The Frat Anti-Defamation League

In writing a few weeks ago about homophobia in fraternities, I made the passing comment that parent organizations invariably shield fraternity chapters from criticism, preventing problems with fraternity culture from being addressed. No sooner had The Sun gone to print than the wheels of the frat anti-defamation league began to turn. I do not want to revisit the issue I addressed in the original article, but to state more forcefully the criticism that any critique of fraternity culture is met with categorical denial and sidesteps. The Intrafraternity Council and those who responded to the article resemble the Bush Administration: they operate under the logic that something is only true if they acknowledge it as such.

Despite many academic studies on ritualized masculinity and heterosexism in fraternities (and corroborating e-mails I received about such phenomena at Cornell), a guest column published in The Sun claimed that fraternities in fact “are leaders in dispelling homophobia rather than reinforcing it.”

The government does not torture people — We are winning in Iraq.

In response to the charge that fraternities select out of the diversity that Cornell cultivates, there were several responses. The first, published in a letter to The Sun: “[T]here must be homophobic Greek Cornellians and Arana’s anecdote proves that fact. Nevertheless, their existence in the Greek community helps create more diversity.” The second was that while fraternities may not have racial, ethnic or “sexual” diversity, they are diverse in the academic majors, political beliefs and geographic origins of their members, as if discrimination and disadvantage had historically fallen along these lines.

The published responses share the premise that some fraternities are indeed both homophobic (homophobia exists, but it creates diversity) and lack racial and ethnic diversity (we don’t have racial diversity, but we have diversity of majors). What is striking is that no response acknowledged these problems explicitly and then moved to suggest possible solutions.

Instead, the fraternity members who responded retorted formulaically, expressing — true to what some consider proper Op-Ed form — histrionic outrage. At the heart of the responses is a misconception about stereotypes. Stereotype etiquette has become, for fraternities and similar organizations, a catchall absolution: any critique of fraternity culture amounts to “stereotyping.”

I would like to draw a seldom-made but important distinction between stereotypes and generalizations. Generalizations identify some tendency among a group of people. In social science, they are typically informed by anecdotal evidence or statistical samples. A social scientist could not talk about the fact that Americans in poverty tend to be uninsured without making a generalization. Neither could an epidemiologist say that African Americans are more susceptible to Sickle Cell Anemia or that men who have sex with men are at greater risk for contracting HIV. Generalizations are necessary for identifying population-wide trends.

Stereotypes, on the other hand, take generalizations — informed or not — and bring them to bear on an individual, assuming that the generalization is deterministic. For instance, someone who is gay is HIV positive. Academics are rightfully wary of generalizations — especially if they stem from unexamined prejudices — as they are often used in the service of stereotyping.

Recognizing the limits of generalizations, however, does not clear one from acknowledging the existence of problematic trends.

Not every fraternity member will be homophobic; some fraternity members actively champion gay rights. And some fraternities are supportive of their LGBT members. Nevertheless, it is still the case that some fraternities and sports teams act as holdouts for homophobia, in part because they tend to reinforce masculine norms (as the guest columnist put it, “Going to the weight room to get ‘huge’ is almost a prerequisite for joining.”). This is no controversial statement; the number of books and articles in academic journals and newspapers on the subject is overwhelming.

Ultimately, the feigned sensitivity to “stereotypes” betrays itself. It appears that only positive generalizations about frats are permissible: the columnist is uncomfortable with the generalization that fraternity culture tends to be homophobic, yet asserts that fraternities are leaders in dispelling homophobia.

To return to the point, more severe a problem than homophobia in fraternities is the inability of parent organizations and members to be critical of the fraternity experience, if only to improve it. Parent organizations shield and insulate chapters with these reflexive denials and dismiss acts of prejudice as isolated incidents. It is precisely the insularity these parent organizations provide that encourages and protects intolerance.

There is nothing wrong with a group of guys who “play pranks on each other” and “have a lot of fun”; criticism of fraternities does not negate all the positive aspects of fraternity life — camaraderie, companionship, etc. But one would hope that a Cornell education would engender the ability to think critically about one’s environment, something fraternity leaders seem loath to do. Instead of categorically denying the existence of any problem with fraternity culture, perhaps leaders could acknowledge them and move to improve Greek life.

Gabriel Arana is a graduate student in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be contacted at garana@cornellsun.com [1]. The Red Line appears Thursdays.