed, only 4 per-

cent disagreed, and a little over 9 percent had no Opinion.

131

Table 71. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Whether Fraternity Men
Are More Civic Minded

 

 

 

 

 

No No

Res . Agree Disagree Opinion Total

N N% N72 N% N%
National
Presidents 0(0) 27(77.14) 5(8.57) 5(14.29) 35(100.00)
Executive
Directors 0(0) 58(95.00) 0(0) 2(5.00( 40(100.00)
Total 0(0) 65(86.67) 3(4.00) 7(9.53) 75(100.00)

x2 = 5.840

2

Not statistically significant.

Degrees of Freedom

Item 72 reflects the opinions of national presidents
and executive directors with respect to whether fraternities
encourage the moral and spiritual development of the indi-
vidual. A chi-square test indicates that there is no signifi-
cant difference between the responses of national presidents
and executive directors on this particular item.

As indicated in the table, both the national presidents
and executive directors agreed rather strongly that this was
a very important aspect of fraternity life. There was an
overwhelming total of 92 percent that agreed. Only 1.5 per-

cent disagreed and less than 7 percent had no opinion.

152

Table 72. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Fraternities Enc0uraging
the Moral and Spiritual Development of the Individual

 

 

 

 

 

No No

Res . Agree Disagree Opinion Total

N N% N% N% N%
National
Presidents 0(0) 51(88.57 1(2.86) 5(8.57) 55(100.00)
Executive
Directors 0(0) 58(95.00) 0(0) 2(5.00) 40(100.00)
Total 0(0) 69(92.00) 1(1.53) 5(6.67) 75(1oo.oo)

x2 = 1.584

2

Not statistically significant.

Degrees of Freedom

Item 75 indicates the importance national officers place
on the participation of fraternity men in extra-curricular
activities of an all-university nature. A chi-square indi-
cates that there is no significant difference between either
group regarding this item. The null hypothesis is therefore
accepted.

The overwhelming response of both groups on this item
is somewhat indicative of how the national officer thinks
and projects the fraternity image. A total of 98.6 percent
agreed, no one disagreed, and only one executive director

indicated no opinion on this item.

155

Table 75. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Whether Fraternity Men
Should be Encouraged to Participate in Extra-
curricular Activities of an All University Nature

 

 

 

 

 

No No

Resp. Agree Disagree Opinion Total

N70 N% N% N% N%
National
presidents 0(0) 55(100.00)O(O) 0(0) 55(1oo.oo)
Executive
Directors 0(0) 59(97.50) 0(0) 1(2.50) 40(100.00)
Total 0(0) 74(98.67) 0(0) 1(1.55) 75(100.00)

X2 = 0.887

1

Not statistically significant.

Degrees of Freedom

Item 74 is concerned with the socio-economic backgrounds
of fraternity men. A chi-square test indicates that there
is no significant difference between the responses of national
presidents and executive directors on this item. The null
hypothesis is therefore actepted.

As pointed out in Item 74, the majority of national
presidents and executive directors indicated by their re-
sponses that they believe most fraternity men are from middle
socio-economic backgrounds. It is significant and interesting
to note that neither group thought that most fraternity men
were from lower or upper socio-economic backgrounds. Some

12 percent did not respond to Item 74.

154

.00000000000 0000000000000 00Z

 

 

 

m n 8000000 00 0000m00
mmo.m H 00
000.000an on0 Amm.mmvm0 Aoo.OQVm¢ Abm.mvm ono Aoo.m0vm 00008
AO0.000V00 ono Aoo.m0vm. Aoo.obvmm Anm.mvm ono 00m.m0vm 000000000
0>00000xm
000.000va on0 A00.mmvm0 00m.mfivw0 Amm.mv0 ono Am¢.00vw 0000000000
0000000Z
R z R z R 2 R 2 R 2 R z R 2
00008 00000 00000 000002 00300 00300 °000.0
000002 1000002 oz

 

 

002 0000000000 00 0000000000 00Eo0000n00000 000
00 0000000 0003 000000000 0>00000xm 000 0000000000 0000000Z 00 0000000000 0 .00 00009

155

Item 75 concerns the question of whether fraternity
men who fail to meet financial obligations should be deacti-
vated. According to both national presidents and executive
directors, they feel that if a fraternity man fails to meet
his financial obligations by a specified time, he should be
deactivated.

A chi-square test indicates that there is no signifi-
cant difference between the reSponses of national presidents
and executive directors regarding this item. As indicated
in Table 75, 89.3 percent agreed, 5.5 percent disagreed,
only 4 percent had no opinion and one executive director

failed to respond to the question.

Table 7S° A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Whether Fraternity Men
Who Fail to Meet Financial Obligations by a
Specified Time Should be Deactivated

 

 

 

 

No No
Res . Agree Disagree Opinion Total
N%p N% N70 N% N%
National
Presidents 0(0) 30(85.71) 3(8.57) 2(5.71) 55(lO0.00)
Executive
Directors 1(2.50) 57(92.50) 1(2.50) 1(2.50) 40(100.00)
Total 1(1.53) 67(89.35) 4(5.55) 3(4.00) 75(100.00)
x2=2.744

.Degrees of Freedom = 3

INot statistically significant.

136

With the current increase in the number of controversial
speakers appearing on many campuses, Item 76 was designed to
solicit the opinions of national fraternity officers regard-
ing their attitude on this issue.

As indicated in the table, the majority of national
officers believe that fraternity houses should not be used
for this purpose. However the majority of executive directors
agreed. As indicated, 28.5 percent of the presidents agreed,
51.4 disagreed and nearly 20 percent had no opinion on this
important current issue. As indicated, the percentage of
executive directors that agreed was 47.5, while 52.5 percent
disagreed. Once again, a large portion of the directors
(17.5 percent) had no opinion. One director also did not

respond to Item 76.

Table 76. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Whether Fraternity Houses
Should be Used for Controversial Speakers

 

 

 

No No
Resp. Agree Disagree Opinion Total

N% N% N% N% N%

 

National
Presidents 0(0) 10(28.57) 18(51.43) 7(20.00) 35(100.00)

Executive
Directors 1(2.50) 19(47.50) 15(32.50) 7(17.50) 40(100.00)

 

Total 1(1.53) 29(38.67) 51(41.55) 14(18.81) 75(100.00)

 

x2 = 4.285

Degrees of Freedom

5

Not statistically significant.

“HI .3 «£51. -Ialhlfllfld

137

A chi-square indicates that there is no significant
difference between the responses of national presidents and
executive directors on this item. The null hypothesis is
therefore accepted.

Because of the large proportion of national officers
in agreement on Item 77, a possible inference could be drawn
that there is a real need to involve more faculty in fra-
ternity programs. As collectively indicated in the table,
96 percent agreed, no one disagreed, and only 4 percent of
the presidents had no Opinions on this item.

A chi-square test indicates that there is no signifi-
cant difference between the two groups on this item. The

null hypothesis is therefore accepted.

Table 77. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Whether Fraternities
Should Encourage More Faculty and Professional

 

 

 

 

Speeches

No No

Res . Agree Disagree Opinion Total

N N% N% N75 N%
National
Presidents 0(0) 32(91.45) 0(0) 5(8.57) 55(100.00)
Executive
Directors 0(0) 40(100.00)O(O) 0(0) 40(100.00)
Total 0(0) 72(96.00) 0(0) 5(4.00) 75(100.00)

x2 = 5.571

Degrees of Freedom = 1

Not statistically significant.

158

It is evident from the data that the majority of
national presidents and executive directors believe the fra-
ternities should encourage more faculty and professional
Speakers.

Item 78 is concerned with the development of residence
halls on college campuses and whether they have had an effect
on the growth of fraternities. A chi-square indicates that
there is no significant difference between the responses of
the national presidents and executive directors on this

item. The null hypothesis is therefore accepted.

Table 78. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Whether the Development
of Residence Halls on Campuses Has Limited Fra-
ternity Growth

 

 

No No
Resp. Agree Disagree Opinion Total
N76 N% N% N75 N75

 

 

 

National

Presidents 0(0) 20(57.14) 13(37.14) 2(5.71) 55(100.00)

Executive

Directors 0(0) 17(42.50) 17(42.50) 6(15.00) 40(100.00)

Total 0(0) 57(49.55) 50(40.00) 6(15.00) 75(100.00)
x?- = 2.454

2

Not statistically significant.

iDegrees of Freedom

159

As indicated in Table 78, 57.1 percent of the national
presidents agreed that development of residence halls has
limited fraternity growth. Some 57.1 percent disagreed,
about 6 percent expressed no opinion. All presidents re-
sponded. A slightly lower percentage (42.5) of the executive
directors agreed. Some 42 percent disagreed and about 15

percent had no opinion.

DISCUSSION OF THE DATA

Although none of the differences among the items in
this chapter were of significance at .05 level or beyond,
the fact that the responses of national presidents and execu-
tive directors were so similar in many cases and dissimilar
in others is of considerable importance to the study.
Therefore the findings in Part II of the study are listed
here in considerable detail. All items in Part II have been
divided into areas of agreement and disagreement between the
responses of the national presidents and executive directors
of college social fraternities. All those items in which
there was a 10 percent or less difference in the proportion
in each group who agreed or disagreed with the proposition

were included in the category entitled Areas of Agreement.

 

140

AREAS OF AGREEMENT

1. Sixty percent of the national presidents and sixty-
five percent of the executive directors agreed that the inclu-
sion of educational history and philosophy were important in
pledge training programs of undergraduate chapters.

2. Eighty-nine percent of the national presidents and
eighty-three percent of the executive directors agreed that
the undergraduate chapter president is the most important
position in the college fraternity house.

5. Seventy-four percent of the national presidents and
eighty percent of the executive directors agreed that the
local advisor should be a member of the national fraternity
for which they work.

4. Forty-six percent of the national presidents and
forty—three percent of the executive directors indicated
the chapter advisor did not have to be a member of the Uni-
versity faculty.

5. Seventy-one percent of the national presidents and
eighty percent of the executive directors agreed that they
should be notified prior to any disciplinary action taken by
the University against a local chapter.

6. Sixty-three percent of the national presidents and
sixty-five percent of the executive directors did not think
that the University should require first term freshmen to

wait until the end of the first marking period before pledging.

141

7. Sixty percent of the national presidents and sixty-
three percent of the executive directors agreed that fra-
ternities should encourage the teaching of academic subjects
in their fraternity houses.

8. Seventy-four percent of the national presidents
and seventy—eight percent of the executive directors indicated
that fraternities expansion should take place both in state
supported schools as well as in private institutions.

9. Forty-three percent of the national presidents and
forty—five percent of the executive directors agree that
fraternity scholarship is consistently higher than the all-
University scholarship.

10. Ninety—four percent of the national presidents and
ninety—five percent of the executive directors agreed that
more emphasis should be placed on the fraternity ideal and
purpose.

11. Thirty-four percent of the national presidents and
forty percent of the executive directors agreed that the
National Interfraternity Conference should develop a national
leadership school.

12. Eighty-eight percent of the national presidents and
eighty percent of the executive directors agree that too many
undergraduate fraternity members see little relationship be—
tween the idealistic purposes of the fraternity and the day-

to-day operation and progress of their chapter.

142

15. Eighty-two percent of the national presidents and
eighty percent of the executive directors agreed that nation-
al social fraternities should maintain a student aid program.

14. Ninety-four percent of the national presidents and
eighty percent of the executive directors indicated that
national presidents should not receive a salary.

15. Sixty-three percent of the national presidents and
seventy-three percent of the executive directors agree that
fraternities should have an organized summer rush program.

16. Sixty—three percent of the national presidents and
fifty—eight percent of the executive directors agree that
deans of students are sympathetic to college fraternities.

17. Fifty-seven percent of the national presidents and
fifty-five percent of the executive directors agreed that
college presidents are sympathetic towards having fraterni-
ties on their campuses.

18. Ninety—seven percent of the national presidents
and one hundred percent of the executive directors agreed
that fraternities should have chapter libraries.

19. Ninety—seven percent of the national presidents and
eighty-five percent of the executive directors indicated that
fraternities should not initiate a prospective member im-
mediately. He should go through a pledge program.

20. Seventy-four percent of the national presidents and
seventy-eight percent of the executive directors agreed that
universities should make land available for the new construc-

tion of fraternity houses.

145

21. Twenty-three percent of the national presidents and
twenty percent of the executive directors agreed that all
fraternities should allow at least a period of eight weeks
for pledging. As indicated in Table 67, the largest percentage
of national officers were in this category.

22. Sixty-nine percent of the national presidents and
sixty-three percent of the executive directors indicated
that universities should not allow fraternity men to drink
in chapter houses.

25. Eighty—six percent of the national presidents and
ninety-five percent of the executive directors agreed that
fraternities encourage the moral and spiritual development
of the individual.

24. One hundred percent of the national presidents
and ninety-eight percent of the executive directors agreed
that fraternity men should be encouraged to participate in
extra-curricular activities of an all-university nature.

25. Eighty-six percent of the national presidents
and ninety-three percent of the executive directors agreed
that fraternity men who fail to meet financial obligations
by a specified time should be deactivated.

26. Ninety-one percent of the national presidents and
one hundred percent of the executive directors agreed that
fraternities should encourage more faculty and professional

speeches.

144
AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT

1. Forty-six percent of the national presidents and
fifty-nine percent of the executive directors indicated that
the ideal size of a fraternity house is between 51-75 men.

2. Sixty-nine percent of the national presidents and
only fifty-three percent of the executive directors agreed
that the university should require all fraternities to have
housemothers.

5. Forty percent of the national presidents and fifty-
five percent of the executive directors indicated that they
did not agree that if the fraternity house is full, men of
senior status should be given permission to move out.

4. Fifty-four percent of the national presidents and
seventy percent of the executive directors agreed that fra-
ternities are considered by many school officials as in,
but not a part of the academic community.

5. Forty-two percent of the national presidents and
seventy percent of the executive directors agreed that the
NIC should develop an educational office that would perform
research in the area of higher education.

6. Sixty-eight percent of the national presidents and
eighty-five percent of the executive directors agreed that
fraternities should expand into teachers colleges.

7. Twenty-nine percent of the national presidents and

forty percent of the executive directors agreed that executive

145

directors should have experience in higher education before
assuming his position.

8. Forty-six percent of the national presidents and
thirty percent of the executive directors disagreed that
the University should assume some of the financing for build-
ing of new fraternity houses.

9. Seventy-one percent of the national presidents and
eighty-five percent of the executive directors agreed that
graduate students should be allowed to pledge fraternities.

10. Sixty—six percent of the national presidents and
forty—three percent of the executive directors disagreed
that fraternities require too much time of their pledges.

11. Forty-six percent of the national presidents and
fifty-eight percent of the executive directors agreed that
being a member of a fraternity enables one to secure better
employment.

12. Seventy-seven percent of the national presidents
and ninety-five percent of the executive directors agreed
that fraternity men are more civic-minded.

15. Forty-nine percent of the national presidents and
seventy percent of the executive directors think most fra-
ternity men are from middle social economic backgrounds.

14. Fifty-one percent of the national presidents and
thirty-three percent of the executive directors disagree that
fraternity houses should be used for controversial speakers.

15. Forty-nine percent of the national presidents and

fifty-six percent of the executive directors disagreed that

fraternities should expand in the area of junior colleges.

146

15. Fifty—seven percent of the national presidents and
forty-three percent of the executive directors agreed that
the development of residences on college campuses has limited

fraternity growth.

SUMMARY

According to the data in Chapter V, most of the national
presidents and executive directors tend to agree with the
items dealing with pledge education, importance of local
chapter presidents, local advisor, disciplinary procedures,
fraternity expansion in both state and private schools,
scholarship, ideals and purposes, development of leadership
school, financial assistance, formal summer programs, attitudes
of deans of students and college presidents towards fraterni-
ties, chapter libraries, university land for construction,
junior college expansion, no drinking in chapter houses,
moral and spiritual development, extra-curricular activities,
deactivation for neglect of financial obligations, and the
encouragement of more faculty and professional Speeches.

There was disagreement by the national president and
executive director on those items dealing with university
requiring housemothers, senior privileges, fraternity being
in but not a part of the academic community, development of
educational office by National Interfraternity Conference,

expansion into teachers colleges, experiences in higher edu-

cation for executive director prior to present position,

 

147

pledging graduate students, university finances for new
fraternity houses, employment opportunities, length of pledge
period, social economic background, civic mindedness, contro-

versial speakers, development of residence halls and the

ideal size of fraternity chapters.

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Problem

 

The primary purpose of this study was two-fold: (1) to
examine and compare personal characteristics of the executive
directors and national presidents of college social fraterni-
ties, and (2) to examine and compare the selected perceptions
of national presidents and executive directors as to how they
view the role of the social fraternity in higher education.
It was thought that such a study would provide data that
would help fraternity leaders develop a better understanding
of themselves and their organizations and, at the same time,
assist members of the university staff and the general public
to gain a better understanding of the college social fra-
ternity.

This study was conducted during the fall term of 1965.
The instrument used to measure the selected personal character-
istics and perceptions was mailed to all national presidents
and executive directors of college social fraternities that
were members of the National Interfraternity Conference and
in good standing with the College Fraternity Secretary's

Association.

148

 

149

Although 70 percent of the questionnaires were returned,
only 68 percent of the results obtained constitute the data
in this study. Of the 75 usable questionnaires, 55 were
returned by national presidents and 40 were returned by execu-

tive directors.

The Design and Procedures of the Study

 

A 78 item instrument was developed to examine selected
personal characteristics and perceptions of national presi-
dents and executive directors of college social fraternities
and how they view the role of their organization in higher
education. The questionnaire method was used because it
seemed the best way to reach the widely dispersed national
officers.

The first part of the instrument was concerned with
selected personal data on both national presidents and execu-
tive directors. The information from this section of the
instrument was used to evaluate the data in Part II of the
questionnaire. It was theorized that the demographic data
would be helpful in understanding any differences existing
between the selected perceptions of executive directors and
national presidents who work with national social fraternities.

The second part of the instrument consisted of selected
questions designed to obtain the perceptions of national
presidents and executive directors of American college social
fraternities with respect to how they perceive the role of

social fraternities in higher education.

150

The sample in the study consisted of 110 people, 55 of
whom were national presidents and 55 of whom were executive
directors of college social fraternities. A questionnaire
was mailed out to both national presidents and executive
directors of each of the fraternities. Of the 110 question-
naires mailed out, 78 were returned. Two questionnaires that
were returned were not filled out properly and were not in-
cluded in the final tabulations. The other was received
after the data had been processed. Of the 75 usable question-
naires, 55 were returned by national presidents, and 40 were
returned by executive directors. This constitutes a usable
return of over 68 percent of the total number of question-
naires that were mailed out.

The statistic used for analyzing the data in this study
was a Chi square. For the purpose of interpreting this
statistical data the .05 level of confidence was used to
determine statistical significance in both Part I and Part II
of the questionnaire.

As a final follow-up, Part I of the questionnaire was
submitted to the national presidents and executive directors
who did not participate in the study in order to determine if
there was any difference between the personal characteristics
of the 70 percent that responded and the 50 percent of the
national officers who failed to respond. Of the 110 question-
naires mailed out in the final follow-up, 18 questionnaires

were returned. These included questionnaires from two

151

national presidents and sixteen executive secretaries.46

However; rm) observable (iifferences were found between the
personal characteristics of those who contributed data to
the study and those who did not.

This would have one to believe that had these additional
18 national officers responded, they would probably have re-
Sponded in the same way as those who had completed the entire

questionnaire.

Findings of the Study

 

The following is a list of those items that were found
to be statistically significant at .05 level or beyond:

1. National presidents are older than executive di-
rectors of college social fraternities.

2. National presidents have lived longer in their
present community than executive directors of College
social fraternities.

5. More executive directors than national presidents
obtained their first job after graduation from college
through fraternity contacts.

4. More executive directors than national presidents
are full-time salary employed.

5. National presidents have a higher annual income than
do executive directors of college social fraternities.

6. More national presidents than executive directors

have held alumni chapter offices.

 

46See Appendix C.

152

7. More executive directors than national presidents
of college social fraternities have sons who hold membership

in the same fraternity.

Discussion of the Data on Perceptions

 

1. The majority of national presidents and executive
directors believe that it is important to include some of the
university's history and philosophy in its pledge program.

If the history and philosophy of the educational institution
were included in the pledge program it is reasonable to
assume that this would help create a closer relationship be-
tween the University and the national fraternity through a
deeper understanding of the goals of the institution on the
part of all fraternity members.

2. National presidents and executive directors agree
that the house president is the most important position in
the chapter house. This is contrary to the belief of many
fraternity advisors and personnel deans who feel that the
position of treasurer is the most important position because
this is the area that unless properly managed creates many
difficulties in the relationship between the fraternity and
the university and the greater community. A lack of responsi—
bility in this area can affect the entire chapter.

5. Most of the national presidents and executive di-
rectors believe it is important for the local advisor to be

a member of the national fraternity as opposed to being on

155

the faculty. It is reasonable to assume that the national
officers believe the advisor will have a greater understand-
ing of the fraternity and that there will be little question
of his loyalty to the organization. This would not neces-
sarily be the feeling of college personnel deans. It is the
feeling of many college deans that if the teaching faculty
were more involved this would help bridge this gap of
fraternities not being a real part of the academic community.

4. A majority of the national presidents and executive
directors believe that the fraternity chapter should be be-
tween 51 and 75 men. There is also some evidence that this
is the optimum size for successful financial operation.

Many national officers have also experienced that if and
when fraternity chapters get much larger they tend to split
into two groups which creates many internal problems.

5. National presidents and executive directors feel that
any disciplinary action against a chapter should be discussed
with a national officer prior to any final action by the dean
of students office. It may be that many national officers
think that the university personnel are somewhat hasty in
making disciplinary decisions. A second premise could be that
the national office does not trust the dean of students office
to take appropriate action for a particular disciplinary
offense. In most cases any internal disciplinary action that
is taken by the university is not usually discussed prior to

the final dispostion of the case.

154

6. A large percentage of national presidents and execu-
tive directors indicated that fraternities should encourage
the teaching of academic subjects in their respective houses.
It is hoped that perhaps by offering classroom facilities
in the various fraternity houses that this would stimulate
more of a living-learning concept similar to that in the
residence hall programs at many universities. Although this
is generally considered a new concept, it would definitely
create more of an academic identity for fraternity houses.

7. It is a general feeling among national presidents
and executive directors that fraternity expansion should take
place in both state supported institutions and private c01-
leges. There has been a trend in the East, especially in
private colleges to evaluate the entire area of fraternal
life. In some Eastern colleges such as Williams College,
fraternities have recently been abolished from the campus
and substituted with local organizations.

8. The majority of national presidents and executive
directors agree that on most campuses fraternity scholarship
is consistently higher than the all-university average.

Since it was not an overwhelming percentage of national of-
ficers that agreed, it would lead one to believe that more
research in this area of fraternity scholarship is needed.
Fraternities need to equate the importance of scholarship with
the many other programs that are being conducted by the local

chapter.

155

9. From the available information the majority of
national presidents and executive directors agree that more
emphasis should be placed on the fraternity ideal and purpose.
There also seems to be a real concern on the part of national
officers that the individual chapter members see no relation-
ship between the purposes of the fraternity and the day-t0-
day operations of the chapter. In view of the large number
of journal articles that have appeared in fraternity maga-
zines lately dealing with this subject, the national fraterni—
ties are placing a great deal of emphasis in this area.

10. Although a large percentage of national presidents
and executive directors agreed that the National Interfra-
ternity Conference should maintain a national leadership
school for national officers, there was, however, a higher
portion who disagreed with this statement. The response on
this item may be indicative of a feeling on the part of
national officers that the individual fraternity autonomy is
more important than a centralized leadership school for execu-
tive directors. Because of their previous relationship and
experience with the National Interfraternity Conference,
many executive directors do not see leadership training as a
part of the role of the National Interfraternity Conference.

11. It is evident from the data that the majority of
national presidents and executive directors feel that national
fraternities should maintain a student aid program. In View

of the rising cost of attending college, a program of this

156

nature could be extremely valuable not only to the individual
fraternity member but, also, in demonstrating to colleges

and universities that fraternities are really interested in
assisting the educational needs of their members.

12. It is evident from the data that as universities
change to meet rapid increases in enrollment, the summer
organized fraternity rush programs will become an accepted
pattern. Many colleges and universities now offer complete
programs throughout the entire calendar year. From the
responses it seemed apparent that national officers wanted to
modity their program in order to be a part of this change.

15. The majority of national presidents and executive
directors seemed to agree that both deans of students and
college presidents are sympathetic to college fraternities.
Perhaps it could be generalized that on campuses where
fraternities have not lived up to their purposes and educa—
tional objectives this has had some effect on the attitudes
of deans and presidents of that particular college or uni-
versity. However, the very fact that fraternities do exist
on college campuses seems to indicate to national officers
how most administrators feel about fraternities.

14. Almost one hundred percent of the national presidents
and executive directors agreed that all fraternity houses
should have a library. The more that can be accomplished to
make fraternities a real part of the academic community, the
better they will be able to cope with the changes that are

rapidly taking place in higher education.

157

15. Most of the national presidents and executive di-
rectors disagreed that fraternities should consider initiat-
ing a prospective member immediately rather than having him
go through.a pledge period. Even though considerable dis—
cussion has been given to this item at various National
Interfraternity Conference conventions, the majority of
national officers feel that a minimum of eight weeks should
be devoted-to a pledge period. However, educational programs
should be substituted for other types of unnecessary activi-
ties during pledgeship.

16. It can be assumed from the data that national of-
ficers of college social fraternities would appreciate having
universities make land available for fraternity houses.
However, the indication is that national fraternities still
want to remain somewhat financially independent from the
university in which they are located. Perhaps this could
explain the rather positive response to the notion that uni—
versities make land available as opposed to providing finances.

17. The majority of national presidents and executive
directors agreed that fraternity men should not drink in the
fraternity house. The attitude of the national officers on
this issue is probably based on a great many unfortunate
incidents that have been attributed to alcohol. Therefore
it is quite easy to understand why they feel that men should
not drink in the chapter house. Several also indicated that
they want their chapters to comply with the local social

rules and regulations or state laws.

158

18. Most national presidents and executive directors
agreed that fraternities encourage the moral and spiritual
deve10pment of the individual. The overwhelming responses
to this item by the national officers supports the general
belief that they still place a great deal of importance on
the fraternity decalog which encompasses the above items as
one of the fraternities' most basic principles. The large
positive response by national offices could also indicate a
need in this area of moral and spiritual development on the
part of many individual fraternity members throughout the
United States and Canada.

19. Practically one hundred percent of both the national
presidents and executive directors agreed that fraternity
men should be encouraged to participate in extra activities
of an all—university nature. Once again this item re-
emphasizes the importance that the national officers place on
principles expressed in the fraternity decalog which encourages
participation in many outside-the-classroom activities as part
of its basic principles.

20. National presidents and executive directors over—
whelmingly believe that men who fail to meet financial obli-
gations in a specified period of time should be deactivated
from the fraternity. The solidarity of feeling in this item
is perhaps due in part to the unfortunate experiences that
the national fraternities have been involved in over the past

years. This would usually entail hiring a lawyer, turning

159

names over to a collection agency, and trying to establish
contact with the fraternity member. It is their feeling
that if action by the national, the local chapter, and uni-
versity can take place prior to graduation, the financial
obligation can be resolved a lot easier for all concerned.

21. Most of the national presidents and executive di-
rectors believe college fraternities should encourage more
faculty and professional speeches in the various fraternity
houses. This would be another way that fraternities could
facilitate a living-learning concept. It might be concluded
that national officers see a weakness in the fraternity sys-
tem as it relates to faculty and academic involvement. It
reaffirms the thinking of personnel deans that fraternities
could do a lot more in the area of faculty involvement in
their various programs.

22. It is evident from the data that the majority of
national presidents and executive directors believe it is
important for the National Interfraternity Conference to
have an educational research office. The reason for the much
higher percentage of executive directors who agree, as com-
pared to national presidents, is probably that the executive
directors are more closely involved with the on-going fra-
ternity program. They are also the only real link between
the national organization and the university. Therefore, it
would be very helpful to them as a group if the National

Interfraternity Conference developed a research office to

160

help them evaluate the changes that are taking place in higher
education that affect fraternities.

25. The majority of national presidents and executive
directors combined believed that graduate students should be
allowed to pledge fraternities. The reason for the higher
percentage of executive directors as compared to national
presidents is that they are more closely involved with the
changes on the campus. It may be that they also consider this
an additional source of manpower. Such a policy could also
help to create more of an academic atmosphere in the fraterni-
ty house.

24. Most of the presidents and executive directors
believe that fraternity men are from middle socio-economic
backgrounds. This is a similar conclusion to the one that
Dr. John W. Henderson reached in his study on Greek letter
fraternities at Michigan State University in 1958. He also
indicated that the fraternity graduate was generally married,
had children, lived in a suburban middle-sized city, was
salary employed, a Republican, a church-goer, and had obtained
an education and salary at a higher level of occupational
hierarchy.

25. National presidents and executive directors tend to
believe that many school officials see fraternities as in,
but not a real part of, the academic community. This general
attitude is a great deal more prevalent among the executive

directors as compared to the national presidents.

161

Recommendations for Further Study

This investigation would hardly be complete without
recommending further needed research which became apparent
during the period of time that this study was being conducted.
With this.in mind, the following suggestions are offered:

1. A study should be conducted to find out whether
undergraduates see any relationship between the idealistic
purposes of fraternities and the day-to-day operation and
progress of their chapter.

2. The kind of advisement that would be most effective
in the fraternity chapter is another important area needing
further investigation. The problem suggests not a compari-
son of varied plans of advisement (graduate advisor, house-
mother, self-direction) but, a basic study of the technique
of group advisement in all its facets.

5. The broad area of undergraduate fraternity leader-
ship suggests an important area that should be appraised.

Do fraternities really contribute to the leadership develop-
ment of its members?

4. A study should be made comparing the perceptions
of national presidents and executive directors of college
social fraternities concerning the role of the fraternity in
higher education with similar perceptions of college person-
nel deans.

5. Finally an investigation should be conducted with

comparative off—campus housing units, such as cooperatives,

162

religious living units, and supervised housing. During the
past few years many changes have taken place in this area
that seem to have a definite effect on fraternities.

6. A similar study should also be conducted comparing
perceptions of local chapter presidents with those of
national presidents and executive directors of college social

fraternities.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, Gary R. "Fraternities--Their Problems Today,"
The Journal of the Association of Deans and Adminis—
trators of Student Affairs. Volume 5, Number 1,
July 1965. Pp. 6-7.

Anson, Jack L. The Golden Jubilee History of the Phi Kappa
Tau Fraternity - 1906-1956. The Lawhead Press, Inc.,
Athens, Ohio, 1957.

Bacig, Thomas D. and Sgan, Matthew R. "A Ten Year Fraternity
Membership Study," Journal of College Student Personnel.
December 1962. Pp. 95-102.

Bogardus, E. S. "The Fraternity as a Primary Group,"
Sociology and Social Research. Volume 24, May-June
1940. Pp. 456-460.

Brubacher, John S., and Rudy, Willis. Higher Education in
Transition. Harper and Brothers, New York, 1958.
248 pp.

Butler, William. "An Analytical Study of Factors Associated
with Scholastic Achievement in High School and Low
Achieving Fraternities." (Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation) University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas.

Butler, William. ”Forces at Work in the Development of
Fraternities,” The Journal of College Student Personnel.
June 1965. Pp. 240-245.

Butler, William. "Fraternities—-ZOOO A.D.," The Journal of
the Association of Deans and Administrators of Student
Affairs. Volume 5, Number 1, July 1965. P. 4.

 

Campbell, J. Duncan and Gorgas, Harry S. The Centennial
History of the Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity--1852-1952.
Volume I (1852-1902) and Volume II (1902—1952).

Phi Kappa Psi. 1952.

 

College Fraternities, Their Origin, Purpose and Value.
National Interfraternity Conference, New York, New York.
1962.

165

164

Collett, Robert M. The Centennial History of Sigma Chi
Fraternity 1855-1955. Benson Printing Company,
Nashville, Tennessee.

 

 

Craig, William. "Do Fraternities Keep Pace with Higher Edu-
cation?" Delta Upsilon Quarterly. Volume 79, April
1961. Pp. 97-99, 112-115, 120.

 

Craig, William. "Fraternities in Higher Education," The
Journal of College Student Personnel. March 1962.
Pp. 115-114.

 

Crookston, Bruns Bollantyne. "Integrating the Fraternity with
the College.” (Unpublished doctoral thesis) Columbia
University, New York, 1955.

Crowley, W. H. "Evaluating the Fraternity," The Journal of
Higher Education. Volume 5, May 1954. Pp. 281-284.

 

 

Decalogue of Fraternity Policy. NIC Constitution, 1910.

 

Duerr, Alvin E. "The Place and the Opportunity of the Fra-
ternity in the Educational Scheme," Secretarial Notes
of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the National
Association of Deans and Advisers of Men. (Not pub-
lished). 1955. 155 pp.

 

 

Financing Higher Education: 1960-1970. McGraw-Hill Book
Company. 50th Anniversary Study of the Economics of
Higher Education in the U. S. 1959.

 

Fitzgerald, Laurine E. "A Study of Faculty Perception of

 

Student Personnel Services." (Doctoral thesis),
Dissertation Abstracts. Volume 20, February 1960.
Pp. 3152.

Gardiner, Robb Golder. "A Study of Selected Areas of the
System of Social Fraternities." (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation) Michigan State University, 1956.

Gardnier, Robb Golder. "A Study of Selected Areas of the
System of Social Fraternities." (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation) Michigan State University, 1956.

Glazer, N. "What Happened at Berkeley," Commentary. Volume
59, February 1965. Pp. 59—47.

 

Grace, Harry A. "Discrimination and Hazing in Psychological
Perspective," Journal of Collpge Student Personnel.
Volume 5, No. 1, October 1961. Pp. 6-10.

165

 

Gresham, Perry E. "The Fraternity and College Purposes,"
School and Societ . Volume 90, November 17, 1962. \
P. 2216.

Hand, Harold C., editor, Campus Activities. McGraw-Hill Book
Company, Inc., New York, 1958. 557 pp.

Hays, William L. Statistics for Psychologists. Holt, Rinehart,
and Winston, New York, 1965.

Henderson, John Wayne. "A Follow-Up Study of the Members
of Greek Letter Social Fraternities at Michigan State
University." (Unpublished doctoral dissertation),
Michigan State University, 1958. Pp. 11-12.

Henry, David B. "The Changing University," Banta's Greek
Exchange. April 1965. Pp. 108-109.

 

Keezer, Dexter M., editor, Financing Higher Education 1960—
1970. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, 1959.
504 pp.

Kerr, Clark. The Uses of the University. Howard University
Press, 1965.

Kuhn, Madison. Michigan State University: The First Hundred
Years. The Michigan State University Press. 1955.

Lasher, George Starr. Baird's Manual of American College
Fraternities. Menasha, Wisconsin, The Collegiate Press,
1957. P. 5.

 

Linton, Ralph. The Cultural Background of Personality.
Appleton-Century—Crofts, Inc., New York, 1945. 157 pp.

Lloyd-Jones, Ester and Smith, Margaret Ruth. "Learning More

 

 

about Formations and Self—Control," Student Personnel
Work as Deeper Teaching. New York, Harper Brothers,
1954.

Lunn, Harry H., Jr. The Student's Role in College Policy
Making. Washington: A.C.E. 1957.

Matson, Robert E. "A Study of Academic Potential and Achieve-
ment in Prestige Rated Fraternity Groups as Compared
with Dormitory Residents and Off—Campus Students,"
Dissertation Abstracts. Indiana University, Volume 22,
p. 782.

Montrose, Marjorie A. "Sorority Self-Government-—A Fresh Look
at Interrelationships," Journal of College Student
Personnel. Volume 5, N0. 1, October 1961. Pp. 45—48.

 

166
Mueller, Kate Hevner. Student Personnel Work in Higher Edu—
cation. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1961. 570 pp.

NASPA: Forty-Seventh Anniversary Conference. Sheraton-Park
Hotel. Washington, D.C. April 4-7, 1965.

Rudolph, Frederick. The American College and University:
A History. Alfred A. Knoff, Co., New York, 1962. P. 144.

 

Sanford, Nevitt Ed. College and Character. John Wiley and
Son, Inc., New York, 1964. P. 295.

 

Shaffer, Robert. "Problems of Communication on the Expanding
Campus.“ NAWDCJ, Volume 22, January 1959. Pp. 56-60.

Siske, James Harding. "The Development of Guidance Concept
on College Social Fraternities," (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of Virginia, 1956.

Smith, G. Herbert. "The College and the Fraternity," National
Interfraternity Conference Golden Anniversary Addresses.
(Not published). 1959. 15 pp.

"Social Change and the College Fraternity: Institutionalism
Versus Adaptability," Proceedings, 45rd Anniversary
Conference, NASPA. Colorado Springs, Colorado, April
2-5, 1961. Pp. 117-119.

”The State University and the Discriminatory Fraternity,"
U.C.L.A. Law Review, Volume 8, January 1961. Pp. 169-
189.

 

Stroup, Herbert. Toward A Philosophy of Organized Student
Activities. University of Minnesota Press, 1964.

 

Strozier, Robert, and others. Housing of Students. American
Council on Education, Washington, D. C., 1950. 72 pp.

 

Thomson, Edward A. and Paplia, Anthony S. "Attitudes of
Independent Men Toward Social Opportunities at a
Fraternity Oriented College," The Journal of College
Student Personnel. Volume 6, Number 2, December 1964.
Pp. 88-89.

 

Troxel, Darrel K. and Stout, Phil and Lowry, Jamie.
"Oklahoma State's Top-Rated IFC,” Banta's Greek Exchange.
Volume 50, April 1962. Pp. 106—109.

Trueblood, Dennis L. "The University's Responsibility for
Racial and Religious Discrimination Practices in Fra-
ternities," Journal of College Student Personnel.
Volume 2, No. 5, March 1961. Pp. 25-51.

 

 

167

Trumpe, Richard Martin. "The Development and Validation of
an Analytical Instrument for Evaluating the College
Social Fraternity," (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)

Dissertation Abstracts. Purdue University, 1962.

University of Michigan. "Attitudes of Undergraduate Men
Towards Fraternities." University of Michigan Survey
Research Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1962. 41 pp.

Warwick, Charles Edward. "Relationship of Scholastic ASpera-
tion and Group Coherence to the Academic Achievement
of Male Freshmen at Cornell University." (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation) Dissertation Abstracts. Volume
25, p. 516.

Wellermen, Ben. "Changing the Attitudes of Fraternity
Members Toward University Control," Personnel and
Guidance Journal. Volume 57, April 1959. Pp. 542-550.

 

 

Williamson, E. G. Student Personnel Services in Colleges and
Universities. N. N. McGraw—Hill, 1961. Chapters 5, 7,
8. 11, 12, 15.

 

Wolf, Daniel B. "Fraternity Perception as Related to Edu—
cational Goals." (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)
Indiana University, June 1965.

Yardley, William A. "An Analysis of Greek Letter Social
Fraternities as a Factor in Student Life at the Ohio
State University." (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)
Dissertation Abstracts. Volume 20, July 1959. P. 175.

 

Zander, Donald R. "Are Students Reacting Against Campus
Activities?" The Journal of College Student Personnel.
Volume 5, No. 2, December 1965. Pp. 105-107.

APPENDICES

168

APPENDIX A

QUESTIONNAIRE

169

1170

NATIONAL FRATERNITY SURVEY

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
East Lansing, Michigan

The following questions are designed to gather information concerning your
background. Some opinions are also solicited. Most questions can be answered
by marking an X in the apprOpriate space, although a few call for a narrative
answer. Please answer all questions fully and frankly.

 

l. Age: 6. Years lived in present community:
21-24 (I) Less than 3 . . . . . . (1)
25-30 . . . . . . . . (2) 3-5 . . . . . . . . . . (2)
3l-35 . . . . . . . . (3) 6-IO . . . . . . . . . (3)
36-RO . . . . . . . . (4) ll-lS . . . . . . . . . (u)
uI-us (5) Over 15
Other (please specify) (6) (please specify) . . . (5)

2. Marital status: 7. Military experience:

Single . . (I) No

Married . . . . . (2) Yes . . . .
Divorced . . . . . . . (3) IF YES, Commissioned?
Widowed (A) No . . . . . . . . . . (I)
Separated (5) . , Yes . ( )

3. Number of children: 8. Present military status:
None . . ..... . . (l) Active duty . (l)
One . . . . . . . . . (2) Active Reserves . . (2)
Two . . . . . . . . . (3) .. Inactive Reserves . . . (3)
Three . . . . . . . . (A) National Guard (4)
Four ..... . . . . (5) Other (please specify) (5)
Five . . . .(6)

More (give number). .(7) 9. Excluding military service how did

 

. you obtain first employment?
A. HIghest college degree earned: College placement office(l)

 

B.A. or 8.5. . . . . . (l) Public employment agency(2)

M.A. or M.S. . . . . . (2) Through fraternity

Ed.D. or Ph.D. . . . . (3) contacts . . . .(3)_

M.D. ......... (A) Through relatives . . .(h)_

D. V. M. . . . ..... (5).“, Through friends . . .(5):

Honorary degrees . . (6) Direct contact by

Others (please Specify)(7)* employer . . . (6)—

Answered an advertisement7)_

5. Residence: Other (please specify). (8):

Rural ...... . . (l)

Suburban . . . . . .

TOwn under 2, SOO . . . (3):
City 2, SOI- -I0, 000 . . (h):
City l0,00I-50,000 . . (5)_
City 50,00l-IO0,000 . (6)_
City over l00,000 . . (7 )fi

Page 2

l0.

ll.

15.

Present employment status:

Self employed . . . . (l)
Employed full time on
salary . . . . . (2)
Employed part time on
salary . . . . . (3)
Employed full time on
hourly wages . . (h)
Employed part time on
hourly wages (S)

Temporarily unemployed (6)
Attending college . . (7)
Pensioned . . (8)
Other (please specify) (9)

Memberships held:

Trade associations . . (l)
Professional

associations . . . . (2)
Labor union . . . . . (3)
Learned societies . (4)

Other (please Specify) (5)

Your income bracket
(exclude wife's):

Up to $3,000 per year (I)

$3,000-$5,000 per year (2)

$5,00l-$7,500 per year (3)

$7,SOI-$I0,000 per year(4)

$I0,00l-$I5,000 H H (s)
$15,001—$25,ooo H H (6)
$25,00l-$50,000 H H (7)
$S0,00l—$IO0,000” H (8)

Over $l00,000 per year (9)

Do you belong to your college or
university alumni club?

No . . . . . . . . . . (I)
Yes . . . . . . . . . (2)

 

Were you ever an officer of your
college alumni club?

No . . . . . . . . . . (I)

Yes . . 2

 

What is the total number of alumni

meetings attended?

None . (i) _"__
I-2 (2) .H.__
3-5 . (3) __
6-10 . (4)
II-2o (5)
21-50 . . (6)
More than 50 . (7)

I7.

20.

2i.

How many times have you returned
to your campus since you

graduated?

None-IO . . . . . . . .(l)
ll-30 . . . . . . . . .(2)
31-50 . . . . . . . . .(3)
51-99 . . . . . . . . .Oh)

Prior to your current office,
did you belong to a fraternity
alumni chapter?

No . . . . . . . . . . .(I)
Yes . . . . . . . . . .(2)

Were you ever an officer of your
fraternity alumni chapter?
No . . . . . . . . . . .(I)
Yes . . . . . . . . . .(2)

What is the total number of
fraternity alumni chapter
meetings attended:

None . . . . . . . . . .(l)
i-Z . . . . . . . . . .(2)
3-5 . . . . . . . . . .(3)
6-10 . . . . . . . . . .(4)
II-zo . . . . . . . . .(5)
21-50 . I . . . . . . .(6)
More than 50 . . . . . .(7)

 

How much financial aid have you
donated to the fraternity since
you graduated?

None . . . . . . . . . .(l)
Up to $10 . . . . . . .(2)
$I0-$2h . . . . . . . .(3)
$25-$A9 . . . . . . . .(h)
$50-$99 . . . . . . . .(5)
$IOO or more . . . . . .(6)

 

Did you hold a chapter office?
No . . . .

 

Yes

IF YES, Which ones?
President . . . . . . .(l)
Vice-president . . . . .(2)
Secretary . . . . . . .(3)
Treasurer . . . . . . .(h)
Pledge Trainer . . . . .(5)
Rush Chairman . .(6)

Other (please specify) (7)

 

Page 3

22.

23.

2h.

25.

26.

Did you hold an IFC office?
No . . . . . . .
Yes . . . . . . . .
IF YES, Which ones?
President .
Vice-president .
Secretary

(

(

. . . . . . (

Treasurer . . . . . E
(

(

 

l
2
3
Member-at-large

Executive Council
Other (please specify)

)
)
)
Ii)
5)
6)
7)

 

While you were an undergraduate,
how would you rate your interest
in your fraternity?

Very much interested . (I)

Quite interested . . . (2)
Mildly interested . . (3)
Very little interested (A)
No interest after

joining . . . . . . . (5)

Do you attend your college
football games?

No . . . . . . . . . . (I)
Yes . . . . . . . . . (2)

Do you donate regularly to your
college alumni club?
No . . . . . . . . . . (I)
Yes . . . . . . . . . (2)

Campus organizations you belonged
to: (List only 2)

 

 

27.

28.

29.

30.

3].

32.

33.

3A.

35.

36.

What was your first job?

 

 

Did you marry a sorority girl?
No . . . . . . . . . . (I)
Yes . . . . . . . . . (2)

Is your son in college?
No . . . . . . . . . .
Yes . . . . . . . . ... (2)

 

Is your son in a fraternity?
No . . . . . . . . . . (I)
Yes . . . . . . . . . . (2)

 

Is your son in YOUR fraternity?
No . . . . . . . . . . (I)
Yes . . . . . . . . . . (2)

 

Do you belong to a church?
No..........(l)____
Yes . . . . . . . . . . (2)

 

Do you hold any church offices?
No . . . . . . . . . . (I)
Yes . . . . . . . . . . (2)

 

Do you belong to any civic

organizations?
No . . . . . . . . . . (l)._____
Yes . . . . . . . . . . (2)

Do you hold any political offices?
No . . . . . . . . . . (I)
Yes . . . . . . . . . . (2)

 

Are you a member of a board
of trustees of any college?

No . . . . . . . . . . (I)
Yes . . . . . . . . . . (2)

Page 4

In the space to the left of each statement please indicate by circling the letter,
your response to the next set of questions.
Please indicate your response by:
(A) representing agreement
(D) representing disagreement
(N) representing no Opinion
These questions will all be answered by this means, except for Numbers Al,
67, and 7A, which are multiple-choice.
Please feel free to make any comments regarding any of the questions on the other
side of the paper.

A D N 37. One of the most important aspects of fraternity pledge training
is the study of the history and philosophy of the educational
institution.

A D N 38. The chapter president is the most important position in the college
fraternity house.

A D N 39. Local chapter advisors should be members of the national fraternity.

A D N #0. Chapter advisors should be members of the university faculty.

Al. The ideal size of a fraternity house is:

25-50 men . . . . (I)
51-75 men . . . . (2)
76-IOO men . . . (3)
Over lOO men . . (h)

A D N #2. Before any disciplinary action is taken against a local chapter by

 

the Dean of Students Office, it should be discussed with the national

office.
A D N #3. The university should require that first term freshmen wait until

the end of the first marking period before pledging.

A D N 44. The university should require that all fraternities have housemothers

or resident advisors.

A D N 45. Fraternities should encourage the teaching of academic subjects in
their houses.

A D N A6. If the fraternity house is full, men of senior status should be

given permission to move out.

Page 5

A D
A D
A D
A D
A D
A D
A D
A D
A D
A D
A D
A D
A D
A D
A D

47.

A8.

#9.

50.

SI.

52.

53.

5A.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

6I.

Fraternity eXpansion should take place in state supported institutions
rather than private colleges.

Fraternities are considered by many school officials as in, but
not a part of the academic community.

On most campuses the fraternity scholarship is consistently higher
than the all-university.

More emphasis should be placed on the fraternity ideal and purpose.
The National Interfraternity Conference should deveIOp an education
office that would perform research in the area of higher education
for national officers.

The National Interfraternity Conference should maintain a national
leadership school for national officers and executive secretaries.
Fraternities should expand into teachers colleges.

Too many undergraduate fraternity members see little relationship
between the idealistic purpose of fraternities and the day-to-day
operation and progress of their chapter.

National fraternities should maintain a student aid program.

Before assuming the position of executive director one should

have had eXperience in higher education.

National presidents should receive a salary.

With twelve-month campus calendars being an accepted pattern,
fraternities should concern themselves with organized formal

summer programs.

Most dean of students are sympathetic to college fraternities.

Most college presidents are sympathetic towards having fraternities
on their campuses.

All fraternity houses should have a chapter library.

0.01.113 L-‘fi'lf. ' '

Page 6

AD
AD
AD
AD
AD
AD
AI)
AI)
AI)
AI)
AI)

62.

63.

65.
66.
67.

68.
69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

Fraternities should consider initiating a prospective member
immediately, rather than having him go through a pledge period.
Universities should assume some of the financing for the building
of new fraternity houses.

Universities should make land available for the new construction of
fraternity houses. I

Graduate students should be allowed to pledge fraternities.
Fraternities should expand in the area of junior colleges.

All fraternities should allow a period of for pledging

period. (l.) 2 weeks
(2.) A weeks
(3.) .6 weeks
(A.) 8 weeks
(5.) l2 weeks
(6.) 1 term
(7.) I semester

Fraternities require too much time of their pledges.

Being a member of a fraternity enables one to secure better
employment.

Colleges and universities should allow fraternity men to drink in
chapter houses.

Fraternity men tend to be more civic-minded than non-fraternity
men.

Fraternities encourage the moral and spiritual development of

the individual.

Fraternity men should be encouraged to participate in extra

activities of an all-university nature.

Page 7

7A.
A D N 75
A D N 76
A D N 77
A D N 78

 

Most fraternity men are from social-economic backgrounds:
(l.) Lower
(2.) Middle lower
(3.) Middle
(A.) Upper middle
(5.) Upper

Fraternity men who fail to meet financial obligations by a specified
time should be deactivated.

Fraternity houses should be used for controversial speakers.
Fraternities should encourage more faculty and professional
speeches.

The development of residences on college campuses has tended

to limit fraternity growth.

A summary of the results of this study will be sent to you at a later date.

APPENDIX B

INITIAL LETTER AND FOLLOW-UP LETTERS

179

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY surname

 

OMCI O! m DEAN 01' STUDENTS

As fraternity advisor and as a doctoral candidate at Michigan State University,

I a conducting a study of the personal characteristics of executive directors

and national presidents and how they perceive the role of college fraternities

in higher education. On several occasions I have had the opportunity to discuss
this study with many of you. Because of your consents and responses, I have
decided such a study would be of great value to both national officers and college
deans.

Since I would like to have this information available this fall, it would be
appreciated if you vould coqlete the attached questionnaire at your earliest
convenience so that I may begin tabulating by November 5.

Please return the questionnaire to this office in the enclosed steeped envelope.
Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

George B. Bibbard
Associate Director
Student Activities Division

Gill/u
October 1, 1965

1180

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY East Lansing

 

.Office of the Dean of Students

Dear Executive Secretary:

As a follow-up to my questionnaire that you received last month, I
have decided to extend the deadline for tabulating until after the
NIC Conference in'Washington. I would like to say that the returns
thus far are very encouraging and by December 5 I hope to have a
response from most of the fraternities in NIC. Since I have extended
the deadline, I would appreciate receiving a questionnaire from any
of you who have not already sent one.

Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely, ‘

I: M
George B. Hibbard
Associate Director
Student Activities Division
Michigan State University
November 18, 1965

GBH/sz

181

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING

 

OFFICE OF THE DEAN OF STUDENTS

As you will recall, last October I sent out a questionnaire soliciting the
personal characteristics of executive secretaries and national presidents
and how they perceive the rclz-of their organization in higher education.
,1 am very happy to inform you that there has been approximately a 70 per
cent return on this questionnaire. Even though this is a relatively high
_percentage of returns for a questionnaire of this kind, my doctoral
committee has indicated that they wish me to re-submit Part I of the
.questionnaire to all of you in hopes that the 30 per cent who did not
respond originally to the questionnaire would do so now.

It is the feeling of the committee that the personal data on the group
who did not respond constitutes an important segment in drawing any final

conclusions in my dissertation. If you completed the original questionnaire,
please disregard this enclosure. '

Since I would like to have this information available this spring, I
would appreciate your completing the questionnaire by April 20. Please
return the form in the enclosed self-addressed envelope.

Once again, thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

George B. Hibbard
Associate Director
tudent Activities Division

GBH/sz

APPENDIX C

SELECTED FOLLOW-UP RESPONSES OF
NATIONAL PRESIDENTS AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS
WHO DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN ORIGINAL STUDY

182

185

Because of the small number of reSponses by the
National Presidents and Executive Directors of college
social fraternities the enclosed supplementary information
is limited to a percentage breakdown of reSponses. The
percentage breakdown was only conducted on those items

that were found statistically significant in the original

study.

184

.000000000 0>00000x0 000 0000000000 00000002 00 0300x0000 0000000000

 

 

 

000.000000 00.mm000 00.0mvw 0N.mvm 00.mv0 A0.mv0 ono 0000 00009
000.000000 0N.mmvm 00.00Vm 0m.m0vm Am.mv0 0N.mv0 ono 0000 000000000
0>00000x0
000.000VN AOmVH Aomv0 0000 0000 ono ono 0000 0000000000
00000002
R 2 R 2 R 2 R 2 R 2 R 2 R 2 2
00009 +00 mwi0¢ Odlmm mm10m onlmm ¢NI0N . 000

OZ

 

 

000000000000 000000 0000000 00

000000000 0>00000xm 000 0000000000 00000002 00 0000 000 00 0000000000 0 .0 00009

185

.000000000 0>00000xm 000 0000000000 00000002 00 0300x0000 0000000000

 

 

 

AO0.00Hde Am.m®v> Am.mvm Am.mvm AH.mVH Am.NHV¢ AOVO 00008
000.000000 AN.0mvm Am.m0Vm A>.mfivm AN.mVH Ao.mmvw 0000 000000000
0>00000x0
000.000vm 00000 N ono ono ono ono ono 0000000000
00000002
R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 2
0m0o0 +00 00:00 00-0 0-0 0-0 . mmm
. 02

 

000000000 0>00000x0
000 0000000000 00000002 00 >0000E800 0000000 00 00000 00 0000000800 0 .0 00008

.000000000 0>00000x0 000 0000000000 00000002 00 0300x0000 0000000000

 

 

 

 

 

000.000V000m.¢mvw 0N.mv0 00.0mvm 0m.0vm 00.mv0 Am.m0vm ono 00.mv0 ono 00009
000.0000000>.m0vm 0N.mv0 Am.m0vm 00.00Vm 0m.mv0 0N.0mvm ono 00.000 ono 000000000
0>00000x0
.0

maodojm 80: 85 880 86 86 85 86 85 85 353080
00000002

R 2 R 2 R 2 R 2 R 2 R 2 R 2 R 2 R 2 R 2

00008 00000 0008 000000 000000 0>00000m 0000000 000004 0008 .0000

10000 I80 00 0000000 000000 I00000 02

I00>0¢ 0000000 1000 0000000
000000000

0>00000x0 000 0000000000 00000002 00 0000000000000 0008000080 00000 00 0000000800 0

.0 0090B

.000000000 0>00000x0 000 0000000000 00000002 00.030000000 0000000000

 

 

 

 

 

000000000.mv0 0N.wvm 00.00000 Ammv0 0000 00009
Aoo0vm0Am.mv0 Am.m0vm AN.omvm0 0000 0000 000000000
.0>00000xm
7 80:0 8 6 Sm Z. 80: 85 3530000
No. 00000002
R 2 R 2 R 2 R 2 R 2 R 2 R 2 R 2 R 2 R 2 2
00009 00000 0000 0000000 000000 000000 000000 00000000 00000000 000000 . 000
1000 000 18000 0800 0800 0800 0800 180 02
1000000 .0000 100mm 10000 10000 100:0 10000
000000000

0>00000x0 000 0000000000 00000002 00 000000 0008000080 0000000 00 0000000800 0 .00 00009

.mnouomuHQ m>wu50mxm cam mucmvflmmum HMGOflumz mo GSOUxmmHQ mmmucmonmm

 

 

 

AOOHde ono ono A©.mmvn A>.mmv> Am.mfivw AOVO AOVO Ad.mvfi AOVO HmuOB
AOOHVma ono ono AN.Hme Am.wwvh Ao.mNV¢ ono ono Am.mvd ono mucuomufla
m>Husomxm
8

m 803m 85 85 803m 85 85 85 ono ono ono mucmcflmmum
HMCOHumz

R 2 R z R 2 R 2 R 2 R z R 2 R 2 R z mR z

Hmuoa OO0.00H ooo.om OOO~mN ooo.md OO0.0H Dow‘s min mlfi . mmm

Iaoo.om Iaoo.mm Idoo.md IHOOO.Ofi Iaom.> Ifioo.m OZ

 

 

 

muouomufla m>Husomxm wcm mucmwflmmnm HMCOHumZ mo mmEoocH mo comflummfiou ¢ .Nfi manma

189

 

 

Table 18. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors Who Were Officers of Alumni Chapters
NO
Resp. No Yes Total
N% N76 N% N%
National
Presidents 0(0) 1(50) 1(50) 2(lO0.00)
Executive
Directors 2(12.5) 5(31.2) 9(56.2) 16(100.00)
Total 2(6.2) 6(40.6) 10(53.1) 18(100.00)

 

Percentage breakdown of National Presidents and Executive Directors.

kc.“

*‘u ..-—v-w-“""

190

 

 

 

 

 

Table 31. A Comparison of National Presidents and Executive
Directors with Respect to Having a Son in
Respective Fraternities

NO

Res . No Yes Total

N N% N% N75
National
Presidents 1(50) 1(50) 0(0) 2(100.00)
Executive

Directors 5(18.7) 10(62.8) 3(18.7) 16(100.00)

Total 4(54.5) 11(56.4) 5(9.3) 18(100.00)

Percentage breakdown of National Presidents and Executive Directors.

"I7'1?llflljllllflil'llllr