In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

chapter 14 eclectic in the 1960s the coming of the great change T he decade got off to a good start.The incoming slate of officers for the year 1959–60, headed by Epistoleus Alan Wulff (1960), continued the practice of using an Executive Committee to clarify issues and set an agenda for weekly meetings. Motions had to be vetted by the committee prior to presentation at meetings, although the rule could be suspended for good and sufficient reason.1 This arrangement help cut meeting time, always a consideration in the House, and a growing one. The campuswide issue of delayed rushing was very much in the air. A ‘‘Woodbury Report,’’ issued in late 1958, urged that rushing be delayed until at least midyear for freshmen. The implications, financial and otherwise, of such a move were disturbing for all fraternities. An undergraduate referendum later in the year opposed proposals for deferred rushing.2 The same issue of the Argus3 that gave details of the ‘‘Woodbury Report’’ also reported the suspension of the Wesleyan Chapter of Alpha Chi Rho by its national headquarters for tampering with prescribed ritual. The Chapter under the leadership of Doug Bennet (’59), later president of Wesleyan, reformulated itself as the ‘‘Black Walnut Club’’ and later as eqv (Esse Quam Videri—‘‘To be rather than to seem’’) in protest against restrictive language in ritual and practice of the national organization. Later, in 1959–60 Sigma Chi withdrew from its national affiliation and resumed its old name of ‘‘Commons Club’’; Sigma Nu did the same, renaming itself as a local ‘‘Kappa Nu Kappa.’’4 Fraternities were more and more being challenged on their discriminatory practices—mainly against blacks and Jews—and at Wesleyan, they reacted. Within Eclectic such practices had long since disappeared; the reaction in the Housewas against internal traditions that grated on some. For a number of years, attendance at regular weekly meetings had been mandatory unless an excuse for just cause was obtained from the Epistoleus . Censure was the normal punishment for violation of this provi124 sion of the bylaws. A freshman rose in a March 1959 meeting to move that a committee be established to examine the whole matter of compulsory attendance at meetings and the censure system.5 The motion was defeated, but signs of a desire for change were in the air. One externally imposed change had affected the abilityof the alumni to raise money to support the undergraduates. In about 1954, the Internal Revenue Service in an undated letter revoked the tax-exempt status of the Socratic Literary Society, which it had granted in a letter of January 25, 1945. The Socrats’ appeals were definitively denied by 1958–59: I remember Karl Van Dyke, chairman of the Socrats’ Board of Directors , bemoaning the decision and especially the denial. Contributions to the sls were no longer tax deductible, and the effect was felt almost immediately. The financial condition of the Fraternity was such that contributions from parents of undergraduates were solicited by the Socrats .6 With no tax deductions, the appeal was not a great success. Nevertheless, the Socrats managed to fund some needed upkeep and repair. The upstairs shower room was refurbished, and the minutes of January 5, 1960, reflect that ‘‘guttering’’ would no longer be permitted there. There was no indication whether an alternate site was established for this tradition of long standing. Other traditions continued , such as joint dinners for the undergraduates and local alumni. The Epistoleus (president), now Peter Funk (1961), reminded the brothers at the Regular Meeting of May 10, 1960, of an upcoming ‘‘banquet’’ for the alumni. The Grammateus (Recording Clerk and obviously not a Latin scholar) noted in the minutes that the function was for the ‘‘Fratres Enervae’’ (Fratres in Urbe).7 Maybe they were exhausted from wrestling with financial problems. For the first time since the war years there was no recording in the minutes of an Annual Meeting of the Fraternity in 1960—and also no copy of the Annual Epistoleus’s Report. In the last months of the academicyear therewas an increasing numberof censures of brothers who had missed house meetings with no excuse. Censures were also voted against two brothers for ‘‘unbecoming conduct’’ and slight damage to the House; one of the two was an officer of the Fraternity.8 These incidents are minor in themselves, but taken together they appear to indicate a trend of more casual attitudes toward traditional norms. Action...

Share