WINTER, 1957
TREND TOWARD TYRANNY -;\". To a very great degree the problem of the ocial, chola tic and profes ional fraternities in our collerres and universitie are a! o tho e of many other type of organization in all walk of our complex social economy. The movement to force conformity within th college fraternit directly challen e the right of other out ide any schola ti or educational group to join ocial or fraternal organization for an purpo e whatever. The true fraternit i a group welded together by a common intere t a nd a common loyalt to an ideal which is above and b yond the reach of any individual member and to which ach h as re olved to devote him If. It i thi that i the real bond of broth rhood and that foster self-di cipline and the pirit of community within the group. I t i thi common loyalty that makes for under tanding among men a nd for thei r eman ipation. It i no sc r t that the pre ent day radica l would if h ould completely de troy this spirit of ommun ity wherever it i found, on! in its abs nee can he come p w r. In it place he would establish proletarianism the ult of the faceles , the ro ties , the property! , the characterless, and th monotonous mediocre who have not i ion and know not hope. To annihilate the \'ery thought of brotherhood and the re pon ibiliti that go with it, he would forbid men from choo ing their own company and orrupt them by pre cribing their asociate in the int rest of ocial bette rment. Selectivity i a basic concept of every social group. Profe sional societie , trade associations labor unions, churche , and civic organization are pos ible by means of it a lone. College fraternities must have it or they could not exi t. Freemasonry requires it.
THE ANCHOR
It i with this in mind that th e meaning of the word selectivity has been corrupted by the radical into something akin to mere childi h snobbi hne , the antithesis of democracy, and it is why this distorted m eaning i being used to ha ten the des truction of uch fraternal groups by arou ing enmity again t them. It is abundantly clear howeve r that these fraternal organizations represent no more than the fruition of every man' desire to determine for himself, on the basis of congeniali ty, the company he will keep. There can be no possible justice in the hearts of those who would deny to anyone else what rightfully belong to him- in a m edd lesome interference with his individual privi lege of accepting or rejecting, as his judgment may dictate, in matters which affect his own integrity. We have not yet seen any well-established evidence that college Greekletter fraternities are in any way a detriment to scholastic attainment or to the intellectual progress of the student member. Nor has it been either charged or proved that they interfere with proper administration of school affairs or with established curricu la. Their proscription must be, th erefore, because they wi ll not di avow their rights voluntarily and trade their liberty for stultification. What these apost le of "equality" are promoting i a sort of debasing intolerance which proclaims that what cannot be fu lly and equa lly shared by a ll, worthy and unworthy alike, must be destroyed. This is nothing less than a bold but subtle assault upon the God-given right of every man, so long as he observes the amenities, to be himself, and to that extent it constitutes the grossest and most destructive immorality. Does this, in any particular or degree, d if-
1