Stage 1 (1836–1940): Formation and Configuration

Most of today's major social Greek organizations spend a great deal of time and effort in their promotional material touting their groups' glorious and honorable histories. Readers learn of how their brave founding brothers (and, later, founding sisters) secretly met to augment the stiflingly traditional curriculum of their universities. Away from the surveillance of administrators, we are told how they discussed literature and poetry, debated politics and world affairs, and developed a civic‐mindedness that would have been frowned upon by the conservative theology most students were studying at Harvard, Princeton, and William & Mary in the eighteenth century.

But Thomas Jefferson's Flat Hat Club (and its rival, the Phi Betta Kappa men) at William & Mary and James Madison's Plain Dealing Club at Princeton share little if any DNA with today's fraternities and sororities. In fact, the primary reasons consistently given for pledging today's Greek organizations – namely, greater access to social activities that offer alcohol to underaged drinkers and increased exposure to members of the opposite sex – would have been seen as crass and antithetical to the higher ideas of enlightenment professed by the charter members of these secret societies (DeSantis 2007; Syrett 2009).

A more honest, historically accurate birthplace of today's fraternities was the more modest (and less selective) campus of Union College in Schenectady, New York, 76 years later. With the goal of bringing like‐minded men together for song and drink, the prototype of today's social fraternities began with the formation of the Kappa Alpha order in 1852 (Wade 2017).

Supplying a more critical assessment of such early social fraternities, Lisa Wade (2017) asserts that far from the ideas of humility and equality often touted by chapter histories, they “promoted status, exclusion, and indulgence.” They used their selective and secret societies to isolate themselves from their middle‐class peers. Regardless of the hyper‐patriotic spin often heard from supporters, these “fraternities, with their rules about who could, and could not, join seemed decidedly undemocratic, even un‐American.”

It was not just the seeds of elitism that were sowed by these founding chapters. Wade argues that many of the risk‐management issues that plague today's campuses were not invented by entitled Millennials, or even a legacy of the post‐war Baby Boomers. They were imbedded into Greek life at its inception by the wealthy, White men of the mid nineteenth century who nurtured these clubs, and values, into being. “Infused with a rebelliousness that was their birthright, fraternities incubated a lifestyle that revolved around recklessness and irresponsibility” (Wade 2017). And, 150 years later, many university presidents are still battling the same type of recklessness and irresponsibility from the same Greek organizations.

While many of the reckless features, interpersonal rituals, and group behaviors found in these early organizations may seem foreign, if not unrecognizable, to today's students, these founding fathers engendered at least two key practices that are as relevant today as they were 166 years ago. From the beginning, drinking alcohol and hazing younger members were conceived of as essential activities for maintaining and strengthening the bonds of brotherhood. Today, not only are drinking alcohol and hazing still seen as essential for brotherhood, but they have become the first two at‐risk activities most non‐Greeks associate with Greek life. Ironically, these historically steadfast vices, if they are not dramatically augmented away from their current manifestations, may also be the same activities that are ultimately responsible for the abolition of the institution.

While hazing and drinking have been a part of fraternity life from its inception, students on campuses in the nineteenth century did not invent either. The roots of hazing, in fact, do go back to ancient Greece, and later to the initiation rituals of medieval Europe. Hechinger (2017) argues that hazing then followed the colonists to America, where, in 1838, it would claim its first (of many) student fatality at the Franklin Seminary in Kentucky (p. 51). Its widespread adoption, however, was brought to college campuses by soldiers returning from the Civil War. They introduced a more formalized approach, inspired by the military boot‐camp training they had endured a few years earlier. It was not long until hazing spread throughout America, appearing at both large public universities and small private colleges. In time, pledge periods grew longer, expanding from a few days to complete semesters; hazing practices became ritualized, as specific techniques and strategies were passed down from one pledge class to the next; and, as is the case with most group behaviors, the forms and hazing became increasingly more extreme and dangerous (Flanagan 2014).

By the start of the 1900s, private West Coast schools, such as Stanford University, were already stripping pledges nude and submerging them into ice‐cold water. On the East Coast, Ivy League member Dartmouth College formalized what would come to be popularly known as “hell week,” the most intense and brutal period of the process, traditionally reserved for the last 7 days of pledging. It was its league rival, Cornell University, however, that found itself at the unenviable center of one of the first high‐profile hazing deaths. Fueled by press coverage and national attention, worried parents and outraged professors questioned the merits of fraternities at institutions of higher education (Flanagan 2014).

Along with the legacy of recklessness and hazing that the founders introduced into their new organizations, early groups were built on a foundation of class elitism and entrenched policies of gender, religious, and racial segregation. Like many other American institutions of the day, fraternal life was a prize reserved only for wealthy, White, Christian men. Women, Blacks, non‐Christians, and the poor need not apply, especially since many of these groups were also banned from the prerequisite of college matriculation.

It was only a matter of time, however, before disfranchised segments of the student population, beginning with a handful of industrious college women in the Midwest, began their own elite segregated social clubs for White women. By the late nineteenth century, the Pi Beta Phi (1867), Kappa Alpha Theta (1870), and Kappa Kappa Gamma (1870) sororities had been established to give educated White women a forum to discuss literature, poetry, and morality. Inspired by their male counterparts, these groups would later add the practices of drinking and hazing to their curriculum as well (DeSantis 2007, p. 4).

Stage 2 (1945–1980): Growth and Democratization

Regardless of race or gender distinctions, however, all of America's social organizations experienced a period of dramatic transformation in the second half of the twentieth century. Thanks to the combined efforts of the post‐World War II G.I. Bill and the wider adoption of merit‐based entrance exams, such as the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT), America ushered in the great democratization of higher education. College was no longer conceived of as a rarified institution for privileged elites. Increasingly, it became part of the aspirations of the American Dream. As Edward Humes (2006) has argued, higher education quickly became democratized. Working‐class men and women, minorities, and newly arrived immigrants – people who in years past would never have contemplated attending college – were now matriculating.

Keeping pace with the growing student body, new Greek organizations materialized at an unprecedented rate, old organizations expanded onto new campuses, membership for both steadily climbed, and fraternities and sororities began building their own domiciles, complete with bedrooms, kitchens, dining rooms, and social rooms (i.e. bars).

At first, these new Greek houses became a practical and welcomed way for colleges and universities to manage their sudden overpopulation of students in desperate need of “room and board.” It was not long, however, until these houses, and the organizations associated with them, began to slowly erode the democratization and egalitarian efforts of the late 1940s by making their organizations increasingly more elite and competitive. Modeling themselves on the old, Ivy League eating clubs and academic fraternities, these new social fraternities created a new campus caste system, specifically targeting the more attractive, wealthy, White, Protestant students for membership (Syrett 2009, pp. 229–328). And, as with most stratified social systems, the most successful of these organizations obtained more capital to build even bigger and more prestigious houses, allowing them to recruit the most coveted students with the promise of “uncommon” pleasure, power, and prestige not found in the homes of their less successful, and more common, peers. The older organizations, which had brought members together, at least in part, for thoughtful conversation, friendship, and the sharing of ideas (without alcohol), were completely transformed into social clubs dedicated primarily to amusement (Wade 2017).

Frat houses became strategically placed “buffer zones,” freed from the surveilling eyes of on‐campus administrators and, thanks to their university affiliations, off‐campus laws and police jurisdictions. This freedom allowed Greek organizations to throw never‐ending parties and to conduct secret pledging and hazing rituals, without fear of sanctions, reprisals, or restrictions. To this day, the issues of clandestine drinking and hazing continue to be the bane of campus administrators.

Not everything from the earlier years was discarded, however. Many of the older practices and rituals remained steadfast, albeit often ignobly augmented for a different generation of students. Fraternities and sororities, for instance, still “rush”: a process of membership recruitment whereby organizations evaluate potential new members, and vice versa. Those students deemed worthy are put in the bidding for membership, or invited to “pledge.” Pledging usually involves activity where new members learn about their organization's members, activities, and responsibilities. At times, especially for fraternities, pledging involves the secret and now illegal act of “hazing”: behavior that often endangers, abuses, degrades, humiliates, and intimidates pledges. Finally, for those who make it through the sometimes arduous and trying semester‐long pledging process, there is the coveted “initiation”: the secret induction ritual where new “brothers” or “sisters” are welcomed into the consortium, where they will learn the confidences, ritual codes, passwords, and handshakes of their forefathers or foremothers.

These practices, rights, and rituals have remained relatively consistent over the years, as have two other aspects of Greek life. First, the social Greek system remains almost as segregated today as it was in 1852. No real interest in or commitment to the idea of integration, weather gender or racial, has been demonstrated. It can be argued, in fact, that social fraternities and sororities remain the most segregated institutions in the United States. Second, while some of the largest Greek organizations have successfully sponsored a few individual chapters on some Canadian university campuses, fraternities and sororities, both Black and White, have remained a uniquely American phenomenon, much to the confusion of the rest of the world.

Stage 3 (1980–1995): The Age of Excess

With the end of World War II, and the subsequent influx of working‐ and middle‐class Americans into colleges and universities at unprecedented rates, Greek organizations, in all their manifestations, experienced an enormous growth in popularity. And with the exception of a brief decline in membership during the Vietnam War era of the 1960s, with the ideological cynicism toward traditional institutions that that war engendered, membership has continued to exponentially grow ever since. In particular, there was a dramatic spike in chapter membership and organizational expansion in the 1980s, in no small part due to a 1984 Act of Congress that raised the national minimum drinking age to 21 in all 50 states. This change, writes Flanagan (2014), “moved college partying away from bars and college‐sponsored events and toward private houses – an ideal situation for fraternities.”

This third stage is not just noteworthy because of its rapid growth and expansion, however. It would also be the last time Greek life would be free from the restrictions and surveillance of not only university officials and campus administrators, but also the media and civil litigation lawyers. These two factors, membership expansion and laissez‐faire oversight, also fueled the growth and celebration of drinking and hazing.

Stage 4 (1995–Present): Regulation and Reform

Confronted with not only the sobering realities of the deaths of 26 pledges in a decade, but also the growing chorus of angry parents and university administrators and the growth of personal‐injury lawsuits, the recklessness of stage 3 had to end. The laissez‐faire approach to Greek organizational management was soon to be replaced by a system of ever‐increasing surveillance, regulations, and restrictions. While I have selected 1995 as the starting point for the “reform movement,” signs of systemic change could be seen in the early 1990s, primarily in the form of isolated policy changes on a few American campuses. Like the proverbial rolling snowball, these harbingers of larger and systemic change would eventually grow into a clear and pronounced paradigm break for the carelessness of stage 3 and the excesses of the 1980s.

Within the next two decades, most of the biggest and best‐known state universities in America imposed stricter policies circumscribing the Greek autonomy enjoyed by previous generations. When identifying the most significant changes to have taken place in the Greek system during this period of upheaval and reform, without question the two that are most noteworthy and historically important are the ongoing efforts to (i) eliminate hazing and (ii) regulate and restrict alcohol consumption. Because of their importance, as well as their continued resistance to change, each warrants special consideration.

Alcohol Reform

The first significant change – one that is often overshadowed by the failures of their male counterparts – is the almost complete elimination of cases of alcohol abuse within sorority houses. The alcohol ban was quickly embraced and enforced by individual chapters. Consequently, one can argue that the reform of at‐risk behaviors of sorority sisters inside sorority houses has been extremely successful.

This sense of accomplishment, however, should be attenuated by two interrelated caveats. The first is that sorority sisters have historically been responsible for only a fraction of the trouble produced by Greek row. From binge drinking and property damage to sexual assaults and hazing deaths, fraternities have been the undisputed agents of disorder and lawlessness for over a century. The second is that while strict surveillance and oversight may have moved binge drinking out of the sorority house, it has not reduced the binge drinking of sorority members. Current data on drinking show us that these policies have simply “moved the party” to fraternity houses or to other off‐campus locations (North 2015). This exacerbates some key problems. As some have argued (e.g. Lo and Globetti 1995; Hair 2015), drinking policies that have pushed sorority sisters out of the safety and surveillance of their own homes have placed them in far less safe and protected party locations, where they now face an increased risk of physical harm and sexual assault.

Change has also come to the fraternity house, albeit less dramatically and at a slower rate. One of the more noticeable developments has been the steady decrease in the number and frequency of large, open keg parties in the last 20 years. As ridiculously strict as the new FIPG guidelines may seem to many Greek students, they have nonetheless become the status quo for all “official‐registered” social events with alcohol, complete with third‐party vendors and strict underage supervision.

Of course, other options are available to fraternities and sororities that wish to host a party. The most obvious and commonly used alternative is the unofficial, non‐registered party, free from third‐party vendors. While this is a common practice, it comes with the risk of being caught by campus police or Greek affairs, or of being turned in by rival organizations. And this risk exponentially increases as the party gets larger and more noticeable. Consequently, organizations have a powerful incentive to keep their illicit gatherings small and incognito (DeSantis 2007, pp. 168–169)

This constant presence of surveillance is one reason that many of the unregistered Greek parties have moved off campus. On a typical Saturday night, a fraternity or sorority might throw a party at an off‐campus location, usually at a house rented by a generous brother or sister. But these parties come with their own set of problems for the host organization, most notably in the form of the police – and not the often friendlier on‐campus version. Once most off‐campus parties reach a certain size, police inevitably arrive to both warn partygoers of possible noise violations and register the names of the owners/renters who have donated their abode for the night's festivities. A mass exodus typically begins when the police start asking attendees for ID; since approximately 80% of the attendees will be underage, most at the party will slip away before being fined or arrested for illegal drinking.

A visit from the police, or even a noise citation, is not the real concern for the fraternity or sorority that hosts the party, however. They are usually more worried about what Greek affairs at their university will have to say about the gathering on Monday. As part of the new get‐tough policy, most police departments located in college towns now submit the names of attendees at off‐campus parties to the Office of Greek Affairs or the Dean of Students. University administrators then compare these names to the list of active fraternity and sorority members on campus. Of specific interest for the administrators is (i) whether the party location was owned or rented by a Greek member and (ii) if so whether there were three or more of his or her brothers or sisters at the party. As unfair as it seems to most of the identified students on the list, if the answer is “yes” to both questions then the guilty Greek organization will be charged with hosting an unregistered Greek party. Typically, such infractions result in a semester‐long social suspension. And if another infraction occurs during the suspension, the chapter is threatened with campus expulsion.

While there may be small variations to this party and surveillance sequence from campus to campus, based on the different relationships between individual college towns and their paired universities, it nonetheless underscores how significantly more restrictive Greek social life has become.

Looking back after the first 25 years of stage 4's alcohol reform, weighing the successes against the failures, it is clear why both sides of the debate seem uncertain and confused about what has actually been accomplished. While there are far fewer parties at on‐campus locations, the rates of individual binge drinking have sharply increased (Glatter 2014, p. 1). And while the FIPG guidelines are extremely strict and effective when used during “officially registered” parties, student interest in attending these de facto dry functions (for those under 21) has been decreasing. In fact, many underage members bypass such functions all together, and, as a sign of solidarity and revolt, patronize wetter off‐campus alternatives. While the latter may be more entertaining for today's younger members, neither option responsibly or pragmatically fills the massive social void left by the reforms.

Unfortunately, when universities and national organizations had the chance to boldly re‐create Greek life in a way that both acknowledged the inevitable fact that underage fraternity and sorority members are going to drink and responsibly managed Greek parties by offering smarter, safer, and more interesting options than keg parties in frat‐house basements, they passed. Instead, far too many college administrators and national fraternity CEOs made bold public gestures that condemned underage drinking while simultaneously obfuscating the fact that many of their policies were, from their conception and initial implementation, woefully inadequate and ineffective in realistically addressing the major issues that continue to plague the Greek system.

Pledging and Hazing Reform

The second area targeted for reform at the start of stage 4 was the refinement of the pledging process and the complete elimination of hazing practices. With this goal in mind, the 26 nationally recognized NPC sororities in America have almost eliminated not only the major hazing injuries and deaths that were far too common in fraternities, but also most of the hate‐based, mean‐spirited psychological hazing from their collective community. While isolated cases of hazing may be found at smaller private colleges and in local sorority chapters that are removed from the strict oversight and surveillance of a national parent organization and NPC regulations, most sorority NPC administrators who oversee the initiation practices and pledging rituals of their chapters proudly and publicly proclaim that sorority hazing has been almost abolished on American campuses (Smith 2019).

Even so, cases of female abuse still surface, often on the oldest and most prestigious campuses. One such incident happened at Dartmouth College, a well‐known “old‐school” pro‐Greek campus (and the inspiration for Animal House), in 2006. As an 18‐year‐old pledge of Kappa Kappa Gamma, one of the nation's elite sororities, Ravital Segal was blindfolded and ordered to drink 64 oz of spiked punch and shots of vodka. She was then driven away from campus, blindfolded and disorientated, and after 15 minutes was pushed out of the car and told to find her way back (Segal 2012). This common hazing ritual is trying enough for freshmen under normal circumstances (the exact same thing was done to me and my pledge brothers). But given the amount of alcohol that Segal had been forced to consume, the task proved impossible for her. She woke up in the hospital with broken teeth and bruises, 0.001 blood alcohol content (BAC) away from a coma (Segal 2012). Though serious, thankfully such occurrences have become far rarer in recent years.

Alongside the advancements made by sororities since the start of the reform movement, there has also been a general decrease in most of the traditional vices associated with fraternity life. With that said, these decreases have not been as significant as anticipated.

In 2008, for example, long after many of the hazing bans had been implemented, a national study on hazing (Allan 2009) surveyed over 11 000 undergraduates at 53 colleges and universities and found that 73% of fraternity and sorority members still reported experiencing hazing. And while Greek hazing is the focus of this chapter, it is worth noting that this initiation practice affects a disturbing number of non‐Greek students as well, with 55% of college students involved in clubs, athletic teams, and organizations experiencing hazing (p. 14) The research also makes it clear that not everyone is attempting to hide their actions: 25% of respondents were hazed in front of a witnessing supervising adult (e.g. a coach or organization advisor) or an alumni member. Even more boldly, 25% of such hazing acts occurred on campus in a public space, and in more than half of cases a member of the offending group posted pictures on a public web space. The most telling finding from this research, however, is how uninformed most college students are about what actually constitutes hazing: 90% of those who had experienced hazing behavior in college did not know that they had been hazed (pp. 1–52).

Even harder to believe, especially given the strict zero‐tolerance hazing policies underwritten by every NIC fraternity and laws passed in at least 38 states making hazing illegal, is that there have still been 33 hazing deaths involving fraternities nationwide in the past decade (Reilly 2017). Upon hearing such statistics, it is understandable to wonder if universities and the legal system are following the letter of the law and punishing fraternities that break the rules.

From the available data that have been supplied by universities or released by the media, it seems that universities are in fact leveling punitive responses at an unprecedented rate. Not only are punishments far more frequent, they are also far sterner and more unforgiving. During just the spring semester of 2015 (January 1 to May 20), for example, Otani and Diamond (2015) reported that “133 fraternity and sorority chapters at 55 U.S. colleges were shut down, suspended, or otherwise punished” (p. 1). The transgressions that led to these collective sanctions included 29 legal hazing incidents, 13 separate sexual misconduct charges, and 5 health and safety violations (Otani and Diamond 2015). The Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity laid claim to the dubious honor of being the most punished single Greek organization in America, with six different chapters being penalized during the spring semester of 2015 alone (Jacobs 2015, p. 1).

Such punishments are not only occurring at small private colleges, where administrators have traditionally been freer to impose harsher penalties on student organizations without the meddling influences of state legislatures or the demanding voices of large alumni associations; they are happening at the largest public universities in the country, with the largest and most influential Greek alumni. In the Big Ten Conference, after well‐publicized Greek abuses, Ohio State University, Indiana University, the University of Iowa, Penn State University, and the University of Michigan all took unprecedented steps by suspending or curtailing the entire Greek system. Past responses, even as late as 2010, might have been far more measured, and would typically have only punished the single chapter responsible for the infractions (Reilly 2017).

This new and increased punitive approach is even more unforgiving if the Greek infractions contributed to the injury or death of a student. In such cases, not only does the university kick the offending chapter off campus and expel the responsible individuals, but off‐campus police may make arrests and state judicial systems can sentence fraternity members to jail time. In 2017, for example, nine members of the Delta Kappa Epsilon fraternity at Louisiana State University became some of the first students to be charged with criminal hazing and felony battery after urinating on their pledges, forcing them to lie on broken glass, and ordering them to stand for hours in painful positions. One pledge told police he was “forced to stay in an ice machine for more than 30 minutes that was half filled with ice and water. He was eventually taken out to lie on a basketball court covered in broken glass,” according to an affidavit in support of the arrests (Woodyard 2019). Two months later, after the hazing death of Andrew Coffey at Florida State University, warrants were issued for nine more fraternity members who had contributed to it (Reilly 2017). According to court records, the Pi Kappa Phi brothers forced pledge Coffey to drink an entire bottle of Wild Turkey 101 bourbon on the occasion of his 21st birthday. Coffey died soon after from alcohol poisoning (Etters 2018).

It was the senseless and tragic death of Penn State University sophomore Tim Piazza, however, that sent shock waves through the Greek community. During his first day of pledging the Beta Theta Pi fraternity, Piazza was forced to drink copious amounts of alcohol as part of a pledging ritual referred to as the “gauntlet,” even though the fraternity was supposed to be alcohol‐free. According to court records and testimony, Piazza consumed 18 drinks in 82 minutes. Ganim and Andone (2018) relate how “After he fell down a flight of stairs into the fraternity house's basement, fraternity members waited more than 12 hours to call 911.” Piazza ended up dying from a traumatic brain injury. The Centre County, Pennsylvania District Attorney made it clear that fraternity brothers would no longer be able to hide from prosecution behind secret Greek rituals or private fraternal doors. Following a grand jury investigation, 18 fraternity members who participated in the hazing rituals the night Piazza died were charged in connection with his death. Five of them are facing both involuntary manslaughter, which carries a maximum prison term of 5 years, and aggravated assault, which carries a maximum term of 20 years (Reilly 2017).

So, the lingering question remains: Given the scope of these new get‐tough policies, and the punitive weight supporting them, why hasn't the Greek system transformed itself into the kinder and safer institution envisioned by policymakers and university administrators 20 years ago? The answer seems to be that these groups, at the local chapter level, are far more resistant to change than was previously thought. It is worth noting, however, that the belief that meaningful change would come sooner than later was not optimistically foolish. It was based on an understanding that the average member would only remain active with his group for 3–4 years. Then, after graduation, each class would leave campus and take their older and more dangerous institutional memory with them. Ideally, the problem‐causing memory that stored most of the at‐risk behaviors would be lost and forgotten in only a few graduation cycles.

One reason that hazing practices linger in many of today's male Greek organizations has to do with their ideological connection with celebrated notions of hyper‐masculinity and a romanticized idea of old‐school fraternal traditions (DeSantis 2007, pp. 130–163). In many of the common narratives shared between generations of brothers, both are often framed as virtuous traits that are necessary for transforming boys (i.e. pledges) into real men (i.e. brothers). Thanks to the braggadocio often espoused by alumni brothers returning to visit the chapter in order to reify the rituals and rites that they were forced to endure, younger brothers often receive mixed messages about their fraternal obligations. As difficult as it may be to believe decades into the reform era, not all the adults in the lives of these young men are advocating responsible hazing reform. At many of the nation's oldest and most prestigious fraternities, alumni brothers are encouraging and praising their younger counterparts for their continued efforts to uphold the virtues of tradition, masculinity, and the American way. And if these younger brothers are not diligent, as one Greek alumni recently told me, “These academics, these reformist lawyers will have us all sitting in a circle, holding hands – making sure to not hurt anyone's feelings – and singing ‘Kumbaya.’” Reform, in other words, will feminize fraternities.

This belief that hazing is a good thing is not only shared by the abusers, but, according to the National Study on Student Hazing (Allan 2009), may also be held by the abused. Its data show that more students perceive positive than negative outcomes from their hazing event. Consequently, the practice of hazing is supported by the very individuals who are being abused. And if there are students who feel differently, the data also show that they are keeping their discontent to themselves. In 95% of the cases where students identified their experience as hazing, they did not report the event to campus officials (Allan 2009).

Even with the decade‐old zero‐tolerance‐for‐hazing policies implemented by all public universities in the United States and by the executive boards of all 66 fraternities governed by the NIC, most of today's fraternity chapters do not want to give up the hazing rituals they inherited from earlier generations. Faced with the very real threat of university and chapter expulsion, most have continued the practice, albeit in an attenuated form. This augmentation to hazing practices has produced two notable outcomes.

The first, and most obvious, is the elimination of publicly visible displays of abuse and humiliation. Many university alumni who attended campuses with an active Greek life probably remember watching the public humiliation endured by pledges as they walked to class dressed as babies or chickens, or were subjected to verbal abuse and degrading pledge names by their older brothers.

The second outcome is the use of subterfuge and gamesmanship. If fraternities refuse to stop their hazing then they must get much better at hiding it from university officials, concerned parents, and campus police. Consequently, most hazing practices have been pushed underground, behind locked doors. Many have learned that secrecy is the only thing keeping them on campus and, in some cases, out of jail. So pledging rituals and abusive hazing now take place in only guarded locations, away from non‐Greeks and the uninitiated. And because of some well‐publicized private gaffs that quickly became public humiliations, such as when the Sigma Alpha Epsilon chapter at the University of Oklahoma was recorded singing traditional drinking songs that celebrated its long history of White supremacy, today's Greeks have also developed a heightened concern for cellphone cameras and social media (Hechinger 2017, p. 48).

This has created our current situation, where chapters quietly continue their secret rituals of abuse. It is only when they are confronted with injury or death that their secret lives are dragged out of the dark and hidden recesses of Greek row and placed in front of an increasingly angry and unforgiving court of public opinion. And at the end of the day, public opinion may be the ultimate persuasive force that compels universities to abolish a Greek system that refuses to change and adapt, even when its life depends on it.