instance the tables were turned, and the freshmen came out of the fray victorious. Two exultant freshmen were walking down Green Street discussing the victory and offering each other mutual congratulations. "I don't see how we ever did it," the first one ventured. "Well, I know, kid," the second man explained, emphasizing each syllable by a slap on his companion's back. "It was or-gan-i-za-tion." Whether the freshman was correct or not, it is quite evident to any unprejudiced onlooker that the main difference between the fraternity man and the independent is, as I have said, that one is a part of a coherent organization, and the other is not. Inherently, there is no difference, and it is upon the basis of organization only, and how best to manage men in it, that distinctions should be made. Perhaps this is as good a place as I shall find to say that the theory that all students should be treated alike is as foolish a one as could be promulgated, though I have heard it emphasized since the time when as a child I entered the public schools. The teacher or school official who treated one boy differently from what he treated another was the subject of much comment at home and on the playground, and the subject, also, of biting criticism. The theory would be all right if students were all alike, but since they are not it is the height of folly and
Page:The Fraternity and the Undergraduate (1923).pdf/44
