Page:The Fraternity and the College (1915).pdf/77

 I think it is hardly fair, however, completely to condemn a practice so common as "horse play" and "rough house" without getting as far as it is possible to do so, the point of view of those most intimately engaged in it. For that purpose I recently talked very freely with a score or more of undergraduates with whom I am well acquainted, and in addition to this I wrote letters to the presidents of each of the men's social organizations of the University of Illinois asking them to give me in a few words their opinion of the effect of "rough house" or "horse play" preliminary to the initiation of pledges, with any good argument which they might have for or against it.

The replies to these letters were very interesting. Of the twenty-eight replies received sixteen were opposed to the practice and twelve favored it. In general local organizations whose rituals are probably pretty weak and inadequate were strongly in favor of the practice, and those national fraternities who thought it a mistake to omit the "rough stuff" from the initiation ceremonies were in general of recent organization with little or no traditions behind them, or the local chapters were without strong leaders. Such organizations have little else to depend upon to keep their men in line, excepting the "strong arm." Those who are most strongly against it were the organizations with definite traditions and dignified