Epperson Proposal

On November 6, 1978, Dartmouth English professor James Epperson asked the faculty, “Can we as a body initiate radical change, do we have the will, do we represent anything?”¹ He was referring to his proposal to abolish Dartmouth’s fraternities and sororities, a proposal so bold that Epperson himself was “surprised” that the faculty voted in favor of it.²

Although Epperson’s proposal technically applied to both fraternities and sororities,³ discussions about the proposal often referred exclusively to fraternities. Sororities were relatively new at Dartmouth,⁴ whereas fraternities had had over a century⁵ to build enough influence that the faculty began to question whether it was destructive.

Influences on the Vote

---

Many of the professors voted for Epperson’s proposal based on the discriminatory behavior they had observed from fraternity members. Epperson declared in his proposal that “many fraternities perpetuate sexual and racial stereotypes that humiliate and degrade women, blacks and American Indians.”⁶ He recalled to the faculty that earlier that year, fraternity brothers in three different houses had participated in sexually assaulting a mentally ill woman.⁷ During the debate, Assistant Professor of Music William Cole said, “Speaking as a black, I have to say that all fraternities are racist and sexist,”⁸ and the multitude of speakers repeating that sentiment “had an influence on the faculty.”⁹

Aside from principle, politics were at play. In recent years, “the feeling that standards [had] been allowed to slip too far”¹⁰ for fraternities had led the trustees to establish a study group which would more clearly define the relationship between fraternities and the College.¹¹ The Fraternity Study Group proposed a constitution that Dean of Students John Hanson described as “just a reminder to the fraternities that they are only a part of the College.”¹² Though it was difficult to deny that fraternities needed reforms, the IFC pushed back against the new constitution, concerned by the “amount of power” the Office of the Dean of the College would be given over fraternities.¹³

Dean of the College Ralph Manuel spoke at the faculty meeting, and while he spoke in defense of the fraternities, he said later that he was “stuck.”¹⁴ He was obligated to defend the policy of the Board of Trustees, which had recently endorsed continuing the fraternity system by ratifying its new constitution, but he believed “that there [were] excesses that were just intolerable” within the system. Manuel told Epperson after the vote, “if it were otherwise, I might be with you.”¹⁵

Manuel believed the vote was inspired by the movie Animal House, because the petition came “within a week” of the movie being shown on campus.¹⁶ He was skeptical about “what…John Belushi chugging a fifth of Jack Daniels, which is obviously iced tea, [had] to do with the reality,”¹⁷ but others at the meeting “spoke passionately” about scenes from the movie.¹⁸

Representatives of the Inter-fraternity Council were present at the meeting to give “general information” that cast fraternities in a more positive light,¹⁹ but they may have actually “hurt themselves very badly.”²⁰ According to Dean Manuel, speaking at the meeting “was almost a death wish on the part of the fraternities. They had a president…speak and he appears disheveled, unshaved….It was the worst possible presentation that you could imagine if you were trying to save yourself or your system.”²¹

Aftermath

---

In response to the vote, the Board of the Trustees asked the faculty to form the Ad Hoc Faculty Committee on Fraternities, which would evaluate how the fraternities improved over the next twelve months.²² After that time, the Committee “reached the unanimous conclusion that…the changes that [had] taken place…[were] not sufficiently responsive to the faculty’s concerns.”²³ The Committee’s report suggested that a “residential-social house system replace the present fraternity system”²⁴ if sufficient change were not made within three years and concluded by declaring that the College could not “continue to perpetuate, through its recognition, a social system that excludes significant numbers of its students.”²⁵

In terms of actual influence on Dartmouth’s fraternities, the vote served at best as a warning. Manuel cautioned the fraternity governing board that “now [they had] got the people governing the institution as the last hope for [their] continued existence.”²⁶ Although “the fraternities expressed a willingness to improve their ways,”²⁷ one of their highest-ranking last hopes, Trustee Robert Kilmarx, was unimpressed by their actual progress.²⁸ Still, the Board did not move to abolish the fraternities, reasoning that “the fraternity system was so entrenched…at the College”²⁹ and that alumni might withdraw their financial support.³⁰ Kilmarx later expressed regret that the Board had rejected Epperson’s proposal.³¹

Notes