Editor:

I would like to respond to the article by Bethany Woodard ("Funding Debate for Fraternities Reborn," Dec. 3), concerning the appropriation of funds for fraternity social events. If it is the opinion of the school and of Miss Woodard that the self-selecting nature of the fraternities automatically disqualifies their eligibility for funds, I have no problem with this opinion. For those who have read the article, this is simply not the case. My problem with this article is its malicious and slanderous nature. Woodard feels that her animosity alone should disqualify fraternities from these funds.

The basis of her argument is that if fraternities were allowed funding for parties, they would then have more of their own money to spend on things like "erotic dancers." Not only is this attack a weak argument, but its basis is sheer stereotypical bias against fraternities. Through Woodard’s argument she is assuming all fraternities support these types of practices. Furthermore, it can be argued from her perspective that if fraternities did in fact get a hold of these funds, fraternities would be likely to spend their own money on other stereotypical fraternal pastimes like drugs, more alcohol, and medieval initiation tools. Irregardless, Woodard’s argument is purely speculative. She is merely assuming because of her biased opinion towards fraternities that this funding will lead to the previous list of activities. Unlike many of the movies she may have seen, Pomona College isn’t exactly your stereotypical replica of a late-night rerun college flick (i.e. Animal House). The fraternal system here can’t be compared with that of major universities, which are usually depicted in these films. The social structure and the academic nature of the school simply won’t support it. The purpose of fraternal organizations on this campus is to create a positive effect on the already dwindling social life.

What Woodard is ignoring is the effects that the lack of funds has had on the social life. There are fraternities that simply can’t throw big parties for the entire school because of lack of funding. Should fraternities like this be penalized because people unfairly speculate what purpose the additional funds will serve? Absolutely not! This is the equivalent of convicting the accused before a crime is ever committed. Without the help of these funds the social life is likely to be further split up and driven off-campus, which defeats the entire purpose of a small liberal arts college.

Woodard is also ignorant to the positive effects of fraternal funding. It is possible that through time, fraternities would be able to climb out of debt and begin to accumulate funds for future use. This would enable fraternities to increase the quality of their campus wide parties. They would be able to serve better food, book bands, and throw parties with greater frequency. By ignoring this point Woodard is again demonstrating her obvious bias against fraternities. She is negatively speculating that fraternities on this campus will mimic the stereotypical behavior often associated with fraternities in movies or at major universities. This speculation should not be the criteria by which funding should be allocated.

With this in mind, it would have been better for Woodard to express her opinion in the form of a solution to the funding debate rather than a speculative, slanderous essay disguised as an article. If her main concern is the assurance that funding be used for its intended purpose, then I suggest some rules could be devised to accommodate her wishes. There are obviously ways to ensure that fraternities only receive funding for events that are open to the entire school, rather than closed fraternal events. With this in mind it is clear that Woodard’s article doesn’t focus on the problem at hand, but rather on the further destruction of fraternities.

Sincerely,

Jake Howard ‘00