Musings on Fairness, and Privilege

In a prior post I shared a couple of stories about AIG  and our broker event  (you might recall the "video" we made where channeled my inner John Travolta).  At these events we always brought in a guest speaker or two and sometimes one of them would speak on a "general interest" topic.

One of these speakers that left a very lasting impression on me, his name- Richard Pimentel.  Mr Pimentel was a Vietnam War Vet, who lost his hearing from an explosion.  He was a genuinely inspiring speaker and he was instrumental in helping to enact the Americans with Disability Act (ADA).   His story was moving to say the least.  If your looking for a good movie I recommend you watch "The Music Within" and I include a trailer clip link below.

The ADA was a landmark piece of legislation that opened up a world of opportunity for those who had various disabilities. It enabled huge numbers of the physically and mentally "disabled" to become  full participants in our society.  Sadly like so many well intentioned government actions,  wherever there is a well intentioned program there will be not so well intentioned citizens who find a way to use the system for not such a noble purposes. A recent Wall Street Journal article reminded me that good intentions can always be twisted to benefit some who have no qualms about exploiting "the system".

I am sure many of you have flown with individuals that bring on board  "emotional" support animals (usually small dogs) supposedly to enable them to handle the "stress"of flying.  Recently I had some  first hand discussions with an individual who was so concerned with the idea of putting their dog in storage (think United and dogs) that she had hers designated "an emotional support dog".  A short phone interview with a mental health "professional" and "walla!' they would issue you a note that would met the requirements for an ADA designation.  It does involve playing a little with the "facts", but you do not need a personal visit, just a "phone interview" from a "medical professional" to validate your "need".  Most importantly......it does take a few bucks.

To be honest...I understand, somewhat, the dog thing.  Having my dog shipped steerage would be traumatic.  I am, however, very uncomfortable with using the ADA "rules" in such a process.  In reality the "harm" to fellow passengers of having dogs underneath someone's else's seat is likely minuscule, less than a crying baby.  But my main point is simply how "easy"  and perverted the process is to be designated in need of emotional support.  Now for an even more disturbing trend.

Headline From the WSJ-May 24th 2018
Clips lines from article are italicized.


 

Colleges Bend the Rules for More Students, Give Them Extra Help

With an influx of students classified as disabled, schools move to accommodate their needs

First two Paragraphs:

As many as one in four students at some elite U.S. colleges are now classified as disabled, largely because of mental-health issues such as depression or anxiety, entitling them to a widening array of special accommodations like longer time to take exams.

Under federal law, students can be considered disabled if they have a note from a doctor. That label requires schools to offer accommodations depending on the student’s needs. A blind student, for example, would have access to specialized software or a reader for an exam.

Now helping to accommodate blind students certainly certainly seems reasonable and quite in the spirit of the ADA.  I am sure Helen Keller would approve.  Now "depression" and 'anxiety"?  Well I used to get bouts of anxiety over studying for my German exams at Lafayette and got a D actually so the anxiety was warranted.  I could have done better with some help from a doctor's note!

Some other random comments for articles:

The rise in disability notes for mental-health issues has led to a surge in the number of students who take their exams in low-distraction testing centers, are allowed to get up and walk around during class or bring a comfort animal to school, among other measures. 

Public schools have also seen a significant uptick in test accommodations. From 2011 to 2016, the number of students with special accommodations increased by an average of 71% among 22 flagship state schools, according to data obtained by The Wall Street Journal.

The most common accommodations come during testing. Students who receive extended time may get twice as long as their classmates to take an exam.

We’re seeing a lot more requests for private rooms,” said David Beach, director of the school’s disability resource center.

Some professors question how this affects the fairness of exams.

DUH...

If  must say, if I had twice as long, in a private room, with a "comfort animal" (I am thinking an English/German speaking  horse like Mr.Ed) Boy I'd have aced that class!  You would not want me as a UN translator though!  Nor would I want a heart surgeon who needed to keep me under an extra few hours to complete their work.  Heck I would never want a customer service rep to handle my call who needed "more time" to complete their tasks.  

If the growth rates of students doing this does not raise some college administrators attention what will? A cynic might point out that more students need more dean's and professors etc, even better if they need extra care and facilities.

This is crazy.

"Fairness" is not just making sure the disabled get a fair "shake".  It's making sure the system is FAIR to ALL.  Not just the privileged (see this comment from article!) or those whose employment is bolstered by this crap.  

Miriam Kurtzig Freedman, an attorney who has represented public schools in special-education and disability law and has written several books about accommodations, said that giving some test takers extended time on the SAT is “like lowering the basket from 10 feet to eight feet; you’re changing the game.”

Wealthier students are more likely to receive accommodations than poor students, Ms. Freedman said.

I will not "cut and paste' any more.  With my email notice of this "at the airport blog post" I will include a PDF of the article (for those with no subscription)

 

Divided America and the Trump Phenomena Pt 1

There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware

I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind

It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side

It's s time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

Paranoia strikes deep
Into your life it will creep
It starts when you're always afraid
You step out of line, the man come and take you away

We better stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, now, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down
Stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

(Readers Note- This was originally going to be a larger post but at the recommendation of my editor I have chopped in half.  This post will look at the topic in a more "Academic" way, while Part 2 will focus more on some personal observations from various conversations I have had with people on both sides of America's divide.)


Buffalo Springfield's 60's protest song was written as a protest song against "The Establishment' during the tumultuous 60's.  Yet  I find it useful in describing today's political climate where the "protest" is coming from both ends of the political spectrum. The Tea Party protests against Obamacare is a good example of "grassroots" mobilization on the right, but not sure anything except the late 60's War Protests can compare to the massive demonstrations following Trump's election.  I have in some previous posts referred to it as "Trump Derangement" a term I acknowledge I have picked up from conservative media.

My readers of any political persuasion should understand that my reference to the Trump "Derangement Syndrome" refers to the amazing reaction to his election.  A reaction that stirred within hours.

Colleges shut down and or gave "safe" spaces and special "counseling" (See UVM letter below as an example). Protests erupted and millions took to the streets with a theme that "all was lost". Almost immediately a cry went up that an election was stolen. Millions were apparently "duped" by outside interference and/or the misuse of social media.  Worse yet it was claimed subtle racism caused millions to cast votes that overturned the "logical choice". Why Hillary even claimed that large numbers of  women voters were duped by misogyny (i.e. women voted what their husbands told them).  This has all been hyper-inflated by much of the news media, a media where  supposed "impartial" news figures were in tears from the outcome on election night. While I believed both candidates were seriously flawed  (The choices sure sucked) I was taken aback by what seemed to me an immediate "rejection" of the results particularly by 'elite' female voters.  (Example: I will always remember Donna Carpenter the CEO of Burton Snowboards, a company built by her Husband, giving all the women at Burton the day off and transported them "on" the company to protest Trump in Washington).  I could not believe the complete denial of the underlying voter mood which was revealed by the results.

For those of you who followed my blog since day one you will recall that I promised to use as a "compass" for political discussions about "liberals" and "conservatives", an academic whose book "The Righteous Mind" provided me with some provocative and interesting insights on the divide that separates us.  Jonathan Haidt might even  tell me that my "righteous thinking" prejudgeds his work.  Regardless, I find his research on moral psychology and the political divide pretty compelling and this will be the backdrop for this blog piece.

In collecting my thoughts  for today's blog I turned back to Jonathan Haidt, and found a piece he  wrote, way back in 2008 a few months before the election of Barack Obama. It was an article written long before I had even heard of Mr. Haidt. I have a link to the entire piece at the end of this post.  Meanwhile, in italics, I have copied and pasted some parts of the piece that particularly resonated with my take on the current political landscape..  First the heading and introduction:

What Makes People Vote Republican?

Jonathan Haidt [9.8.08]

...the second rule of moral psychology is that morality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think); it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way. When Republicans say that Democrats "just don't get it," this is the "it" to which they refer.

He goes on in the article:

For my dissertation research, I made up stories about people who did things that were disgusting or disrespectful yet perfectly harmless. For example, what do you think about a woman who can't find any rags in her house so she cuts up an old American flag and uses the pieces to clean her toilet, in private? Or how about a family whose dog is killed by a car, so they dismember the body and cook it for dinner? I read these stories to 180 young adults and 180 eleven-year-old children, half from higher social classes and half from lower, in the USA and in Brazil. I found that most of the people I interviewed said that the actions in these stories were morally wrong, even when nobody was harmed. Only one group—college students at Penn—consistently exemplified Turiel's definition of morality and overrode their own feelings of disgust to say that harmless acts were not wrong. (A few even praised the efficiency of recycling the flag and the dog).

This research led me to two conclusions. First, when gut feelings are present, dispassionate reasoning is rare. In fact, many people struggled to fabricate harmful consequences that could justify their gut-based condemnation. I often had to correct people when they said things like "it's wrong because… um…eating dog meat would make you sick" or "it's wrong to use the flag because… um… the rags might clog the toilet." These obviously post-hoc rationalizations illustrate the philosopher David Hume's dictum that reason is "the slave of the passions, and can pretend to no other office than to serve and obey them." This is the first rule of moral psychology: feelings come first and tilt the mental playing field on which reasons and arguments compete. If people want to reach a conclusion, they can usually find a way to do so. The Democrats have historically failed to grasp this rule, choosing uninspiring and aloof candidates who thought that policy arguments were forms of persuasion. (underline is mine)

Now I was immediately struck by a personal example of this immediate passionate reasoning phenomenon, one I blogged about....the NFL/National Anthem "controversy."  

When I read this "hypothetical" scenario about a women using an American Flag as a rag to clean a toilet I was immediately disgusted literally from my very "gut". I recall my Father had a great term for certain types of "moral reasoning".  "I don't go for that". I could not help but relate it to my own "gut" aversion to the NFL players "disrespecting the sacred" our National Anthem.  It also made me wonder....did Donald Trump actually  "study" Haidt??

Later in his piece Haidt makes some very compelling points about Conservative thinking, one which if you read his article is disputed by most of the "academic reviewers" (no surprise see my last blog comment on college PHD's overwhelming political bias): 

Back in the United States the culture war was going strong, but I had lost my righteous passion. I could never have empathized with the Christian Right directly, but once I had stood outside of my home morality, once I had tried on the moral lenses of my Indian friends and interview subjects, I was able to think about conservative ideas with a newfound clinical detachment. They want more prayer and spanking in schools, and less sex education and access to abortion? I didn't think those steps would reduce AIDS and teen pregnancy, but I could see why the religious right wanted to "thicken up" the moral climate of schools and discourage the view that children should be as free as possible to act on their desires. Conservatives think that welfare programs and feminism increase rates of single motherhood and weaken the traditional social structures that compel men to support their own children? Hmm, that may be true, even if there are also many good effects of liberating women from dependence on men. I had escaped from my prior partisan mindset (reject first, ask rhetorical questions later), and began to think about liberal and conservative policies as manifestations of deeply conflicting but equally heartfelt visions of the good society.

Kinda sounds like some of my concerns voiced in "gender wars". and while Haidt is no "conservative". I  find his insight into my own "feelings and biases"  uncanny.

His last two paragraphs are below,  with an underlined of his last sentence in particular.  It is hard to believe he wrote this 10 years ago. 

If Democrats want to understand what makes people vote Republican, they must first understand the full spectrum of American moral concerns. They should then consider whether they can use more of that spectrum themselves. The Democrats would lose their souls if they ever abandoned their commitment to social justice, but social justice is about getting fair relationships among the parts of the nation. This often divisive struggle among the parts must be balanced by a clear and oft-repeated commitment to guarding the precious coherence of the whole. America lacks the long history, small size, ethnic homogeneity, and soccer mania that holds many other nations together, so our flag, our founding fathers, our military, and our common language take on a moral importance that many liberals find hard to fathom.

Unity is not the great need of the hour, it is the eternal struggle of our immigrant nation. The three Durkheimian foundations of ingroup, authority, and purity are powerful tools in that struggle. Until Democrats understand this point, they will be vulnerable to the seductive but false belief that Americans vote for Republicans primarily because they have been duped into doing so.

So in his last sentence, written 8 years before Trump's election, Haidt predicted (actually he "nailed it") how most Democrats would interpret the 2016 election of Donald Trump.  They simply cannot grasp how a huge portion of the electorate views many of the rapid social and moral changes that happened in our society over the last generation. Instead they tend to cast this part of our society as "misogynistic", "racist", or just "deplorables". 

Haidt in his book, The Righteous Mind  suggests that Liberals and Conservatives usually "look" at the opposing view differently.  Conservatives tend to righteously dismiss Liberal positions as "misguided" while Liberals tend to righteously dismiss Conservative positions as "evil".  Maybe we could all get along better if both sides picked the same label for opposing views???  Who knows it just might work!

Perhaps more on this in some other post but until then.

Adieu

Link to article

Why people vote Republican

UVM Letter

November 9, 2016

  

To the UVM Community: 

Our country and community have gone through a challenging election yesterday with some of the results still being finalized.  Many on our campus are feeling a range of emotions, wonder, and concerns.  As we move forward as a nation and community, many questions remain how the transition and change will affect our lives and society.  There will be much discussion and exploration of the meaning and impact of this election for some time to come.  

We write at this important historical moment to remind all members of the UVM family that we are a caring and inclusive community that is committed to the safety, security, and wellbeing of each and every person.

We recognize that this is a challenging time for many of our colleagues and students, who may be feeling isolated and concerned for personal welfare.  Our University denounces any form of bias, discrimination, or violence.  It is especially important, now, to continue to work together and support each other.  We encourage you to take advantage of available programs and resources available at the University and to reach out to one another for support and encouragement.

A post-election program is being hosted today by Living Well and the Interfaith Center from 4:00 pm-7:00 pm in the Living Well Studio in the Davis Center.  There will be tea and reflections throughout that time, along with meditations (4:15 pm & 6:40 pm) and a structured discussion at 5:3 pm.

If anyone needs additional support, please contact the Counseling Center (for students) at 802-6563340 or InvestEAP (for employees) at 802-864-3270.  In addition, there are various offices on campus that offer specific support such as the LGBTQA Center, the ALANA Center, the Women’s Center, the Center for Cultural Pluralism, the Office of International Education, the Dean of Students Office, and the Interfaith Coordinator who is the liaison to the Spiritual and Religious Life Council.

In the time ahead, we will continue, as a University community, to uphold the values of Our Common Ground and remain steadfast in our commitment to providing a safe, open, inclusive, and respectful campus community and educational experience for our entire community.

Tom Sullivan                                                            

President

Wanda Heading-Grant

Vice President of Human Resources, Diversity & Multicultural Affairs 

     

  

 

Male Fraternal Organizations in Today's Genderless Part 2 Society.

• Dean Wormer: Greg, what is the worst fraternity on this campus?
• Greg: That would be hard to say, sir. They're each outstanding in their own way.
• Dean Wormer: Cut the horseshit, son. I've got their disciplinary files right here. Who dropped a whole truckload of fizzies into the swim meet? Who delivered the medical school cadavers to the alumni dinner? Every Halloween, the trees are filled with underwear. Every spring, the toilets explode.
• Greg: You're talking about Delta, sir.
• Dean Wormer: Of course I'm talking about Delta, you TWERP!!! This year is going to be different. This year we are going to grab the bull by the balls and kick those punks off campus.
• Greg: What do you intend to do sir? Delta's already on probation.
• Dean Wormer: They are?
• Greg: Yes, sir.
• Dean Wormer: Oh. Then as of this moment, they're on double secret probation!
• Greg: Double secret probation, sir?
• Dean Wormer: There is a little-known codicil in the Faber College constitution which gives the dean unlimited power to preserve order in time of campus emergency. Find me a way to revoke Delta's charter. You live next door. Put Neidermeyer on it. He's a sneaky little shit, just like you, right? [Greg nods] The time has come for someone to put their foot down. And that foot is me

• Dean Wormer: Well, well, well. Looks like somebody forgot there's a rule against alcoholic beverages in fraternities on probation!
• Otter: What a tool.
• Dean Wormer: I didn't get that, son, what was that?
• Otter: Uh, I said, "What a shame that a few bad apples have to spoil a good time for everyone by breaking the rules."
• Dean Wormer: Put a sock in it, boy, or else you'll be outta here like shit through a goose.

In 1978 National Lampoon released the movie "Animal House" and it has since become a cult classic.  According to Wikipedia:

The film, along with 1977's The Kentucky Fried Movie, also directed by Landis, was largely responsible for defining and launching the gross out film genre, which became one of Hollywood's staples.^[4] As of 2017, it was considered by many fans and critics as one of the greatest comedy films ever made. In 2001, the United States Library of Congress deemed Animal House "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" and selected it for preservation in the National Film Registry. It was No. 1 on Bravo's "100 Funniest Movies". It was No. 36 on AFI's "100 Years... 100 Laughs" list of the 100 best American comedies. In 2008, Empire magazine selected it as one of "The 500 Greatest Movies of All Time."

I first saw the movie in its' first run in Florida with my Faithful and Obedient Companion, and a Fraternity Brother from my college days along with his wife.  We could not believe how the movie resonated with our own Fraternity experiences right down to the Term "Animal House" which many on our campus labeled our own happy group of "Brothers".

To cite one of my favorite  examples:

In our Sophomore year several of us went deer hunting in upstate Pennsylvania, and after successfully bagging several deer we brought them back to our Fraternity House, which was located at one of the best spots on Campus, centally wedged between the Geology Building and the Library, in one of the highest trafficked walkways off the "Quad",  We joyfully hung them to cure above our House's Balcony along with a plastic Santa. Needless to say it was not a hit amongst the new "co-eds" (it was the first year we went Co-Ed) nor with our own "Dean Wormer", Dean Kessiah.   A few weeks later we consumed the Venison at a "deer and beer" bash put on by our own full time cook, Ed Klaus,  who both butchered and prepared the meal. As an added bonus we even recruited several off our brothers girlfriends and a couple of brave and adventurous new "Co-Eds" to act as  "serving wenches" (a couple of them actually dressed up for the occasion in appropriate "wench costumes) even these "young maidens" thought the whole thing was a great "success".

While our Fraternity had a reputation for its' fun loving edgeness, and great parties it also built lasting values and enduring friendships. Three of our fellow bloggers are my Fraternity Brothers (who may have some conflicting comments on my interpretation of events), and  I have remained in contact with many others.  Many of us married the women who knew or dated us during those days and perhaps because they had seen us at our best and worst moments, have pretty solid marriages.  My own sense is that on average the "long term" marriage rate amongst us is much higher than the norm.   With few exceptions most went on to meaningful careers in many fields.  Some became university professors, others were successful in business, law and medicine,  Several went into the Military.  Through it all I think most would agree  that when we think of Lafayette we really think of Phi Delta Theta.

Now for some very random thoughts about what Fraternity life meant:

When I went to Lafayette it was an all male college, and Fraternities supplied much of the housing , meals, and of course social life on campus.  If I recall out of about 1700 students (all male at the time of our matriculation) over 70% were members of some 19 Fraternities.

I have to say the drinking was something my Faithful and Obedient companion was most perplexed by.  Virtually all Fraternities on campus sponsored "parties" 4 or 5 times per semester, and Alcohol was an integral part of most.  Pot smoking was always confined to individual rooms but frankly we were not known as a "pot house"  (but some fraternities were).  Ours along with 3 or 4 others were well known for our ability to throw a party.  During those days Pennsylvania's minimum age for alcohol purchase and consumption was 21 while New Jersey right across the river was 18. All members and others on campus who happened to stop in during one of our cocktail parties or during our Saturday Band Party were freely served alcohol ( we did discriminate but not on race  only "townies" were not welcome-well maybe a few "townie females" slipped by).   During our after football cocktail parties alumni and parents would join us (coats and ties were mandatory), along with Professors and maybe a Dean or 2 (never Dean Kissiah).  My own Parents would come up on parent's weekends. In the spring we sponsored a huge "mother's day" brunch which my parents as well as my  grandmother "Me Ma" enjoyed every year I was at Lafayette.  These events could well be viewed as misplaced priorities.  I now see them as a way of learning social skills that helped me for the rest of my life.

Now while it may seem like my Fraternity experience was focused on  alcohol and "debauchery" it was not.  Lafayette when I first attended was hardly "diverse" by today's standards (overwhelmingly "white" and all male) but my Fraternity "felt" very different from the world I grew up in.  My own neighborhood was virtually all Irish Catholic, working or lower middle class.  My high School was in some ways much more diverse ethnically (30% black) and of course it was Co-Ed.

But it was diverse in its' socio-economic and even religious diversity   Several members were from wealthy families (by my standards heck one unusual one had a Jaguar on campus several weekends).   Many of our members parents were doctors, lawyers, and even college professors, but we  also had our share of men from families like my own. We had a few Jewish men as well as Catholics and Protestants.  We were generally  brought together by some matching interests (sports, drinking, freshmen friendships that led several to negotiate "package deals" when we decided to "join together", partying together, and even  playing "bridge" attracted a few ) When I "rushed" I learned how to meet and converse with people whose background and experiences were much different than mine.  Conversely when I was "rushing" incoming freshmen I learned to judge them in ways beyond academics and sports. In essence we bonded with people we often differed from (despite the usual Frat Boy stereotypes society often held) but liked, and wanted to be around.  A few who joined quit but frankly this "matching" process insured we all generally got along and worked well together, despite diverse academic backgrounds.

I think the aptly named "Delta House" in "Animal House' actually accurately portrayed the types of "diverse" characters Phi Delta Theta attracted.

In our day to day affairs we like most fraternities at Lafayette self governed in terms of running our organization (with some Alumni guidance).  We managed our own finances, budgets, room and board, house cleaning and social life. We owned our building.  Infractions to house rules were not enforced by the college but during Chapter Meetings where the accused faced his accusers and was judged by his "peers".

 Pledging and"Hazing" (once again very much like the "Delta House" of the movie) never involved paddling or physical violence it frankly consisted mostly of some funny stupid rituals and some good-natured razzing of initiates. Screw-ups usually  meant being told to "get out you asshole and never come back"  never serious about the "don't come back" part.  Of course as "low men' on the totem pole during our first year (as 2nd semester pledges and 1st semester sophomores) cleaning the "House" after a party was part of "the deal". It helped instill a sense of ownership and pride in our building.  In all other way,s even as pledges we were pretty much all equal in each others eyes.  It is this experience i believe, that built lasting bonds among us that exist to this day.


This leads me into a different conversation on Fraternity Life as I knew it.  Compared to the negative National Press  that Fraternities have gotten in recent years (and some deservedly so).   Obviously I am biased in my views but since I can only speak to my own experiences I cannot help but draw conclusions based on these "Observations".



As to the Alcohol and party issue as now viewed by society.

 Lafayette like virtually every college had to face the music on open defiance  of societal and legal pressure on under age alcohol consumption.  My own feeling is that has made the problem worse by driving it "underground".  Fraternity "Parties" no longer included "Dressing Up" and having a drink with alumni,  professors and parents. Furthermore by making violations a "death sentence" for a Fraternities existence, it has encouraged members to hide the effects of poor judgement when a brother encounters a problem.  Let me cite a personal example.

One of the great joys of my Fraternity experience was my semester as "Social Chairmen' in my senior year ( I graduated before I was 21).  As mentioned above Fraternities were "self governing" (Blog Follower Whitey for example was elected commissar and managed our meal service and our cook "Ed" for several semesters he also "managed me" as I was a paid dishwasher for 3 years).  As social chairmen I managed our all important "social calendar" selecting and hiring bands, purchasing alcohol, planing cocktail parties etc.  During one of "my" parties while tapping a keg of beer at about midnight  (we often went through 20 1/2 kegs or more during a big party weekend-nobody drove since we were right on campus) I smashed my hand on a tipped over keg.  (Frankly I had a few to many between our pre game cocktail party, after game cocktail party, and many glasses of beer.). Fortunately my Faithful and Obedient companion attended this party and she recruited a sober (yes we had some) brother to drive us to the local emergency room.  To show how bad I was ...I could not even give the Doctor my name.  They proceeded to stitch my hand up, no novocaine administered since the Doctor said " he doesn't need it" (so I am told), and sent me on my way.  Today that would be reported and walla-no more Fraternity.   I often wonder what would be the outcome that night if drinking was an offense punishable by ending our Fraternity.

A while back I thought of this when I read to story about the Penn State Fraternity that had a brother die because they did not seek help from an alcohol induced blackout.  So for  my first social commentary I offer the following

Realistically I understand allowing privileged college students to drink in defiance of the law was not tenable.  I get that but for the life of me cannot understand how the baby boomers who successfully lobbied to enfranchise those 18 or older to vote, drink, marry etc.  Suddenly turned our focus to nullifying most of those changes for their offspring.  The reality is society has changed (maybe for the better in aggregate) and I have come to accept that.  However in places like Europe drinking at younger ages seems to demystify it's appeal and this helps to integrate young people into socially using alcohol.  At any rate ending the social aspects of Fraternity Life when 18-20 year olds will still find ways to party did not "end" the drinking but simply drove it "underground".  Having said that,  I do believe that there is simply no excuse for allowing a fellow human being to die due to a fear of being forced to hide your underground drinking.

Second, demographically many Fraternities had to fall by the wayside(ours at Lafayette ended its' existence in the 90's mainly due to "alcohol violations") .  Virtually all of the male Colleges, like Lafayette, have gone co-ed and as a result today there are now less men than women  at Lafayette (as is true at most colleges-see my post on Wayward Sons).  At last count Lafayette has about 1200 men  (a lot less then when I matriculated) of which only 25-30% join what is left of Fraternities.  Interestingly over 35% of women are in Sororities.  Women's gains in attaining college was inevitable and has been 'the right thing' for our society as a whole but as a result there was no alternative universe that would sustain the same experiences we had for those who followed us.

Finally Colleges have seen self governing Fraternities as an enigma in today's big brother society.  At Lafayette and at most colleges today "special interest groups" have blossomed but are "controlled" to make sure they are "diverse" or are an expression of "politically correct" special interests (i.e. LGBT, Black Collegians, etc.).  However,  these are not independent of college oversight, as our Fraternities were.  The college dean's take a tight rein monitoring their events, and in all aspects of there living arrangements. As a result except as "loners" there virtually no opportunities for groups of students to totally run their living arrangements as they see fit.  In this world there will be no Deer hanging from the Balconies at colleges anymore, and I am sure a  college sponsored"hunting club" would not gain traction or approval at Lafayette, or pretty much anywhere.

So with that I will end my commentary and perspectives of "Fraternities".  but with one small postscript.

A couple of years ago I went back to a Fraternity Reunion which was in part sponsored by the college.  Our old  "fraternity House" ,which now housed the Dean of Diversity (along with a few other deans-poetic justice I suppose and indicative of the increased costs of education), was the site of this Homecoming.  Several of my Brothers (who were members when I was there) had been working with the college in an effort to begin "re-colonizing".  One of the College's many Dean's helped make the pitch.  A pitch that  sounded to me as not a love of "Fraternal life" but more about "the money" and the socially correct way of managing student life.  You see for years as fraternities were obliterated alumni like me began to feel alienated, and  mine and many others stopped giving.  After listening for a while it was evident that any re-colonized Fraternity would be a shell of what we once were.  They needed to be "inclusive" and transparent. 

Several of us asked some questions.  Mine?  " So if someone wanted to "pledge" the new Phi Delt and were not offered admission what would the college's reaction be"?  For example if a women decided to "apply" what would be your position in the future?"

When the dean answered  (to paraphrase) "well it would depend on the circumstances" my response was "so we are talking about a college managed club" or something, not a "Fraternity".  He looked away and took the next question.

I would have been more receptive to a flat out pitch for money with an acknowledgement that for Lafayette the Fraternity system was no longer tenable then some bland attempt at simply offering a "club" run by the college.  It was to me a charade to try to make some of us "feel" like we were home again.

I lefts with a thought from Thomas Wolfe  as far as Fraternal Life at Lafayette:

"You can never go home again"

Until next time

Adieu

Male Fraternal Organizations in Today's "genderless" Societies Part 1

I read the news today, oh boy
About a lucky man who made the grade
And though the news was rather sad
Well I just had to laugh

I saw the photograph
He blew his mind out in a car
He didn't notice that the lights had changed
A crowd of people stood and stared
They'd seen his face before
Nobody was really sure
If he was from the House of Lords

I saw a film today, oh boy
The English Army had just won the war
A crowd of people turned away
But I just had to look
Having read the book
I'd love to turn you on

Beatles

The Boy Scouts program is becoming Scouts BSA in February 2019 to reflect the decision to include young women, the Boy Scouts of America announced on Wednesday.

The organization's name will remain the same; only the program for older youth will change its name.

The Boy Scouts of America, or BSA, announced last fall that it would begin allowing girls to become Scouts — much to the frustration of the Girl Scouts, which has advocated for single-gender scouting.

News Release NPR Report

I could not help but think of the Beatles song "Day in the Life" when I saw the Boy Scouts were now the "Scouts".  I had started a blog post on "Fraternities", as I mentioned I would when blog follower Phil Gocke commented about our Fraternal Life on my last post before heading to Florida.  Since I had so many fond memories of my male bonding "Boy Scout" experience the news that Boy Scouting succumbed to the "reality" of our modern age was just to timely and surreal to simply let it pass. Adding to the nostalgia was getting the news from a cousin of mine who Barb and I visited on our last two days in Florida.  It became a topic between us that also reflected on the polarization and political "realignment" that became so evident in the last election.

Before commenting on that aspect I want to spend a few minutes on what scouting was to me.

I joined a scout troop located in a neighborhood outside of my own back in 1963.  The scoutmaster, Fred Glover, lived in a rowhouse in our neighborhood.  He was the father of 2 girls, and had no boys of his own.  He was a lifelong "Boy Scout" and remained active in a Troop located in the Kensington section of Philadelphia.  The Troop met in a Baptist Church at Frankford and Allegheny Avenues in the heart of a Blue Collar neighborhood.  You probably have all seen a glimpse of the area if you watched "Rocky" which was based on a character from that neighborhood and was filmed 2 or 3 blocks from that Baptist Church.  Many of my fellow scouts lived in houses that formed a backdrop for the movie.  I spent countless hours of my life in and around those scenes from Rocky.  Funny most of our members were "Catholic Boys' since the Catholic Churches Scouting Programs were timid in comparison.

Fred Glover ran a rather unique scouting program.  First and foremost he believed in "high adventure" scouting.  We NEVER summer camped at scout camp.  Fred had a connection through work with Scott Paper company which owned thousand of acres of forest in Northern Maine and let him use an old cabin on the shores of Flagstaff Lake (you literally drove 30 miles on a crude dirt road to reach it) where we camped for 2 weeks most summers.  No running water and we built our own diving raft to push out into the lake.  We fished, water skied and ate food we lugged on our backs the last 2 miles to the camp.  We brought rifles so we could learn to shoot.

Every third year we went to Algonquin Park in Canada  where we canoed and portaged our canoes back into the wilderness 50 miles from the nearest road.  (Fellow Blogger "Whitey" and I along with two friends made a trip there when we graduated from Lafayette).

Our Friday scout meetings often ended with a game of "Buck Buck" where we divided into teams and each team took turns jumping on the backs of the opposing teams who formed a  linked an attempt to break them.  On other nights we played a game where we formed a circle with our eyes closed and heads bowed.  Fred or his designate would walk around and place a leather belt in someone's hand.  He would then signal and the individual with the belt was to start wacking the person next to them on the ass while they chased him around the circle twice.  I can tell you "ADD' was never a problem in our scout troop.  It was frankly a great time and I cannot recall any parent raising hell about our how we ended our meetings.  

In high school I had the pleasure of repaying some of those belt wacks when I played football against my fellow scouts in our neighborhood rivalry against North Catholic High!   My Father went to Maine my last year or two and on one of those Canadian trips.  He even hunted at that Maine campsite a few times after I left scouting. 

While we had a few "Eagle Scouts" Fred was not big on "pushing" kids to advance in "Rank".  I only made "Star" rank but I will always remember the night I was named "Scout of the Year" by my fellow scouts my Junior year in High School.

Such scouting memories unfortunately did not become part of my Boys life.  My oldest son James was a scout for a year or two but never embraced it.   He found his "male bonding" by embracing Football.  Eric was a cub scout but never had a real interest....his ultimate "male bonding" occurs  at age 21 at Parris Island  SC.  I would be the first to acknowledge that Boy Scouting (at least my brand) was not the same for everyone.

"Boy Scouting" was doomed in a society that began to believe that such "Gender Isolation" was a means of making men too "masculine" and "gender" conscious. Toss in  half the boys today without meaningful fathers and  boom where do you recruit "leaders" (Fred was an interesting exception).  Finally toss in the Gay and Transgender issues and walla...boy scouts as they were known simply did not have a chance. While I get some of the demographic and social issues I am still left saddened by it all. 

Many today might see the passing of "Boy Scouts" differently than my cousin and I.  That brings me to my "political" observation.  

Interestingly my cousin was a lifelong Democrat.  He was and is a member of the Philadelphia Laborers union  who voted for President Obama twice. He is a lifelong hunter, and while not devout a regular attendee at Catholic Mass.  In chatting with him he admitted he voted for Trump this year, and was surprised I did not.   I can tell you he sure did not understand my "Hail Mary" vote.  Oh of course he was a boy scout at one time so  we did share remorse on that issue.

On one of my Gender wars posts I mentioned that the Trump Derangement protests and the failure to see what huge swatches of  working class people of the country were feeling and voting on was only going to increase the polarization in our political process.  That feeling was reinforced when I left Florida....more on that another time!

Until next time 

Adieu

PS While in Florida my Faithful and Obedient Companion saw a Beatles Tribute to Sgt Pepper...that weighed in I am sure on my musical selection!