Page 96 - 1913 November - To Dragma

TO DRAGMA OF ALPHA OMICRON PI 101

the fraternities may hold their conventions in the building. I t will be arranged
so that general entertainment can be held by the different fraternities. This
would save the fraternities much expense that they would otherwise have to stand
without such headquarters."—Rainbow, A T A .

ANTI-FRATERNITY LEGISLATION.

Iowa—Cornell College at Mt. Vernon, Iowa, has been wrestling with its
fraternities. Seventy-two students were conditionally expelled at Commence-
ment for belonging to fraternities, a condition they could remove only by
signing a pledge to sever all connections with their orders.

Mississippi—The act of the Mississippi legislature of 1912, abolishing and
prohibiting Greek-letter fraternities at the University of Mississippi and
other institutions maintained by the state, has been declared unconstitutional
by the chancery court of Lafayette county (Oxford).

Alabama—The action of Alabama Presbyterian College at Anniston in
abolishing fraternities at his Commencement sounds more alarming than the
facts warrant. The only organization involved is a local affair known as
Alpha Omega. The charges of which it was found guilty were that it was
misrepresentative of the institution and exercised a bad influence, and that it
really had few members in college, recruiting its numbers principally from
the outside.

Ohio—Since 1008 there have been several outward manifestations of anti-
fraternity spirit at Ohio State. Among the opposition were several able
men who have at various times in the past been extremely active in school poli-
tics. In the contests which have been waged for student offices and student
honors this feeling has been shown a number of times, but in fact, up until
this year was not noticeable in any other activity. Well, the substance of the
matter is that the non-fraternity students under these leaders have built up
several strong political organizations, which they have a perfect right to do,
and have been successful in several elections although by no means universally
so, which only goes to prove that the great mass of students does not vote
on fraternity lines. There has for years been criticism directed against the
Lantern, the university newspaper, alleging fraternity control. The Lantern
foolishly refused to print an attack on fraternities back in 1908, with a re-
sult that several of the opposition published a little sheet, making their
charges in this manner. Not until last winter, though, did the present fight
have its outward beginning. This was when the Commons club, which was not
at the time said to be anti-fraternity in nature but which proved to be so in so far
as its leaders were concerned, was formed. Then, a few months later, an
anti-fraternity paper was published on the campus and has been appearing
weekly since. Its policy is not so largely to cover the news of the campus
as to present its editorial policy against fraternities and indeed, where the
interests of their clique do not agree with the interests of the university
and its officers, against the university.

Soon after the legislature convened in January the anti-fraternity bill was
introduced by Representative Hoaglin of Paulding County, backed by a half
dozen leaders of the Commons club and later by two Columbus attorneys,
M. E. Thrailkill and J. D. Karnes. After quite an extensive agitation and
after arousing interest in the newspapers of the state, largely favorable to
fraternities, 1 am happy to state, the Committee on Universities and Colleges
heard both sides of the question on two separate evenings. Evidently, so
convincing was the case made by our protagonists that the committee report