A law suit was filed after the University eliminated DKE as a program house for the 2015-16 school year. A court date has been set for March 9.

c/o Wesleyan University

Editor’s note: Due to the high volume of traffic to the website on Friday, and to the DKE lawsuit article in particular, The Argus server was overwhelmed and crashed the website. Despite our attempts to recover it, the file of the original DKE article was corrupted by the crash and lost entirely. Thus, all the comments on that article were lost as well. Thank you all for your patience and understanding, and The Argus apologizes for the inconvenience.

Delta Kappa Epsilon (DKE) members and alumni have filed a lawsuit against the University for sexual discrimination, misrepresentation, and deceptive practices, according to DKE press release given on Thursday, Feb. 19.

“Wesleyan DKE members and alumni stand united against discrimination in any form, seek injunction to restore student housing and prevent unwarranted abuse of power,” the press release reads.

The University’s alumni chapter, the Kent Literary Club (KLC), as well as members of DKE expressed that this suit centers around the University’s mandate that the residential fraternity houses become fully co-educated. After DKE’s efforts to achieve a workable solution, the University chose to eliminate the choice for DKE students to live in their on-campus housing for 2015-16 school year.

In the press release, Scott Karsten ’74, a spokesperson for the KLC, addressed the notion of discrimination in this situation.

“Discrimination is abhorrent in whatever form it may exist,” Karsten said in the press release. “President Roth’s pursuit of selective discrimination is an egregious example of political correctness gone wrong, and does a disservice to the high ideals upon which Wesleyan was founded. Not only does President Roth’s personal agenda fail to promote real diversity, it punishes the students he is supposed to protect. The current members and alumni of the DKE chapter at Wesleyan stand united against this blatant hypocrisy, and trust that justice will prevail.”

The University responded in an statement provided to The Argus.

“DKE’s annual program housing agreement was terminated for the next academic year only after the organization repeatedly failed to take any meaningful steps or make any reasonable commitments toward residential coeducation before the date on which the housing selection process began,” the statement read. “The DKE house has historically operated very differently than other special interest program houses at Wesleyan in many ways, but notably that it explicitly prohibits residence by females. This must change.”

Karsten also expanded upon his opinions in an email to The Argus.

“It was with great regret that we made the decision that, in light of the administration’s surprising and frankly deceitful actions over the last several months, we owed it to a very courageous and devoted group of DKE undergrads to take this action,” Karsten wrote. “It’s our belief that, notwithstanding the illogical, intellectually dishonest and bullying posture of the administration, the just outcome of this matter will be that the administration is held to its promises.”

Furthermore, the suit elaborates on the ways in which DKE and KLC acted in good faith to comply with University’s mandate. For example, this academic year, DKE provided a tour of its facilities to administration representatives to identify the structural improvements required to make such a change and hosted discussions with a potential partner about a shared housing arrangement, submitting a draft plan.

“Nevertheless, instead of the three year’s time promised, the University fast-tracked its decision to deny DKE housing rights less than five months after its initial demand, and two days before the University’s housing selection process began,” the press release reads.

President of DKE, Terence Durkin ’16, spoke to the lawsuit.

“Wesleyan embraces every other person’s right to live together based on gender, race, creed or sexual affiliation, but with the coeducation mandate in the fall this seems to not apply to us,” Durkin said. “Discrimination is wrong no matter what form it takes, and the university has unfairly singled us out in order to achieve their brand of ‘diversity.’”

Durkin further added that he and the other members of DKE were disappointed that the coeducation time was cut short despite the attempts to work with the administration to come up with a solution within the three-year time frame originally provided.

“Giving us a mere 10 days notice, we could not achieve their demands in regards to coeducation and therefore have lost our program housing status for next year,” Durkin said. “Our alumni have made the decision to sue, and the undergrad brothers of DKE wholeheartedly support that decision in hopes that we be treated fairly. We simply want to be given back our right to live in our own house and to continue to be strong supporters of all that is great about the Wesleyan community.”

A statement was also released by DKE International regarding the lawsuit.

“DKE, like all of the other fraternities and sororities on Wesleyan’s campus, are unfairly singled out by being denied the right to pursue housing options depending on a person’s gender, race, creed or sexual preference,” the statement reads. “We sincerely hope that the Court will reject the blatant hypocrisy driving the actions of Wesleyan’s administration and see that justice is done by restoring the rights of DKE undergraduates to live in their own house. Such an outcome would be a victory not only for DKE Wesleyan, but for every Fraternity who cherishes the bonds of brotherhood that we are so fortunate to call our own.”

The University added that they have offered DKE the opportunity to work with the administration in the co-educated program housing in 2016.

“The Kent Literary Club and the Gamma Phi Chapter of DKE have instead chosen to commence a lawsuit against the University,” the statement reads. “The University is confident that this lawsuit has no merit.”

A court date has been set for Monday, March 9.

  • Wesleyan Values Opinions

    Why were the comments all deleted?

  • News Reporter

    There were 50+ comments overnight, with some pretty strong viewpoints both for and against the lawsuit. Yet now they are gone. What has happened to our fine publication? Please enlighten your readers who deserve a clear answer – has the Argus been hijacked?

  • Regular Reader

    Can’t believe that there are only 2 comments on this one. So if the fraternities are the hosts of social events and the houses are so dangerous then the students shouldn’t go to the parties and drink the hosts beer.
    Really, it is not the existence of greek life that brings about sexual assault, it is the overall attitude of society regarding sex and the lack of respect that pervades this generation. Everything is being done to make this campus gender neutral. What about those of us who don’t like seeing the guys on our halls using the urinal when we walk into the bathrooms. We have no choice. We have to use the facilities provided. You have a choice to not enter a fraternity house if you don’t want to.

    • Indeed

      Good common sense points – thanks! I like choice too. Doesn’t make me bad. Just makes me human.

      The point of education is helping people to make their own choices, not forcing them.

  • Pingback: Wesleyan University sued for sex discrimination by fraternity - The Liberty Herald()

  • Dave Garner

    Clearly the university has been hijacked by morons.

    I wonder how many trustees will speak out?

  • JG

    It youre going to delete large numbers of comments (that don’t appear to violate any comments policy) why even have a comments section? The Argus apparently doesnt have the courage of its own convictions when it comes to free speech and open discourse.

  • Mom

    I agree with “Regular Reader’s ” post and some of the others that were here yesterday. As the mother of a current Wesleyan DKE student and one who has hosted many of these young men in my home over the past four years I can attest to their respectfulness, intelligence, honesty and relevance, love of school , family , friends. They are all fine young men . Requiring the fraternities to coeducate or removing them from campus underhandedly WILL NOT solve the issues the administration is poorly attempting to address.

  • Gabe

    Hi all! We sincerely apologize for both the site being down and for your comments being deleted. Due to the high volume of traffic we received on Friday to the website, and to this article in particular, our server got overwhelmed and crashed the website. No hacking, no hijacking, simply a server with not enough bandwidth. We’ve spent the past two days attempting to recover it, but for some technical reason beyond even our web editor, the crash corrupted the file of the original article and we lost it entirely. Thus, all the comments on that article disappeared, and we were forced to make a new post, and the comments obviously couldn’t migrate. Meanwhile, we are looking to upgrade our server to handle a greater amount of traffic, so this sort of incident—which has happened in the past—will not happen again. We hate it as much as you! Thank you all for your patience and understanding, and we apologize for the inconvenience.

  • ROTHWASHERE

    Sure– the website crashed and all comments were deleted..by accident. whatever argus, not buying it. You must have a cache–replicate the comments

    • Question person person

      What is a cache?

  • Pingback: Wesleyan University Forces Fraternities To Become Coed Amid Sexual Assault Concerns()

  • John Dean

    18 seconds of missing website comments

  • You Can’t Handle the Truth

    Why is the Argus claiming that original comments were lost, yet further below the story – in the “Also on the Wesleyan Argus” section – there is a link to the original story with “52 comments” reflected, and one random comment (“reverse discrimination is not a thing”) of the 52 still showing up? Please clarify Argus – were all 52 comments really lost? Or just 51? Or is it zero? Personally I struggle to understand how books and records of a professional news organization can suddenly go missing or be corrupted by a temporary bandwidth issue. I struggle further when the organization seems to still display a total of 52 comments while claiming they are all gone. Your readers seek enlightenment, not obsfucation.

    • Gabe

      Here’s a link to a comment that WordPress says is still in the original article: http://wesleyanargus.com/comment-page-1/#comment-270761 We can’t find the page either. My most educated guess is that the comments—which are done through Disqus.com, which is used by many news organizations—still exist somewhere in Disqus’s system. But the original article, which was on WordPress, is not in our list of posts anymore. So those comments aren’t showing up on that page.

      Although we work to provide journalism at the level of a professional news organization, The Argus is an undergraduate college newspaper with a very small budget and no professional programmers or full-time trained web staff. We also struggle to understand how files can go missing by a crashed server, and we’re doing our best to make sure we don’t encounter a similar situation in the future.

      • You Can’t Handle the Truth

        Great. So, have you contacted Disqus or Word Press to ask? That would seem pretty straightforward. Or do you just prefer to engage the services of third parties for your content and then stick your head in the sand hoping that things work out? Educated guesses are the business of speech writers, sycophants, and politicians – not journalists. Please don’t make it a business habit, your readers deserve better. Please for starters could you let us know what you plan on doing with comments next time you get overwhelmed?

      • stfu

        Yo who cares. Get over yourself this is a college newspaper

      • I care

        I care.

      • Me too please

        I also care. The poster named stfu should look into the mirror and repeat their user-name to themselves (did we break your brain?). Many of us DO want to know not only the various comments of our community on this important issue, but whether the issue is being reported accurately, fairly, and thoroughly in an unbiased fashion. Good journalism is not an excuse for the truth, but a search. I trust that the Argus staff will please follow-up properly, as they already seem to be attempting to do. Thanks Argus for your fine work, we understand that things happen, so please keep your readers informed of the answers to the fair follow-up questions put forward by “You Can’t Handle the Truth.”

      • haha

        lol this is obviously the OP. ur the only one who cares.

  • Funky Math My A$$

    Let’s see . . .
    # of males the administration is requiring live in Womanist house = zero.
    # of females that will be required to live in DKE = some (unstated?) quota. Let’s call that “X”.

    So, if X > 0 then surely at least the administration must own the DKE house, while Womanist house is at least privately owned, right? That would make sense, because as a privately owned building they should not be subject to quotas. Yes, this adds up. Or better yet, let’s establish 50% quotas in every dorm. Drop your pants everyone so that the school may get a good look at your genitals. Mr. Roth, I’m turning around for a moon shot so you can’t tell that I’m transgender.

    • Wes16

      Womanist house isn’t privately owned. It’s part of the program houses.

      • Revelation

        You are correct. And the house for the frat IS privately owned. I think that is the OP’s sarcastic point. It does not add up. I have to say honestly that while I am not a fan of fraternities, I am starting to rethink the university’s approach. Perhaps it would make sense for the school to progressively help build/fund more privately owned spaces for groups like Womanist house, instead of regressing through force. Acting constructive rather than destructive.

      • Annoyed.

        All Wesleyan students live in University owned housing except the >3% that live in Fraternity housing. The school is way past deciding whether to allow students to live off campus in privately owned housing. You missed that debate 10 years ago. An important part of being a private university is that the university has the right to freedom of association. Which ironically, the fraternities have tried to use. By freedom of association the university can arbitrarily declare that no students may live off campus—period. Just like Brigham Young University can chose to associate only with students that follow their moral code exactly (no drinking even if 21). It’s not that hard legally to understand, and it’s no surprise the only lawyer they could get was an alumni. No lawyer that actually knew the law would take this case.

      • Thanks for clarifying

        You do seem annoyed indeed. As long as you are feeling that way then you might note that the legal complaint seems to be signed by a non-fraternity non-alumni lawyer with some fair experience managing state legal claims that have nothing to do with the federally-oriented red herring you’ve mentioned. So, you might wish to take a deep breath and read more carefully. You might actually learn something useful, just like I did. 97 to 3. Interesting. Thanks!

      • Seriously?

        BYU, are you F kidding me with a moral code reference? How is that Wes code of conduct working out for you right now with multiple students overdosing on drugs? In co-ed housing. Just shut up, you have no business referencing a moral code when the school’s own dorms are obviously filled with law-breaking garbage that is a total embarrassment to the entire university and all it should stand for (or is that a legal case you want to defend?)

    • Bad Logic

      Men have and can live in womanist house. Women, even exceptional women, can’t live in DKE in any circumstances under the current frat. The quota you call it is a temporary measure to thwart intimidation tactics from current frat members to discourage women from pledging. Just like at Princeton, Middlebury, Williams, etc, after four years women became equally represented in their “social houses” (which they renamed frats to) and some are even presidents of the houses now.

      • Really?

        Quota as “temporary?” I almost fell out of my chair. What have you been spoon-fed?

        More importantly, there should not be a quota attached by a private landowner to another private property in the first place. And the reason men can live in womanist house is that the owner of that private property (the school) says it is allowed. If a man wanted to live in a private all-female house and the owners said no, would the school step in to force the private owner to do that? Of course not (unless they wanted to be disruptive because they wanted the property for themselves).

        Wake up already. This is clearly reverse discrimination. The fact that frats are objectionable to many people (who view frat activities as discriminatory) does not change things. Switch the genders around in this fact pattern and you may see for yourself more clearly what motive might still remain for the school.

  • Pingback: Wesleyan frat sues for discrimination after being forced to accept women | News World()

  • k.d. lang’s mangina

    I’m actually surprised it took this long for the university to crush the privately-owned fraternal student housing options. That the fraternity system survived the 60’s and 70’s at Wes is an accomplishment in itself. Oh well. I fear the lawsuit will not accomplish much, but it’s often valuable to at least make establishments and administrations stand behind and defend their decisions–legally and publicly.

    • Concerned parent

      I agree wholeheartedly with your comment about the value of accountability and truth. However, where I respectfully disagree is with your phrase “crush the privately-owned” anything – which is then not supported by any stated justification (though perhaps by opinion or assumption). I get it, you don’t like frats, and that is your point of view and it’s ok, I respect your opinion (and agree with it actually, to some degree) – just not the desired result of that personal opinion. This is because of my own opinion that if an entity is privately owned then it has rights as well as obligations. The important point is to define and enforce those rights and obligations fairly. And if obligations are not met it should be “crushed.” If obligations are met however, then rights should be respected. Do you own a home? If you break the law badly enough you will lose your house based on a public and criminal enforcement process – but that is different than a private neighbor complaining that they don’t like the music you play and trying to crush you illegally. So, perhaps we can agree that frats fall somewhere between those two extremes, and you might place them closer to one extreme while I might place them elsewhere? In order to place the frats closer to one extreme (to a point where their private rights should be taken by another private, as opposed to public, party) can you please enunciate what exactly you do not like that falls into a legal obligation that they have to you that has been broken? Saying you do not like someone or something and it should therefore be crushed is not actionable – it is just opinion. I think that is the point of the fraternity lawsuit. At least this is what I have explained to my daughter. As a mom of a male and a female, I am starting to question this particular school’s educational goals, which strike me as opinionated rather than balanced.

      • hypocrisy

        you’re obviously very opinionated…. Don’t see why you dislike others for having an opinion too.

      • Concerned parent

        Ok, I think folks may be misreading what I said too. I never said I dislike anyone, I said I respectfully disagree with a characterization (as I interpreted it – though it appears erroneous, sorry) of “crushing” a social group. Nor did I say I felt it was wrong for someone to have an opinion that might be different from my own. It is just the opposite, I value the opinions of others though they may be different – which it appears is more than perhaps can be said of the administration of this school (and why I have a concern as a parent). That’s it. I am simply saying there is a difference between people having various opinions while being respectful and open-minded (what I would call positive diversity) on the one hand, versus folks taking actions based on those opinions that are disrespectful of others (what seems to be labelled as a PC monstrosity). So, I think we may all be in agreement about the need for free choice within boundaries of respect among others. And not crushing things.

        Regarding frats specifically the issue is more complicated for me as a mom (I’m not a “bro” as referred to below). While I have cultural concerns about frats, I recognize that some of those concerns may be based purely on stereotypes, and on balance I think they are positive from my own personal observations. I don’t know in this specific case, I am not at the school all the time like my daughter. So I am involved second-hand and thus willing to give the benefit of the doubt in the meantime as a skeptic rather than as a cynic. As I have expressed to my daughter and husband (a member of a Greek organization, just like me in fact, though at different schools with very positive experiences), I simply want to see positive behavior from frats, just like from any other social group. In any event, as I understand from my daughter’s input, I think that the university has dealt very poorly with its own legacy history as an all-male institution, specifically by 1) feeding into that stereotype to the point where polarization rather than unity occurs, and 2) actively working from a destructive perspective based on one (majority?) opinion. As an example, I have observed a
        university “leader” who published a PC-infused opinion item stereotyping frat members as having a disposition towards violence (my jaw dropped when my daughter showed this to me and claimed it as justification for action; I would have expected such writing from a freshman, not an educational leader who should know better about taking a valid issue like sexual respect and morphing it into a self-interested diatribe against a group) instead of spending his time helping other student social groups to acquire their own property and EDUCATE folks to understand that others have differing viewpoints, even if they may be in the minority. It bothers me less that fraternities exist and own their own land and more that other social groups don’t own their own land too. Maybe the “non-profit” school could think about that idea more carefully? This is what I have discussed with my daughter in discourse that I would not label as spurgy musings. She wants to understand why the school has not addressed the legacy property issue by helping other social groups along to a more secure future (she has observed both my husband and I attend homecoming events in our own “homes” at our colleges and wants that as a benefit too). Me too. I already pay enough tuition that I sense the school could easily afford to do this if it really wanted to.

        Finally, I am sorry to hear that the OP (whose name I like and find very entertaining by the way!) has experienced PC problems firsthand. That must feel very frustrating and polarizing. This is exactly what I hope to avoid for my daughter going forward, and frankly something I wish our family had been more aware of before enrolling in this school. As our younger son is preparing for his college search it is definitely something we will consider more carefully. It is not a Greek issue, it is a respect issue for us, and from what I can see at a basic level the filing of this lawsuit indicates pretty clearly that there needs to be more education about respect at this school.

      • JG

        In response to “I get it, you don’t like frats” . . .

        Actually, you don’t “get it.” Had you paused for a moment to actually READ k.d. lang’s mangina’s post before hitting “Reply” to treat us all to your ‘spergy musings, you might have realized k.d. lang’s mangina’s perspective is expressly pro-fraternity.

        Too much.

      • k.d. lang’s mangina

        Hear hear.

      • k.d. lang’s mangina

        Bro, do u even reading comprehension? Had you understood my post, you would realize I am definitely pro-fraternity. I was just stating that I am surprised it took this long for the gigantic P.C. monstrosity to crush privately-owned and privately-organized clubs with exclusionary histories.

      • k.d. lang’s mangina

        And yes, I do own a home. I am a law-abiding citizen. I am a Wes alum. I understand the insanity of the Wes P.C. machine fully, as I have experienced it firsthand.

  • SkorpioG

    Let me make sure I understand. DKE has been on campus since 1867, and has owned their house since 1881. Recently, a university president with a personal agenda and an axe to grind has decreed his personal views will be imposed on everyone else for some reason or another. Administrators have jumped to enforce the president’s visions, whims, and wishes. DKE thus has to break its covenants and traditions to satisfy a non-member, or be forced by threat and intimidation to close and leave.

    Why is this man being tolerated, and not run off campus? Why is he not tarred and feathered? Would the founders of the University or of Connecticut tolerate or approve of such a man and his desires?

    • Wes-lyberty?

      Although I can’t say I like fraternities, I do like liberty, and I have to honestly admit that this is perhaps a fair point (minus the tar and feathers) – with two questions to refine the analysis if we wish to improve our fine institution: 1) is a social organization behaving within the law? and 2) is a social organization behaving within accepted “norms” and/or moral standards? For 1) there is a law enforcement process, which should be applied fully when appropriate. For 2) I think the question is tougher – and maybe even defective from a liberty perspectuve – and what I have observed Roth saying so far is essentially “frat members tend to behave in such and such a way, and I think that is unacceptable.” To me this type of position is not defensible without more detail – for which our educational leader (not the frats) should offer definitive proof – and frankly does not sound like a mature and accurate view of a thought leader, but rather the view of a PC-deluded frosh grappling with stereotypes (bad) alongside the important issue of discrimination (good). While it may be true that the behavior of a social organization is on balance “bad” or objectionable from a moral or majority perspective, if the result of that grappling process is to address discrimination with more discrimination of either a greater or lesser degree (“my stereotyping and view of moral standards is more valid than yours, so I’m going to eliminate yours”) then I think the school suffers for it. Badly. I also think it is a terrible outcome when “norms” or predefined views of conformity are imposed in the first place. Let’s not be Neo-con or Neo-lib, lets be balanced? I thought the point of education – or at least the education that Wesleyan might stand for – is to enlighten people to think critically, not criticize and impose when thoughts or opinions are disagreeable to some. I would hate to wake up one day and discover that my views were being monitored or judged by someone with a different view who exerts control over my private activities – to me that sounds like I have woken up in a country other than America. Now, I admit my bias as a libertarian, so folks may disagree – but I’m just saying it is important to please think carefully about what we really want. If the price of not having frats is constrained liberty and educational thought process then I need to consider things more carefully. That’s just me, as a libertarian I will leave others to their own views. Thank you.

      PS – if the school is so terribly concerned can someone please let me know if any effort has been made to help other social groups establish/acquire their own private housing property? While I am more libertarian than socialist, in this case the help may be justified, and I certainly would not object if some of the endowment is used to help fund (no interest loans?) the establishment of privately owned social houses for other groups who demonstrate a commitment to important social issues. It would be interesting to consider as a more constructive approach while informing this important discussion. But perhaps the school wants to control social groups no matter where they reside? Just a thought (is that ok Mr. Roth?)

      • SkorpioG

        I am strong supporter of the Greek system and I believe in the myriad benefits and advantages that come from being a part of something larger than myself. As an active alumni participant, my money, time, and effort, are going back into supporting my brothers. It’s my duty to help make boys into men, men who matter and will make a difference. That may sounds trite or cliche, but I put my money where my mouth is. Helping my brothers find jobs after graduating, helping them understand money, how to ace job interviews, etc. are just a few things I do and actively support.

        Most people’s views of fraternal groups stem from 1977’s “Animal House,” or caricatures they see on TV, or biased reporting they read in print. Fraternal groups have been painted as evil monstrosities bent on self-destruction and sexual assault. It’s a complete lie of course. Such notions are ridiculously one-dimensional, yet many gullible people fall for it (see the UVA – Rolling Stone train wreck) and doesn’t withstand scrutiny. Yet, why stop for facts when there are witches to burn?

        If the same logic that fraternity detractors used were applied to ethnic groups, religious groups (Jews, Muslims, etc.), or gays, they’d be shamed into silence. Yet, fraternal groups are okay to attack and malign because they are largely white and all-male. Branded as outlaws and heretics, it’s open season on fraternal groups–facts be damned. Wesleyan’s president supports such efforts through this silly policy.

        Alumni should really question the motives and purpose behind this, especially the legal fees that University funds will be used to pay. That topic should come up during President Roth’s contract negotiations.

      • Open mind

        Thanks, that is actually an interesting and enlightening perspective, though certainly different than mine. I’ve given this issue some more thought, and feel that you may have a valid idea about questioning motives and purpose of frat elimination – I do, for example, find it hard to imagine that the school would try to eliminate an all female social group that owned local property, as you seem to suggest. Now, that is not reality – there is no sorority that owns their own land. But maybe there should be? If so, what is the school doing to help make that a reality? Imagining this issue from different perspectives is an important exercise, and I am trying to keep an open mind here. What if alumni started to designate that their annual gifts to the school must go directly towards independent land for other types of social groups (instead of paying lawyers)?

        In any event, it seems obvious to me now upon further reflection of your comments and other comments in this article that there may be other less draconian methods for raising awareness of important issues besides eliminating a particular social group. How about giving other social groups more footing? I think that group elimination pushes people apart, not together. And ironically, the existence of frats seems to actually create a pretty active dialogue about important issues – I can’t imagine that eliminating frats does much of anything to eliminate sexual misconduct, let’s be honest, parties go on everywhere (and it appears that the boys and girls at the current drug-infested campus can’t seem to even respect their own bodies, let alone someone else’s). So, if frats or sororities can create leadership and awareness you seem to assert rather than disconnect folks then maybe they have a place on campus. Clearly some more careful thought is needed, it is a shame the school needs to get sued for someone to make an important point.

      • SkorpioG

        The young adults who join fraternal groups reflect the desires, wants, needs, and aspirations of their generation. These young adults were born in the 1990s. They are far more progressive than you think they are. However, the world they are entering is vastly different than the one we entered when we were their age. The modern world is dangerous, more competitive, and is more global than ever before. The modern college experience is also quite different.

        Humans are social creatures and we look for groups with which to associate ourselves. We all want to “belong” to something; to find a comfortable place where we’ll be accepted for who we are; and through shared experience, take on the world with a support base and people who will back you no matter what. That may sound lofty and maybe even romantic, but it’s what fraternal organizations do. Out of these houses come tomorrow’s leaders in business, government, sports, the media, transportation, entertainment and the sciences. There are 140 national social fraternal organizations operating today with millions of members catering to just about every interest imaginable. Also, many universities have “local” fraternal groups, which lack a national presence, but operate similarly and alongside traditional fraternities and sororities.

        Instead of forcing DKE to bend to the political whim of President Roth, Wesleyan should rethink the current Houses they already have. They already offer a myriad of choices for students. Why limit the choices by banning groups like DKE? Shouldn’t they embrace more choices and give students the power to decide for themselves where to live and how to grow? I think it’s terribly arrogant on the part of University administrators to think themselves so enlightened and condescending that they’ll decide for everyone else what is and is not good for the students.

        I think they should invite more groups to campus, not limit or change they ones they have. If every House caters to a different lifestyles, how are non-gay men any different? Why not allow more groups to form? Why not encourage more interaction between Houses so students understand their peers better and can socially interact with them? I think that would make a very enlightened campus and rich environment to study.

  • Pingback: Quit Making Sense » When Is A Frat Not A Frat?()

  • Jackie

    I was President of Wes DKE many moons ago. This is just the latest episode in the ongoing saga of the university trying to get its mitts on the DKE house. It sticks in their craw that this privately-owned property sits in the midst of university buildings. So for at least the past 30+ years successive administrations have tried to bully the rightful owners into throwing in the towel. I’d rather see it in ashes!

  • Pingback: Wesleyan's last remaining fraternity accuses school of shutting it down on flimsy drug pretext - The College Fix()

  • Pingback: 2015: A Very Wesleying Year In Review | Wesleying()

Twitter