ExternalCrossroadAndFraternityMan (1)

Running head: EXTERNAL, CROSSROAD, AND FRATERNAL AUTHORSHIP 1

External, Crossroad, And Fraternal Authorship:

Fraternity Men’s Self Authorship Through Their Moral Development

Matthew Greer

Rutgers University

EXTERNAL, CROSSROAD, AND FRATERNAL AUTHORSHIP 2

Abstract

When a college male decides to join a fraternity he must think about the implications that follow.

The reasoning behind why he chose to join his organization and the developmental path that he

takes differs depending on his moral development and the decisions he makes based off of those

developmental stages. In order to help fraternity men to self-author in his respective organization

he needs to develop in his moral competence and understand what it means to live the values of

his founders. Professionals, whether Greek advisors, alumni advisors, or older brothers, can help

or hinder the development of current members, if he or she does not understand the

developmental process his or her self.


External, Crossroad, And Fraternity Man:

Fraternity Men’s Self Authorship Through Moral Development

Introduction

The North-American InterFraternity Conference, NIC, is composed of seventy-three

national or international fraternities that have varying membership types, ethnical demographics,

and mission statements and visions. Although some women’s groups are called fraternities, the

definition of fraternity for this study is an all males group, either social or cultural based, whose

values encompass scholarship, leadership, service, and fellowship (DeSantis, 2007). There are

other male Greek-Lettered organizations that have professional or career affiliations and honor or

leadership societies, but they will not be included in this study.

The NIC consists of 372,090 undergraduate fraternity men in its membership across 6136

chapters on roughly 800 campuses (Meltzer, 2007). There are three national fraternities not

included in this conference, if we include: Kappa Sigma Fraternity with an additional 18,000

collegiate members in 316 chapters (Brabham, 2015), Phi Delta Theta Fraternity with 10,000

collegiate members in 167 chapters (Brussalis, 2015), and Lambda Chi Alpha Fraternity with

11,000 collegiate member in 194 chapters (Lichtenauer, 2015). The population of the entire

undergraduate fraternity membership that would be examined would be approximately 411,090

collegiate men across 6,813 chapters. The National Center of Education has the total number of

undergraduate men at approximately 7.7 million (Carr, 2015). Therefore, across the nation 5% of

male students are members of a fraternity. With a population size of that number it is important

to see fraternity men’s developmental differences from other students in today’s institutions.

When thinking about a developmental process that effects fraternity men, moral development is

the first one that comes to mind, especially in his younger years in membership. Why do they do


the dumb things they do? With hazing incidents, alcohol abuse, and rape culture; why would

anyone want to join these organizations? And how do these experiences help students self-author

their lives? Based off of research, self-authorship theory, and moral development theory this

paper will examine how fraternity men self-author based upon their moral development.

Research Question

Social platforms have showcased the moral decision making of members of the fraternity

community. When a group of young men are a part of an all male organization during the pivotal

developmental years of their late adolescents, it should be expected that they would develop

differently. Therefore, I want to discuss, what is the self-authorship process for male students in

fraternities, via their moral development?

Literature Review

Fraternal Involvement

The first fraternal organization, Phi Beta Kappa was created in 1776 at the College of

William and Mary. Since Phi Beta Kappa’s founding the fraternal world has expanded

exponentially (Whipple & Sullivan, 1998). Fraternity and sorority professionals have stated that

fraternity and sorority life was the original student affairs, before student personnel were

positions on institution's campuses. Fraternities teaches community development, scholarship,

leadership, philanthropic agendas, and service, but the student personnel did it better.

Fraternities’ national headquarters have now begun to play the catch up game in the areas that

student affair professionals have begun to excel, such as diversity and inclusion (Starks-Corbin,

2010). Fraternal resilience and adaptation is outlined in Beth McMurtrie’s article for the

Chronicle of Higher Education. She states:


“Some people may say that fraternities are facing an identity crisis, but that underplays how resilient and adaptive they have always been. They’ve existed since the time of the American Revolution, appeared in modern form in the early 1880s, survived the Civil War, and rode the waves of social upheaval in the 1960s and ’70s. They thrived in the 1980s, nearly collapsed under the weight of lawsuits in the 1990s, and returned, corporatized and professionalized, in the 2000s (McMurtrie, 2015).”

The development of the male fraternity student is different depending on the type of

chapter the man joins, the Greek culture on the campus, effectiveness of the alumni and other

advisors in helpfulness, and the role he wants to play in this community. The progression of

fraternity men follows a certain timeline. The man will choose, which organization he wants to

join by going to varying recruitment events and gets to know the brothers and has the brothers

get to know him. In cultural organizations, the man would become an associate of the chapter,

which is an informal relation before the new member program begins (Kimbrough, 2003). In

social fraternities, active membership votes on the man to see if his values align with the active

membership of the chapter. If the man passes the voting requirement he will be extended a bid,

which is an invitation to probationary membership, otherwise known as ‘pledging’. After

successfully completing a probationary period, normally about eight weeks, the man will be

initiated into full membership of the organization. As a full functioning member this is where the

moral development and ethical decision making begins for the fraternity man. He will either

become the stud or the dud of the chapter, and with representation of each differing from chapter

to chapter (DeSantis, 2007). The chapter stud could be the leader or the guy who gets all the

girls; he could be the jock or the person who cares the most about the organization's values. The

dud is the opposite of what the chapter considers the stud.

Moral Development

Lawrence Kohlberg developed a theory of moral development, modeled after Jean Piaget;

to discuss the developmental stages people go through as they develop cognitively. Kohlberg


observed moral development in three levels; each level has two stages. Pre-conventional, the first

level of moral development has children at a very basic understanding of judgment. Something is

good or bad, or right or wrong; no gray area is left up for interpretation. In stage one, children

obey rules so that they will not face the consequences. Stage two lets children take action as they

see right. They do things because they want to, and do not think about what others might think,

or how it affects them. The conventional level of development has the person start to think about

others in their immediate circle. They begin to realize their actions can affect their friends,

family, and other people around them. Stage three the person thinks that they are behaving

correctly when they are nice to others, or perceived as being nice to others. Stage four includes

maintaining social order and listening to the Authority. The final level, post-conventional focuses

on moral value and truly understanding one’s moral judgment. Stage five has people

understanding that some laws are unjust, and morality of law and order is developed in this stage.

The final stage, says the person fights for human equality and is a front-runner for making the

world more morally just (Kohlberg, 1971).

Fraternities harness a significant amount of negative association based on the men’s

moral development over the years. Fraternities were the original living learning communities for

college campuses. In the past, when students wanted to forge high standards and expectations

they sought out the fraternal organizations. In today’s cultures student affair professionals offer

learning communities separate of the fraternal system. When the exclusivity is removed, so is the

regulation. The fraternal system may not be the one’s to blame; the overall conversations that

undergraduates need to have are not being had about their moral development (Whipple &

Sullivan, 1998). Whether this conversation is coming from a parent, coach, or advisor the


students are not having it. They simply do not know that having a “Jamaican-me-crazy” or

“Asian-Sensation” party is morally unjust.

Kohlberg’s moral development theory is a cognitive development theory. It deals with

what someone thinks, but not what they do per say. Their behaviors are not the focal point, but

rather their reasoning (Earley, 1998). Kohlberg’s theory is also generalized across all genders,

races, cultures, etc. Pearson and Bruess’s research shows that these implications are not

transferrable to all types of people. There are a variety of demographics that make up the entirety

of the fraternal system; therefore there is a need to be some adjustments to Kohlberg’s theory for

it to adhere to fraternity men. (Pearson & Bruess, 2001)

Self-Authorship

As Kohlberg modeled his theory after Piaget’s studies, Marcia Baxter Magolda realized

that there were some parts missing from William Perry’s theory of intellectual and ethical

development. She decided to design a study to fill the gaps between genders and also

incorporating identity and relationships. She completed a fifteen-year longitudinal study

measuring 101 young adults development as seen in Making Their Own Way. Baxter Magolda’s

theory has three dimensions, each with four phases. The dimensions include different aspects of

your life and different areas you can develop in. Epistemological is the first dimension, and deals

with ‘What do I know?’, or the cognitive part of development. The second dimension is

intrapersonal, and explains ‘Who am I?’, or the identity part of development. The third

dimension is interpersonal, and explains ‘What relationships do I want with others?’, or the

interaction part of development (Baxter Magolda, 2001).

Each of these dimensions has four phases in order to be fully developed. Phase one is

following formulas, which consists of doing what you are told because an authority tells you to


do so. Once you realize that the authority is not always correct with the answers they give, and

you start to question what you want; you enter crossroads. Crossroads normally happen after a

major event, in which you start to question what you are taught and develop your own way of

thinking instead of relying solely on what others have told you. This can be through a

“shipwreck moment’, or one that makes a major impact on your life. Once your path is

determined you begin to become self authored in the area that you choose to live you life by. The

final phase is internal foundation. This phase only happens when you become grounded in your

believes and cannot be swayed away from them (Baxter Magolda, 2001).

Regression can happen in self-authorship, whether for chosen reason or forced action,

however you have to progress from phase to phase and cannot skip phases.

“This pattern of retreat from and reemergence of self-authorship suggests self-authorship might come into forms: action and reasoning, where action involves behaving in ways consistent with self-authored thinking, and reasoning is an ability to cognitively and intrapersonally make sense of situations” (Pizzolato, 2004).

Marcia Baxter Magolda has closed the gap Perry left wide open between developing male

and females, and included new phases of in interpersonal and intrapersonal development. She

was able to help college age students understand their development, and grow along this linear

system to become self-authored human beings. When integrating moral development, there is

another layer added to the already multifaceted structure of self-authorship. Leadership skills can

often help a student progress quicker in self-authoring their development and understanding the

skills needed to obtain cognitive development. Fraternity involvement has social, leadership, and

reflective components to it, which would allow student to progress through self-authorship in a

different manner than a student not affiliated with a fraternity (Pressler, 2013). The following

theory will showcase the correlation between fraternal involvement and moral development to

explain how males in fraternities self-author.


Proposed Theory

Moral development is a key factor to the self-authorship of fraternity men when within

their respective organizations. The theory incorporates the moral development of fraternity men

as they author their experience and move through stages of development. Cycles were chosen as

the increments because progression becomes easier to see as the fraternity man strengthens his

involvement. However the stages of moral development will also be referenced. The stage of

moral development in which the male student is in directly prior to joining will make a

substantial impact on the type of member that student becomes.

“Most college students are in Kohlberg’s Stage 3 of moral reasoning, in which what is right is determined by the peer group. If one’s peers believe that a certain behavior is correct, for all practical purposes the person holding loyalty to that group will act accordingly” (Blimling, 2010).

The inaugural cycle of the Fraternal Authorship Theory is the unaffiliated formulas. This

cylce includes any male student that has not made an effort in the understanding of fraternity life,

or his role within it. This person is not affiliated with any type of all males group, either social or

cultural based, whose values encompass scholarship, leadership, service, and fellowship. Once

they decide to go through the recruitment process and become a new member of an organization

they begin the continuum of crossroads and fraternal authoring their experience.

A student will enter crossroads at varying points depending on how developed he is in his

moral development. If he is at stage 3 of moral development, the seeking approval stage, he will

self-author his fraternal experience differently than someone who is at stage 4 of moral

development, the obeying rules of social order stage. If the student enter crossroads at stage 3, he

will want to be accepted by the organization and will be willing to do anything in order to do so.

If the student enters crossroads at stage 4, he will want to follow the rules and keeping law and


order to the community. Once the student enters into crossroads, and the way in which he enter

determined by his moral development, he begins to self-author his fraternal experience.

Fraternal Authorship refers to the path in which his crossroads moment took him. He

begins to live the life etched out in the beginning of his fraternal journey. If he were in stage 3 of

moral development versus beginning in stage 4 of moral development, this fraternal authorship

probably looks different. However, he has begun to express himself in the way that he most sees

fit in his current condition. The student begins to live the life he has chosen. Others around him

can identify the path he chose because his actions are clear and determined from a developmental

standpoint. The student can strengthen or weaken his fraternal authorship at any point in time by

going through another crossroads. If the student were in stage 3 of moral development in the

beginning of his journey, but is now in stage 4, this could lead to a second crossroads experience.

He re-evaluates his role within the organization and then begins to fraternally author his

experience in a different way.

After the initial crossroads moment other crossroad moments can happen at pivotal times

for the student. These times include, but are not limited to: advancing a stage in moral

development, moving from probationary membership to initiatory membership, a shipwreck

moment, winning or losing an election, and graduation. These moments tend to have the

individual reflect on the experience, and focus on what the future holds. In this forward thinking

mentality the student begins to express himself to live out the ideals that he believes in at that

particular moment.

In this model there is not a form of regression associated with reverting backwards from

self-authored to external formulas, which Marcia Baxter Magolda outlines as being able to

happen (Baxter Magolda, 2001). The student continues to cycle through crossroads and self-


author of his fraternal involvement the entire time he is involved with the organization. He can

never regress back into unaffiliated formulas because he will always understand what it means to

be involved in a fraternal organization; his mind will never be wiped of that experience. He can,

however, enter disaffiliated formulas at any time within his fraternal involvement, and thus cycle

out of fraternal authorship. If he feels he no longer wants to associated with the organization, or

that the organization feels that he is not living up to his moral obligation and they remove him

from membership, he enters disaffiliated formulas. In this cycle, the member is no longer

associated with the organization either voluntary or involuntary, therefore no longer developing

his fraternal authorship. As can be seen in model A, disaffiliated formulas is in the center of the

theory because once you understand what it means to be in a fraternal organization you never do

not understand what it mean to be a member.

MODEL A: Fraternal Authorship Theory Model (Greer, 2015).


We will explore specifics of the model through two examples. Johnny’s journey of

becoming a member of Kappa Rho Tau Fraternity, and Sammy’s journey of becoming a member

of Omega Chi Phi Fraternity. Sammy is a start student and a presidential scholar, before

attending college he worked with his parents who run a nonprofit soup kitchen where he served

meals for homeless men and women every weekend. Sammy understood the difficulties in the

work and actively wanted to make a difference. When Sammy began college he wanted to join

Omega Chi Phi fraternity because of the level of distinction the chapter had. They had the

highest GPA, were active leaders and role models on campus, and were know for a signature

philanthropy event that raised thousands of dollars for childhood cancer research. Sammy is in

stage 4 of moral development. He is cognizant of his relations as a member of society and acts

accordingly. Because of his developmental maturity Sammy enters the crossroads phase

differently than Johnny. Johnny was a high school all star. He earned varsity letters in football,

wrestling, and baseball. He received a full Division I baseball scholarship to an out of state

university that is known for its party scene. Johnny wanted to make new friends and be accepted

by his new school community decides to join Kappa Rho Tau. Kappa Rho Tau is known for their

enormous parties, and has slipped through the cracks of getting kicked off campus because the

university’s president is a Kappa Rho Tau. Johnny is in stage 3 of moral development, he is

seeking acceptance from the new community he is apart of, and makes decisions influenced by

his peers. When Johnny enters crossroads he is thinking of all of the social aspects of the

fraternity experience, and ultimately fraternal authors himself as the chapter drunk. Sammy,

however, entered the fraternity wanting to learn more about how to get involved and ultimately

earned the recruitment chair his first semester as a brother. Sammy fraternally authored as hard

worker, and a future leader within his organization.


Johnny begins to realize that his actions have consequences, after his third trip to the

campus conduct office. He begins to enter another crossroads. He begins to think what kind of

role he will now play in the chapter. Cognitively, Johnny has now entered in stage 4 of moral

development because he understands his actions have consequence not only for himself, but for

his chapter. Johnny decides he wants to help out with recruitment and begins to author his

fraternal experience as a team player. At this point Sammy has realized that he can do better for

the Greek community as a whole if he runs for a position on the InterFraternity Council. Sammy

has entered stage 5 of moral development because he is becoming a responsible member of the

community.

At the point when Sammy and Johnny were finishing their senior year, and they began to

enter another crossroads of understanding what their fraternal involvement will be post

graduation. Sammy decided that he had a good time as an undergraduate member, but the

fraternity life was just something to build his toolbox of skills. He made great friends that he will

keep in touch with, but he no longer has involvement with the fraternity. Sammy has become too

bogged down with his new job as a marketing campaign manager, and thus has entered

disaffiliated formulas, and cycled out of fraternal authorship. He still has full understanding of

his fraternal involvement, but is no longer in the continuous loop of defining his role, and

strengthening his dedication to his oath of membership. Johnny gained a great deal from his

organization, and developed into a different person at the end of his tenure at his institution. He

decides to become an assistant advisor for a chapter near his hometown, which causes Johnny to

author his fraternal involvement again, this time as a teacher. Johnny will continue to progress in

the cycles of Fraternal Authorship Theory until he no longer decides to be a contributing member

of his organization.


Implications for Practice

As was spoken about earlier, social platforms have showcased the moral decision making

of members of the Fraternity community. When a group of young men are a part of an all male

organization during the pivotal developmental years of their late adolescents, it should be

expected that they would develop differently. Discovering the correlation between moral

development and self-authorship of fraternity men allows practitioners to help the population that

was focused on. Depending on his moral development stages tends to foreshadow how his

fraternal authorship with happens, understanding that the growth is on a continuum until the

member is disaffiliated with the chapter.

There are still many factors that are associated with helping fraternity men develop and

grow through their membership in his own organization. Three implications of this theory would

include, but is not limited to the following. Chapter advisors whether, regional, national, or

institutional affiliated gain an understanding of fraternal involvement, and why certain brothers

get involved and other disengage. There should be an implementation of programs that allow

fraternity men to understand moral development to excel to higher levels of understanding,

especially that his actions affect the general population. Finally advisors should set benchmarks

for chapter presidents to allow him to help advance his chapter and its members to grow and

mature through the developmental process.

In brief, my theory on the self-authorship of fraternity men via their moral development

allows everyone involved with enhancing the developmental process of students to implement

programs that advance the cognitive skills. It also helps to empower the individual to embrace

the values of his organization and continue to grow them with every decision that he decides to

make.


References

Baxter Magolda, M. B. (2001). Making their own way: Narratives for transforming higher

education to promote self-authorship. Sterling, VA: Stylus

Blimling, G. (2010). The Growth and Development of College Students. In The resident

assistant: Applications and strategies for working with college students in residence halls

(7th ed.). Dubuque, Iowa: Kendall Hunt Publishing Company.

Brabham, Z. (2015). Who We Are - Kappa Sigma Fraternity. Retrieved December 3, 2015, from

http://kappasigma.org/who-we-are/

Brussalis, C. (2015). About Us - Phi Delta Theta Fraternity. Retrieved December 8, 2015, from

https://www.phideltatheta.org/about/

Carr, P. (2015, May 1). The Condition of Education - Participation in Education - Postsecondary

Enrollment - Undergraduate Enrollment. Retrieved December 3, 2015, from

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cha.asp

DeSantis, Alan D. (2007) ."Studs and Virgins." Inside Greek U.: Fraternities, Sororities, and

the Pursuit of Pleasure, Power, and Prestige. Lexington: UP of Kentucky, 2007. 43-

58. Print.

Kimbrough, W. (2003). The Membership Intake Movement. In Black Greek 101: The Culture,

Customs, and Challenges of Black Fraternities and Sororities (6th ed.). Cranbury, New

Jersey: Rosemont Publishing and Printing.

Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive developmental

approach. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior. New York: Holt,

Rinehart & Winston.

Lichtenauer, T. (2015). About Lambda Chi Alpha Fraternity. Retrieved December 18, 2015,


from http://www.lambdachi.org/

McMurtrie, B. (2015). Do Fraternities Have a Place on the Modern Campus? The Chronicle of

Higher Education. Retrieved December 2, 2015, from http://munews.missouri.edu/daily-

clip-packets/2015/08-03-15.pdf

Meltzer, S. (2007). Home, North-American Interfraternity Conference. Retrieved December 10,

2015, from http://www.nicindy.org/

Pearson, F. C., & Bruess, B. J. (2001). The gender debate about identity and moral

development continues: What about men? NASPA Reports – Research, 143, 1-31.

student development (pp. 549-568). Boston, MA: Pearson.

Pizzolato, J.E. (2004). Coping with conflict: Self-authorship, coping, and adaptation to

college in first-year high-risk students. Journal of College Student Development, 45, 425-

442.

Pressler, A. (2013). The Role of Leadership Experience in Self-Authorship Development: A

Qualitative Case Study. Educational Administration: Theses, Dissertations, and Student

Research.

Starks-Corbin, A. (2010). Welcome to AFA. Retrieved December 2, 2015, from

http://www.afa1976.org/

Whipple, E., & Sullivan, E. (1998.). Greek Letter Organizations: Communities of

Learners? New Directions for Student Services, 7-17.

ExternalCrossroadAndFraternityMan (1)

Documents

Transcript of ExternalCrossroadAndFraternityMan (1)