UNIVERSITY COURIER
Entered at Lawrence Post Office as Second Class Matter.
Vol. I.
LAWRENCE, KANSAS, JANUARY 12, 1883.
No. 9.
University Courier.
A SEMI-MONTHLY PUBLICATION DEVOTED TO THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE STUDENTS
THE UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS.
BOARD OF EDITORS.
EDITORIAL...C. C. DART.
TOPICS...J. D. McLAREN.
LITERARY...E. A. BROWN, ANNA MURPHY.
SCIENTIFIC...L. L. DYCHE.
NORMAL...G. E. ROSE.
EXCHANGE...ALBERT RIFFLE.
LOCAL...GLEN MILLER, MARY GILLMORE.
PERSONAL...CLARA GILLHAM.
MISCELLANY...W. S. WHIRLOW, ELLA V. KEIST.
BUSINESS MANAGERS. EDMOND BUTLER, B. K. BRUCE.
Subscription, One Dollar per Year, in Advance.
EDITORIAL.
Our columns are always open for the discussion of questions of importance to this University and to universities in general. This week a portion of the space allotted to editorials is devoted to the secret society question. The article is a good exponent of what these societies ought to be—that they ought to be a benefit both to themselves and to the students at large, and, coming from a fraternity man, is a fair statement of what many secret society men desire to see. It is not our purpose to discuss the question at present, but hope before the close of the year to present both sides to our readers. If the good results of these societies are not so much a secret that they cannot be expressed in language, we will willingly devote a portion of our space to the enlightenment of the "barbs"; and, on the other hand, if there are any evil results we hope to see them shown up also. We desire to arrive at the truth, and if the truth says that these societies are more beneficial than pernicious, then they should remain, otherwise they should go.
SINCE the last issue of the COURIER, the contest between the two literary societies has taken place, resulting, as is well known to most of our readers, in the triumph of Orophilian eloquence. This is the third contest between these societies, and the second defeat experienced by the Oreads. So the Orophilians, at present, are decidedly ahead. There was some bitter feeling manifested for a day or two after the contest, but
everything is lovely at present. It is very disagreeable, not to say disgusting, to see some of the members work themselves into a passion over the result—to hear them continually saying: "If we had elected so-and-so, we would have beaten you." While this statement may be true, it cannot be proven, and when oft repeated serves to engender a war of words. No one doubts that each person on the program sought to do his best. This being true it is unkind, to say the least, for any one to continually assert that some one else would have done better. In point of fact, there is little difference as regards literary merit between the productions of the two societies; it being mainly in delivery that the Oreads failed. It is difficult to surmise what the result of an annual defeat to either society would be, but continued failure is, generally, demoralizing and probably the rule holds good in regard to literary societies. Of course the Oreads do not expect to be beaten every year, but even two defeats in succession are apt to work harm. If this by true, may it not be a question whether any great good results from these contests?
AMONG the many questions that at various times present themselves to the student for consideration, none perhaps is more worthy of his attention than that in reference to the influence of Greek letter fraternities. Our attention has been called to this matter more particularly of late, on account of the Occident's attacks upon secret societies at the University of California. I doubt not but that the Occident pictures the worst side of fraternity life, but judging from its editorials, I think it sought a better side and failed to find it. Now it is this lack of excellence or real merit, as found at Berkeley among secret societies, that has caused me to inquire into the matter with a view of determining, if possible, the position fraternities ought to maintain in the college world. In the first place, I believe fraternities ought to aim at two things—the benefitting of its own members and of the university at large. Now, these two go hand in hand. A fraternity cannot succeed—notwithstanding many in our school to the contrary—in benefitting its members without taking into consideration the welfare of the entire body of students. A fraternity that attempts such a work is formed upon a narrow basis, and will ultimately bring discredit upon itself and inflict lasting injuries upon any institution of learning. If secret societies will do good in any school whatever, they must ask what can we do, not for our members simply, but for all with whom we associate. Many seem to exclude this idea entirely and with a firm belief that their fraternity contains the smart men of the university, they work for any one of them who may come up for positions of honor, not because he merits