The Brothers Have to Change

The shocking cries of rape that ripped through the UCLA community last week have split the campus into two groups: those who support the alleged victim and contend that fraternities breed a culture of aggressive sexual behavior versus those who side with the three fraternity men who stand accused and insist that this incident should not be used as ammunition against the entire fraternity system.

Everyone seems to agree that rape can happen anywhere, at any time and to anyone. But this rape did not happen just anywhere or to anyone: It happened at a 50-keg fraternity “weekender” party at an out-of-town hotel and it happened to an intoxicated 19-year-old sorority woman who reportedly was playing sexually provocative games with her assailants.

Why do these circumstances matter? Aside from their relevance to the crucial legal question of consent, they reveal much about the type of social and sexual standards prevailing in the Greek system, not only at UCLA but at virtually every college campus.

To be precise, there is not a universal set of fraternity standards. But there does seem to exist one overarching goal from which all other fraternity values flow: the need or desire to be accepted.

This is accomplished within the context of fraternity culture most typically by drinking heavily, by “scoring” easily and frequently with women, and/or by excelling in something, be it in academics, extracurricular activities or sports. But since being a scholar, a campus leader or a college athlete requires self-discipline, commitment and sacrifice, the first two methods (heavy drinking and casual sex) are the most popular since they seem to present the paths of least resistance on the road toward social acceptance.

Conveniently enough (for the fraternity member who craves this type of acceptance), heavy drinking goes hand-in-hand with one-night stands. That this is so on fraternity row is reflected in the frequently heard female student complaint that most guys are more comfortable having sex with a stranger than they are with holding their girlfriend’s hand.

Campus women who are familiar with this behavior say it stems from the fact that when a frat man “scores” with a woman, it is seen by his “brothers” as an act of self-confidence and power, conquest and indifference. Holding a girlfriend’s hand, however, is construed as a sign of weakness, submission and commitment. This skewed moral code sends a clear message within the fraternal order: Sexual aggressiveness is to be admired and emulated; sexual timidity, or worse, inexperience, is to be ridiculed and scorned.

Moreover, and perhaps more dangerous, some students say that in addition to breeding aggressive sexual behavior, fraternities tend to cultivate a perception in the minds of some of their members that they are outside, if not above, the law. Many critics claim that this attitude permeates the Greek system, fostering a sense of invincibility, self-importance and false bravado that comes from belonging to a fraternity. It’s as if some of the men believe that their actions do not have consequences, that their behavior bears no judgment, that whatever happens within the hallowed halls of the fraternity will be protected by a sacred and unbreakable “brotherly” code of silence, solidarity and, of all things, honor.

Add this perception to the practice of heavy drinking and casual sex and what you get is a blurring of the line that separates (collegiate) carelessness from (hard-core) criminality. Or in this case, gang rape.

Regardless of how this case is concluded, perhaps some students can take from it the lesson that social acceptance won at the expense of moral standards is meaningless and that every action, regardless of where or when or with whom it is committed, has a consequence.

Unfortunately for the accused, this is a lesson that might have to be learned not on the campus of UCLA but behind bars.