In the first place, there are not enough fraternities, and it is a matter of great difficulty to launch new ones. The shortage is particularly felt by Jewish students.
Of the 37 fraternities, 26 are so-called "Christian houses" and 11 are Jewish. But the relative numbers of Jewish students far exceed their proportion of fraternities. Thus while almost any Christian who so desires can join a fraternity, many Jewish boys find that they are "not good enough" to make one which can afford to be choosy.
The Jewish houses are overflowing while Christian houses are in some cases unfilled. The competition is therefore less for a Christian than a Jew. One Jewish fraternity has 100 members, while the average size of Christian houses is 35 or 40.
The problem which most concerns the University, however, is that of removing restrictive clauses and practices from the organizations. Seven houses, the majority of them Jewish, have stated or implied restrictive clauses, but the practice is almost universal except in highly unusual cases. ("Some Christian houses do have Jewish boys, and Negroes, and so forth," one fraternity member said.)
The Administration disapproves of both clauses and practices, and has said so. It has also said that it will not extract compliance at the expense of breaking national fraternity affiliations. Its strategy has been to attempt persuasion and to hope that religious and racial barriers will gradually disappear. So far progress has been slow, but administrative spokesmen are not yet discouraged.
In addition to the shortage of fraternities and their discriminatory practices, the University is also concerned with orienting the organizations toward more interest in studies and less emphasis on gaiety. Four years ago, the Administration, with co-operation from the Inter-Fraternity Council, set minimum scholastic standards which fraternities have to meet. The first year a house falls below a "C" average, it is warned by the Dean of Men. If grades do not improve the second year, the house is placed on social probation, which prohibits parties--the raison d'etre of fraternities. If academic laxness continues for a third year, the house goes on rushing and initiation probation, virtual death for the organization.
No Alternative to System
Ultimately, the University has no alternative but to support the fraternity system, if only because of the housing it provides for undergraduate men. While trying to build new dormitories, it has scant hope for much advance in this line.
If housing for the men is an important problem, then that for women approaches the critical stage. For the University has practically no dormitory space and inadequate sorority (called "women's fraternities") facilities. Since it disapproves of girls living in apartments, it necessarily numbers a high proportion--about two-thirds--of commuters among its 700 coeds. The University is meeting this problem directly by constructing more dorms, but no early results can be expected.
The Penn coed is an intriguing paradox. She is attractive and often intelligent, yet some Penn men will assert that it would be degrading to date one. This can probably be regarded as irrational and inconse-