Page 99 - 1913 November - To Dragma

104 TO DRAGMA OF ALPHA OMICRON PI

versity co-operate with us in the present movement to abolish said fraternities
and sororities, and lend their aid and support to any b i l l to that effect which
may be submitted." This resolution was followed by a communication which
was presented to the President o f the University and by him transmitted to
the general faculty at a meeting held on January 14, 1913. This communica-
tion was lengthy and contained an indictment of fraternities at the University
o f Texas in which these organizations were accused of almost every crime
in the calendar.

The Texas legislature assembled on January 16, 1913; shortly thereafter
a b i l l was, introduced in the House o f representatives p r o v i d i n g f o r the aboli-
tion of fraternities and sororities at the University of Texas. This bill was
referred to the Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence. W h y this action was
taken by the Speaker of the Mouse of Representatives I am unable to say,
unless i t was becuase of the fact that the Speaker decided that the fraternities
had been accused o f so many crimes, and as the b i l l itself provided a penalty,
or rather a punishment to fit the crime, this was a proper committee to con-
sider same. A f t e r numerous delays the b i l l finally came up f o r a hearing
during the closing days of the session. The matter was thoroughly thrashed
out before the committee and all the arguments were made by active students
of the university. The result was that the committee overwhelmingly voted
to report the bill adversely, and i t was at the request o f a fraternity man that
one o f the members o f the committee, who was an opponent o f the b i l l ,
signed a minority report with the author of the bill in order that the author
might thus have an opportunity to b r i n g the same before the House of
Representatives, as otherwise the bill would have died in the Committee. The
f r a t e r n i t y men took this course because they were anxious f o r the matter
to have a f u l l and open discussion on the floor of the House of Representatives.
However, the author of the bill never called the measure up f o r consideration,
and it died on the calendar.

The reason f o r the defeat of the Anti-Fraternity B i l l in the Texas legis-
lature was a very simple one: The f r a t e r n i t y men agreed with the non-fra-
ternity men that the issue in the discussion was as f o l l o w s :

F i r s t : Are fraternities detrimental to the best interests of our university,
and

Second: I f so, is the abolition of fraternities the best solution of the
problem ?

I n the argument before the committee above referred to, the opponents
of the bill established the fact that college fraternities instead o f being
a detriment to the University of Texas were really a help to the institution.

Moreover, they convinced the Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence that
the clubs which would inevitably spring up in place of the fraternities would
be f a r worse and abound in much greater evils than the f r a t e r n i t y d i d , i n
view of the fact that these clubs would have no national supervision or control
and the organizations would be purely of a social or sporting nature.—Banta's
Greek Exchange.

Isn't the meat of the whole anti-fraternity agitation to be found in the
following? Think it over.

Each chapter should ask itself what i t is doing f o r the men in college
who are not members of the fraternities and when the answer is "nothing",
it should get busy and do something. The college man who f o r some good
reason or other has failed to join a fraternity in the average college is often