The Argus’s story about alumni and fraternity brother dissatisfaction with the administration’s forced coeducation policy, as displayed at Homecoming, did a good job of describing the events of the day, but we want to make sure everyone understands that the flyers and signs are only the first public indications of our unhappiness and not the end of them.

In fact, we have been working behind the scenes since May to communicate to the administration our deep unhappiness with the proposal to mandate co-education at the fraternities.  We were granted one short meeting with President Roth to voice our concerns. Since that time DKE alumni as well as several highly respected, responsible, influential alumni and former Board members have written to the Board expressing their unhappiness and presenting numerous alternatives to President Roth’s anticipated mandate. These entreaties were completely ignored by both the President and the Board.

From the beginning, we have been focused on the real issues. For example, in the face of criticism that young fraternity members engage in risky behavior, DKE alumni voluntarily initiated two nationally acclaimed programs: The “One in Four” sexual assault training program by Dr. John Foubert and the Safe and Sober Campus Initiative program by Dr. Steven Taylor, Medical Director, NBA Player Assistance/Anti-Drug program. These programs were highly successful and very well received by the students who participated.

In other words, we have been working in good faith to address the administration’s stated concerns about fraternities, but we have found that the reasons for requiring coeducation have been constantly shifting.

Although we would prefer to work behind the scenes to find a solution that works for all parties, we believe our efforts have not been taken seriously. We have now decided to make our displeasure public and as we do so, we continue to attract new members to our cause. We continue to keep all options open on our next steps. The administration should not underestimate our resolve.

  • JG

    This is important. Thanks for keeping up the good fight.

  • David K Easlick Jr
  • David K Easlick Jr
  • Guest
  • Huguenot

    Wesleyan itself began with coeducation after the early Methodist/Pentecostal tradition, then changed to all-male decades later, to conform to the (then) mainstream. Coeducation was later reinstated, to conform to the (then) mainstream. Now this is being taken to an exacting degree. Perhaps the mascot should be changed to the chameleon.

  • Danteshek

    We gave up on Wesleyan long ago. The endowment tells the story.

  • Anonymous

    I think this is a sexist decision. Rape can occur anywhere. It just happened to occur a couple of times in a Frat house. I bet a lot of rapes occur in cars. Are you going to ban all
    male-owned cars?

    I believe both fraternities and sororities would prefer to remain single sex. Someone in college administration suggests that maybe incidents of rape will go down if we made
    these organizations coed. The fact that 99% of the boys don’t rape and that this change will significantly hurt the culture of the fraternity is not deemed to be important. But how do they hurt the fraternities without forcing this change also on the sororities?

    They could say what they are thinking – boys are bad, girls are good. But that would come across as sexist. So they have to come up with a difference. The difference they found was the living arrangements – the girls don’t have a house, Therefore this new rule applies to only fraternities and sororities with a house. Alas the girls don’t have a house so only guys are negatively affected. But it is a bogus difference. As I stated at the outset, Rape can occur anywhere, not just in a frat house.