Introduction
Selective membership is a defining structural feature of fraternities. From their earliest formations, fraternities distinguished themselves from open student societies by restricting admission and regulating the conditions under which membership could be extended. This selectivity is not incidental; it is constitutive of the fraternity as an institutional form.
During the nineteenth century, practices of selection and admission were formalized, producing stable procedures that governed eligibility, invitation, and incorporation into the organization. These procedures established clear boundaries between members and non-members and ensured continuity of internal identity across successive cohorts.
Eligibility and Preconditions
Eligibility for fraternity membership has historically been defined by a combination of formal and informal criteria. Formally, eligibility was typically restricted to enrolled students in good standing at a recognized institution. Informally, additional conditions—academic performance, moral reputation, and perceived compatibility— were evaluated by existing members.
These criteria were rarely codified exhaustively. Instead, constitutions and by-laws often specified minimal formal requirements, leaving discretionary judgment to the chapter. This balance between rule and discretion allowed fraternities to preserve selectivity without binding themselves to rigid admission formulas.
Invitation and Deliberation
Admission into a fraternity was not achieved through application alone. Prospective members were typically identified, discussed, and invited through internal deliberation. This process emphasized collective judgment rather than individual initiative.
Deliberation over candidates often occurred within structured meetings governed by established rules of order. Decisions were recorded, votes were taken, and outcomes were binding. Through this mechanism, membership was framed as a decision of the body rather than a transaction with an individual.
Secrecy and Controlled Disclosure
Admission processes were commonly conducted under conditions of confidentiality. The identities of candidates under consideration, the content of deliberations, and the results of votes were often restricted to members. This confidentiality served both practical and symbolic functions.
Practically, secrecy protected internal cohesion by limiting external influence. Symbolically, it reinforced the boundary between the fraternity and the broader student population, marking admission as a transition from public status to internal belonging.
Probationary Status and Transition
In many fraternities, admission was not immediate or absolute. Candidates passed through an intermediate status—variously termed probation, pledgeship, or candidacy—before full incorporation. This period allowed the fraternity to evaluate the candidate’s conformity to internal expectations while gradually introducing organizational norms.
The existence of a probationary phase underscores the fraternity’s emphasis on continuity and discipline. Membership was not merely granted; it was confirmed through participation and adherence to prescribed conduct.
Institutional Effects of Selectivity
Selective admission produced durable internal homogeneity. By controlling entry, fraternities maintained continuity of ethos and practice despite the rapid turnover inherent in student populations. This continuity was not dependent on any single generation, but on the reproducibility of selection criteria and procedures.
At the same time, selectivity introduced mechanisms of exclusion. The fraternity defined itself not only by who belonged, but by who did not. This distinction was essential to its internal coherence, even as it shaped external perceptions of fraternity life.
Relationship to Institutional Authority
Colleges and universities have historically monitored fraternity admission practices insofar as they intersected with academic standing and conduct. However, admission decisions themselves were generally regarded as internal matters, falling within the fraternity’s autonomous domain.
This division of authority reinforced the fraternity’s status as a semi-autonomous institution: embedded within the university, yet governed internally with respect to membership and identity.
Conclusion
Selective membership and controlled admission are central to the fraternity as an institutional form. Through eligibility criteria, collective deliberation, probationary transition, and confidentiality, fraternities established stable boundaries that preserved identity across generations.
These practices did not merely regulate access; they structured the fraternity’s capacity for continuity, discipline, and internal cohesion. Without selectivity, the fraternity would cease to function as a durable organization distinct from the general student body.
Bibliography
- Syrett, Nicholas L. The Company He Keeps: A History of White College Fraternities. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2009.
- Horowitz, Helen Lefkowitz. Campus Life: Undergraduate Cultures from the End of the Eighteenth Century to the Present. New York: Knopf, 1987.
- Baird, William Raimond. Baird’s Manual of American College Fraternities. New York: George Banta Publishing, multiple editions.