For those who know me, I am generally not confrontational and am sufficiently laid-back; however, I find it important and necessary to defend my fellow students and members of the Greek community. I admit that I am exasperated from what seem like infinite lectures towards myself and other members of University Greek life throughout the country. In life, there are both positive and negative viewpoints on any matter, and I am a firm believer that people should always feel free to state their opinions. More specifically, I will forever respect and consider the opinions of others regarding Greek life. That being said, it saddens me that the vast majority of these opinions are negative.

Recently, Greek organizations have been viciously scrutinized, contributing to the various degrading headlines in the media. Typed and boldfaced, these headlines have dragged the Greek system through the mud. While sifting through a few of them yesterday, a particular title caught my eye: “The 38-Year-Old Frat Boy”. This article, as part of the New York Times opinion column, was written by 38 year old Harvard journalism graduate Alex Stone. In the article, Stone outlines his time at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor as he completed a nine-month fellowship. In order to obtain the most compelling information possible, Stone attempted what seemed like a pretty simple task: to join a university fraternity. After getting denied from every other frat on campus, Stone was on the road to a bid from the university’s chapter of Alpha Delta Phi. Stone found himself heavily drinking and smoking in attempts to fit in and eventually was sent to the ER. As a result of the situation and his age, Stone was ultimately denied the bid.

Stone later began spending time with the members of the university fraternity known as Acacia, which consisted of only six other men. While Stone states in his article that these men were “desperate” and “beggars”, he admits that he fit in well. His sense of belonging evolved as he participated in Acacia’s traditions: “As a test of worthiness, I was asked to prove the Pythagorean theorem (a2 + b2 = c2) in under three minutes, and then made to believe I’d gotten it wrong.” Stone continues his fascination with Acacia by going on to say that he “had far more in common with these guys than [he’d] originally thought”. In addition, Stone referred to himself and his Acacian brothers as the “anti-frat”.

Now, this is where I found myself considering the merits of Stone’s argument (which quite honestly wasn’t clear to me at first). Stone implied that Acacia was somehow better than a more seemingly traditional frat like ADPhi, assuming that Acacia focused on friendship while other frats focused solely on partying (key word being “solely”). However, he also states that Acacia was in deep financial trouble at the university, having been downgraded from a chapter to a colony for failing to meet financial and other requirements. Eventually, Acacia was shut down at the University of Michigan due to the members’ “lack of will to continue”.

Acacia, like Stone said, was described as the “anti-frat”. It acted as a home for those who felt they didn’t fit in in places like ADPhi and the like. Let me first say that I strongly believe having an untraditional outlet to express views and create bonds is highly beneficial for individuals and groups. Popular films including Sydney White and The House Bunny can attest to this theme of building strong bonds through untraditional means. However, I believe this form of expression must be coupled with other responsibilities to create an ultimately beneficial organization. Is it beneficial to those in need when the “anti” doesn’t focus on philanthropy? Is it beneficial to the members of the group when the “anti” doesn’t provide leadership positions? Is it beneficial to the university when the “anti” doesn’t fulfill any requirements or responsibilities and therefore wastes ample amounts of the university’s money? Even in the movies mentioned above, the organizations attempted taking on leadership positions, hosting philanthropy events, and overall, becoming role models. These acts were what ultimately strengthened the bonds of those within the “anti” group. Acacia, however, did not attempt these tasks, yet it is still more highly regarded in Stone’s eyes than is ADPhi.

As a sophomore at the University of Michigan and a member of the Greek community, I am aware of the positives and negatives of the system. Yes, we often have a bad reputation and have not made the best decisions. However, we have desperately attempted to rebuild and create a strong sense of community. Perhaps if Stone had stayed at the university for a little bit longer, he would have had a vastly different opinion on of our seemingly flawed system. Stone did not participate in Winterfest, an annual philanthropy event hosted by UofM fraternities that, this past year, raised over thirty-five thousand dollars for the Autism Alliance of Michigan. He did not paint “The Rock” along Washtenaw Avenue with his brothers, as is regarded as one of the ultimate bonding experiences at the university. My clear distaste towards Stone’s article does not stem from any sort of dislike for Acacia (I am truly impressed with anyone that can prove the Pythagorean Theorem in under three minutes); rather, I am more upset with the fact that, once again, the Greek system is harnessing a negative reputation, despite all the hard work it puts in to raise money, help its members grow as leaders, and keep up with financial and academic duties.

Stone’s surface-level knowledge of the University of Michigan’s fraternities, and America’s Greek system as a whole, is the knowledge that is often used to concoct these harsh and targeted headlines. Everything in life can use improvement at some point - nothing is perfect, especially the Greek system. In a perfect world, the ideal Greek organization would combine aspects of both organizations, Acacia and ADPhi: strong brotherhood, a passion for education, financial and social responsibility, and philanthropy. In reality, ADPhi and Acacia both had their flaws that we often associate with the Greek community. However, we must learn to improve these flaws without aimlessly accusing, criticizing, and stereotyping. It is up to those who can attest to the system’s benefits to reveal how valuable it really is and to recommend how to improve it.