Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About Hesperian student / (Lincoln [Neb.]) 1872-1885 | View Entire Issue (Feb. 1, 1890)
THE HESPERIAN. tion at nil. Last term the fraternity clement saw fit to with- f uraw their support from hie Hesperian because they a id not receive sufficient notice in its columns. Dear frats, we will endeavor to notice you as in the past. Every fiat who bor rows The Hesperian to read cannot but admit that since the frat support has been withdrawn the fraternities have received more notice than ever before. Now, what do you demand next? We have accommodated your request for more extended notice. If you don't get what you want "Ask and it shall be given thee." STUDENTS AND SOCIETIES. The situation of the literary societies in the University ol Nebraska is peculiar, since it is complicated by the presence of both open and secret societies side by side Where there arc ncJnc but open literary societies, or, on the other hend, where all societies arc secret organizations, the question presented to a student is comparatively simple. Here, how ever, a student cannot dodge the question, unless indeed he be so unambitious as to take no part at all in college life. A live student must meet and answer the question, "What kind of a society do I most need? What form of social or ganization will do the most for me, and which is doing the r.iost good to the largest number of students?" Fortunately the societies here have been relieved of one complication which would render the student much less under obligation to answer the question of his social relations, and which would probably result here as elsewhere, in a settlement of the conflict between the forms of social organization, not according to the merits of each, but just as their relation would make it necessary for settlement to come. When secret societies exist within larger open literary societies, the conclusion is foregone unless amputation takes place. As they arc here separate, each must stand on its own merits. The present case requires attention to the comparative merits of the two forms of social organization formed here; but we should not forget also to look at both forms in respec tive of the particular case. First, then, which form of college society is better? Which is more advantageous for the individual and the student body? Which enables a student to get the most out of his time and talents, and do the most for the otherstudents? The objects of college societies are not less than two, (i) lit erary work, (2) social intercourse. In point of literary work, which of these plans is better adopted to purposes of oratory? It is agreed that the size of a speaker's audience has a material cfTcct upon his bearing. The masterpieces of ora torical genius that have decided crises in history of individ uals and nations were not inspired by thi thought of the crisis alone, nor by a dozen listeners, but by the focused gaze of hundrcJs of eyes. Crises may not be settled by orations in literary societies; but certain it is that a large audience holds out the greater possibilities to a speaker. There is therefore, a material advantage gained if a society is large enough so that speakers bctorc it may be satd to have had an audience. Whether a student is to declaim, or to speak his ideas in a debate or an oration without following a fixed form of expression, he needs something to speak to. There can be little question about this. The nature of rhetorical, work is such that it can be carried on publicly with infinitely better results than privately. Between the secret fraternity and the open literary society with its comparatively large audience, it must be admitted that the latter is by far the bettor place for the attainment of excellence as a speaker or debater. But college societies arc also social organizations, and as such arc no small feature of student life. They constitute in this regard an essential to a student's wellbcing, and their importance as social factors is thought by some to be greater than their importance in literary work. At least it behooves students to notice this side of the question. In this regard the secret societies differ from the others even more widely than they do as literary societies. It is with reference to their social relations also that tlnjrc is most difference of opinion. Of the several thoughts suggested by a comparison of the social objects and possibilities of these organizations which arc so antagonistic to each other, there is place here for only a few. Much has been said of the idea of secrecy, but it de pends very much on the other conditions of a case whether secrecy is bcncuciai or harmlul. it can only be saw in gen eral thi.t unless a positive good accrues, obtainable in no other way, organized secrecy is more apt to work harm than good. The question of binding one's self by oath, to an organization camot well be discussed without presenting an entire phase of moi al questions. It is therefore not expedient to raise the question here. Suffice to say that, as regards such intimate associations as a fraternity affords, those who appreciate the nature of true friendship will not allow their close friends to be furnished by others. Friends arc not found by observa tions taken on the dress and pocket-book; nor can they be found except by long association. The whole secret society system is a strange parody on the sacred character of friend ship. In the first place, college fraternities arc defective as social organizations because they arc exlcusively cither ladies or gentlemen. They are so of ncccsity; they arc therefore necessarily defective. In' presenting this it must be assumed that a student docs not have time for two separate societies, one for those of his own sex and another to suplcincnt it. Especially is this true where both arc literary societies. It is my observation that where a student has two societies, both of a social nature, he cither neglects one or else he docs not make the most of his educational advantages. To those who who make society u business there arc other thing to be said. By the separation or the sexes socially the great influence that each exerts upon the other is lost. That such influence' is exerted and that it is of the most wholesome kind, is not to be doubted. The sympathy and grace of the feminine char acter and the bold sltcngth of the masculine character help each other to a completer devclopcment, Thus while an organization of gentlemen may be apparently all that can be desired, and while an organization of ladies may seem to have within itself all the elements that are needed for social cul ture, yet each has a tendency to go too far in its own line, since there is in the members of cither certain predominant characteristics. A society with social aims made up of either ladies or gentlemen exclusively is defective. Social freedom between the sexes is at one the most natural and the most beneficial arrangement possible. The history of co-education in the University of Nebraska tends to show this. Such a social advantage the exclusive organizations do not possess, and arc depriving themselves of one of the best social influ ences. But there is a more general reason why college fraterni ties should not be supported. They arc essentially aristo cratic. Their members claim that they are societies of limit ed membership, with members of highest talent. By their own concession their membership is the chosen best of the student body. An expensive badge argues a wealthier mem bership; and my own observation leads me to believe that fraternity members lay more stress upon style than the other students usually do. A fraternity presents all the features of i an exclusive aristocracy. This may seem an idle charge. I 25 11 1 ii .i 11 . "' . - i.imjiJLiii l : J Ji l-L SSBW