It depends on the seriousness.

If it is so serious you absolutely must act, can't live with the way he's going, get backing (it sounds like you have it if he's damaging your party... er, sorority, and someone already deviated from the ideals) and boot him out of office, and then tell him why.

If he's a good friend, he'll understand, if you can make him see that he's out of line.

Then again, if he's being this oppressive and you're afraid to talk to him... how good of a friend IS he?


If its not serious enough for you to risk losing him as a friend... I suppose then don't risk it, just live with it.

But if it is serious, better to lose a friend than to lose... whatever is serious enough to outweigh the loss of a best friend...

You should try to talk to him separately... go out and have a burger or some shit. Be blunt, but firm, and tell him what you're thinking.

Part of being a decent leader is being able to modify your style as the situation changes.

However, if you're going to try to talk to him, keep that fact to yourself. If he is going to change direction, he'll find it easier if he knows that you haven't been eroding his position behind his back. Discretion is the important thing.

But if he doesn't change, or doesn't agree, then what options do you have to vote him out of office?

Even if it were possible to remove him, and being on the committee about disputes and constitutional questions I know how to, I wouldn't want to set the precedent.

It's especially the calling out other officer for speaking up that's gotten to me. It's very difficult to argue against him because so much is withheld from us that he can claim so much authority for himself.

Talking to him face to face is especially problematic because he is so stubborn about challenges to his authority, as I found out when trying to wiggle out of filling my census form. It's especially hard because he's so different from how he was just a few months ago.

A rule from pastoral counseling: the visible problem is never the real problem. So begin by listening to him carefully to understand what's really going on--in the situation and in him--to turn him into a dictator. Once you have some insight into the real issue, you can work on changing it.

Invictus, two of my roommates are part of a frat that recently had some similar issues with their newly elected president. I didn't pay too much attention to their frat politics but it seemed the general strategy was to talk amongst other dissatisfied people and together confront the president and his supporters. There are still some tensions in the frat, but nothing that a couple of casual beers couldn't sort out.

It probably won't be easy at all for you since he's also your best friend, and to be honest, your relationship with him will likely suffer unless you're a master of tact, but sometimes it's worth it anyway. You should talk to him about it but don't press the issue at the time if he resists strongly, but bring it up more than once. Talk to other brothers about the issue as well. Your challenge will be much more legitimate with the support of other brothers, but it's important that you aren't blindsiding him by coming up with a coalition from out of nowhere, which is why you should try talking to him first.

This is actually a situation where the skills you've learned playing Diplomacy might come in handy. When you bring the issue up, try to frame it as other brothers being dissatisfied, without naming names, and you being concerned for both your friend and your frat. This is probably a little more underhanded than coming out and out and expressing your dissatisfaction with his leadership, but I think your decisions in this situation will be weighing your friendship, your frat's standing, and perhaps your honesty against each other.

Anyways, I hope this helps. I can't really say what I would do in your situation, and these are merely suggestions. You might want to try talking to any female friends you have because I think they get more experience dealing with social issues like this. It's just that with women it's called drama, but with men it's called politics.

Remember when I moved to Tyrolia for what I believed was purely defensive reasons, yet you viewed this as an attack?

Do you think your friend thinks that what he is doing is best for the fraternity? So its just a difference of opinion on how to run the organization, of which he is the president? Or do you think he's trying to bring your organization down? If its the former, which I suspect it is, tread carefully, remembering he is doing what he thinks is best, even though you, as a mere mortal, do not.

pastoralan has some great advice.

From a business perspective, I'd say talk to him one-on-one, find out WHY he is making a decision. Ask him why he hasn't gotten opinions. Explain the fundamentals of being a good leader is making a decision AFTER you've been informed of all opinions FIRST. Explain that you are a fraternity of brothers, not a president and his followers.

But, you have to explain all of that to him in such a way that he comes to those conclusions on his own. If it is "his own ideas", he is much more likely to follow them than if it was just "told to him". Does that make sense? It is very difficult to do and may require multiple talks, but keep working with him, ask him how he thinks other people think, probe his mind, see where he is coming from, and just lead him in the right direction when you talk to him.

Remember, he is your friend, so be easy on him and know where his head is before you try to drive him one way or another.

Good luck, let us know how it goes.

Agree with Jack - You must first NOT gossip about the situation / talk to other / stir dissent. FIRST you have to talk to him one on one and give him a chance to correct - If he's a friend and a good character, he will here you and your arguments (damaging fraternity, which it is his duty to PROTECT and enhance). If he will not hear you, then you take 2 or 3 officers with you to confront him - again, without making it public, so that he now knows this is a larger issue, but still has a chance to correct the situation and save face. If he will not hear you and 2 or 3 brothers, then he gets the public boot. But in this way, you protect your integrity (you give him a chance) and you give him the best possible way to protect his integrity and learn.

Honestly, if I were f'ing up and my good friend stood by and watched it happen (which has happened, I'm sad to say), well...he wasn't a good friend ever anyway.

Years from now, what will you be prouder of...silence? public humiliation? Allowing yourfraternity to be hurt (and this IS the best time of your life, so make sure it STAYS that way) Or that you acted with integrity and at least attempted the right thing. Step outside the emotion as you evaluate options.

If he's a good friend, and he thinks of you as a good friend, then you should be able to be honest with him.

Tell him: "Dude, seriously, you're being an ass."

If he can't take that, then (a) he clearly doesn't trust your opinion and (b) isn't cut out to be the head of any organisation or group.

I think college Fraternities are a really, really awful idea, by the way.

Wow --- I was not in a fraternity, but to say they are a really, really awful idea...uh, why? Can you support that argument (with something other than they ignore me/exclude people)?

I had friends in them - partied with them, etc. I also lived in a dorm where, even though there was no Greek letters defining a group, people of like mind got together and did activities to the exclusion of others...so what's the difference? I then moved off campus for a few years where we partied exclusively with a group of guys up the street and our various close friends. Again...no greek letters, but the same impact.

So a group of people want to formalize what is, in fact, very normal social groupings. In fact, you can make the argument that fraternities, in fact, allow individuals to interact with a LARGER group of people than they normally would, and thus are in fact a social beneift, and everybody should be a part of them. They also do charity work, etc.

I have friends that still keep in contact with their fraternity buddies from 20 years ago...it's called networking, and it provides people with an upper hand in business for decades to come in some instances, just like alma maters, church affiliation or any other of a number of things influence business decision without merit.

Basically, if you want this to go down in a decent way, you have to give him the option of saving face. Because if everybody knows that you bitch-slapped him to get him into line, that will become your new job. And he won't be able to be an effective leader, because everybody will know you'll be second guessing him and correcting him (even if you're not).

Similar situation: I had to talk to my younger brother about some stupid crap he was up to, that he had been taking crap from the entire rest of the family (and they're all as opinionated as me, and have just about as much tact). I made sure that when I talked to him, we were sitting out back of my parents place drinking beer and nobody else was around. Laid out what I needed to say, and emphasized that our conversation here didn't leave the patio, and that I wouldn't join in the rest of the family in giving him shit.... I was just trying to correct the situation. Managed to get through to him, and it ended up OK. But if I had joined in the shit-giving with my parents and sister, he wouldn't have listened to me, because he was being harassed too much.

Just a thought.

I agree totally with Jamiet99uk. The elegant simplicity of lines such as "I hate to say it, mate, but you're being an arse" have served me well in the past and will continue to do so in the future. As long as you make sure you listen to his point of view when he responds you'll do fine.

Diverting slightly from the subject, but is it common in the US for fraternities to have "official executive lines" and complex systems of government? Any organisation that can develop a "serious sense of malaise" while at college is blatently over obsessed with its own self importance and desperately needs to chill!

US fraternities have a governing body within each one, a "Greek" governing body on campus with reps from each house, and each house is sponsored by a national. It is organized, and apart from being obsessed with self-importance (not sure how you draw such a conclusion...) it also provides the leaders of houses valuable experience in leadership.

I wonder if you would think that the election of officers for, say, some environmental organization on campus would be likewise self-obsession? The purpose of the leadership is to coordinate with other house on activities, including parties, internal affairs, charity events and the like. It sounds like you have a rather narrow vision of what a fraternity is...and again, I was not IN one, but had many friends that were.

Aside from the above, the Greek system gives the members the permission to hold keggers on a Tuesday night, despite being mostly underage, which results in lots of drunken women, also mostly underage, which is good for everyone.

Have you considered taking him to a local showing of Julius Caeser? Assuming you have a Shakespearean troupe in the vicinity of course.

My suggestion is to do pastoralan's analysis first and then go with obiwan's method once you have gained the neccesary information. And DO NOT be blunt. He sounds like he would really take it the wrong way. Be very tactful.

@ krellin I do not have a narrow vision of what a fraternity is. I have no vision at all of what a fraternity is. Universities I know in England seem to function perfectly happily without them. We have multiple societies where like minded people can go to enjoy themselves or do good works as they wish, and the accomodation pretty much looks after itself. I don't really see what the purpose of a frat actually is, aside from providing opportunities for the more political minded students to boost their CVs

So anything that exists in America but not in England, we might as well be 'perfectly happy without them'? Maybe you don't have a narrow vision of what a fraternity is, you have a narrow vision in general.

@Octavious...so, your "Societies" - I don't get them? It seems like a bunch of people that get together with a common interests and do things that they enjoy together. Kind of like...er...a Fraternity, huh? Euro-centric elitism is sooooooo boring and old.

I think fraternities are also common in mainland Europe. I know for sure, for example, that they exist in the Netherlands. I'm not trying to argue that they are the root of all evil that must be destroyed, or indeed that they serve no purpose. I am simply saying that their purpose from my frat free perspective isn't immediately obvious.

@ Krellin I am not sure what a frat is, but I dare say it is very much not like my own dear Motorsoc (a society dedicated to motor racing at uni) or Tolksoc (a society dedicated to exploring a shared delight in the works of Tolkien and then a more enthusiastic delight in the works of breweries)

I have to say that one of the most endearing features to this forum is how I seem to go from being accused of Euro-centric elitism to pro American Imperialism on an almost daily basis. I have drawn two possible conclusions from this. Either I occupy the happy medium of a forward thinking moderate, or I'm suffering from schizophrenia... Time will tell ;)

Since I've been asked... I don't like the concept of fraternities because they are excluding, they are pompous, they are elitist, and they're based on freemasonry, which I also dislike.

And that's not to mention the problems of hazing.

Octavious, a third possibility is that your writing does not accurately reflect your thoughts.

Being privvi as I am to both my thoughts and my writing I was able to rule out that possibility early on. Still, I can't help but notice we have strayed alarmingly from the original subject matter.

Octavious, you may be privy to your writing, however, you are not privy to how it is interpreted. You naturally interpret it to match with your thoughts - maybe we are interpreting it differently?

Maybe? Has there ever been a piece of writing in the history of the world which has been interpreted exactly as the writer had wished? I would hazzard a guess not.

I'm just messing with you - but if you are constantly being interpreted as having two diametrically opposed viewpoints....?

It tends to vary with the thread. I do not contradict myself over a single issue (at least not to my knowledge), but it would seem that many people desire to take one view and construct an entire personality type from it that matches a comfortable template that they're used to attacking. I personally would never associate a bias against frats with Euro-centric elitism, but others have done so. In other threads those who would call me a euro-centric elitist (is there a shorthand way of saying that?) could point to my belief that liberal gun ownership laws is more than a bit mad.

On the other hand I have occasionally made the comment that the US has the best military and has done the most for space exploration etc etc (which I believe is self evident) and been considered a die hard pro-american because of it. It amuses me :)

Invictus, did you say anything yet? If so, how'd it go?

We have a weekly chapter meeting on Sundays. I'll base what I tell him on what he says there. I also ought to take into account that there are only two more weeks left in the semester so it might be more useful doing this stuff in the fall. After our formal there's really nothing official left this year, and I'll be interning way out in DC all summer.

Thanks for the advice. A lot of it is very useful, but a lot is also irrelevant due to specifics which I obviously don't feel comfortable getting into here.

@Octavius - Oh saying the US has the best military and has done the most for space exploration hardly makes you pro-American. It simply makes you a realist on those two points. :) You say our fraternities are not like your societies....for example your racing society or your Tolkien society. Yeah...we have those too. They're called "clubs" or whatever else people want to call them. You have in no way cornered the cultural phenomenon of like-minded individuals gathering together...you simply use different terminology. You know...you call it a car's "boot", we call it a trunk. Societies, clubs, fraternities, whatever. None are better than the other...

As far as Jamiet and his random bashing of fraternities....the so-called pompous, elitist, freemasons???? My best friend was in a fraternity and <gasp> we remained friends. I partied at any umber of fraternities over my years DESPITE not being in one. I hardly experienced this belligerence you refer to...sounds like typical stereotyping in the absence of real experience. Maybe if you've been excluded it has more to do with YOU and not them.

As for their private meetings, etc...of course I could not go to those, any more than ANY club with membership excludes non-members from certain activities until you join them. So what's the matter with that???? I believe this VERY website is private, and people can be removed...so if exclusivity is offensive....well, you know...

Perhaps mine is atypical, but if freemasonry is anything like what we do in rituals then there's nothing to fear from freemasons at all. At the end of the day it's just made up silliness.

You mean freemasons don't slap each other on the ass and ask for another??? lol (Just kidding! Well...unless it's true!)