Breaking the stereotype

“Outside looking in they will never understand… Inside looking out we can never explain…”

This may be the most fitting quotation I can use to describe how it feels like to join a sorority or fraternity, or any other affiliation, for that matter. But please allow me to at least show you a side of these so-called “affiliated ones.” I do not claim to be an expert in the matter; all I have is my 5-year experience of being a member and officer of a sorority. My views may not be like those of other affiliated ones. Do indulge me.

As the new breed of law students comes rushing through the gates of every law school in our country, the few and the struggling affiliated ones will again start their own process of natural selection… Amongst the clueless freshies, the members will start to pinpoint the one who has the strongest personality, the one with the most potential, the one who has the most eloquent family background, and the one who will step up. There is no fixed standard, no hard and fast rule… We will just look at the herd and go with our own gut, and try to identify those who would fit our self-imposed standards. Don’t get us wrong. We are not being judgmental and whatnot. We are just practicing the decades-old tradition handed down to us by our predecessors.

Traditions and rules are the very backbone of almost all fraternities and sororities. We just differ in our values, thrust, and priorities. Change, although not frowned upon, is still somewhat uncommon in these kinds of affiliations. We always try as hard as we can to maintain the ways of our alumni and, at the same time, adapt to the changing times with minimal alterations or modifications to the customs handed down to us. With these thoughts in mind, I would like to think that there are two kinds of affiliated members—the traditional and the modern. To discuss their difference is somehow important in understanding the inner workings of these fraternities and sororities.

The traditional ones are those that cling to the old ways, to stricter rules, and to the longstanding customs and practice. On the other hand, the modern ones are those who thrive to innovate, always keeping in mind the importance of socialization and group dynamics. The “traditionalists” thrive more to maintain the hierarchy in the group, the seniors having more privileges than the ones who come after. The “modernists” seem to value the equality among the group, always mindful not to place an imaginary line between the seniors and the newbies. I consider myself to be in between. There are some issues that call for me to be a traditionalist, and there are some issues on which I maintain a modernist’s stand.

In these two cultures, so to speak, springs the problem that instigated a commotion a few years back that cost two law students their lives, and now more recently. The issue is hazing. Some traditionalists would want to keep the tradition that we experienced when we entered, but due to the fact that we are having a hard time recruiting members, the modernists are starting to loosen up a bit just to maintain the number of members we need. Both have some disadvantages. Being strict in the admission assures us that the future members are indeed committed to the organization, but it is costing us aspiring members who are now afraid to undergo the so-called initiation period. This period is when they will be tested of their loyalty to the organization; this is when they will get to know the members and introduce themselves to us. On the other hand, loosening the standards in the admission would increase the membership, but the quality of such members may be prejudiced. We prefer quality members rather than a big number.

Therefore, the problem of hazing occurs because of members who sometimes cross the line. We, members of these organizations, have self-imposed rules pertaining to the admission of members, which we dare not break. But as in all clusters or groups, there are some that would break such rules, unmindful of the consequences of their actions.

But wait, don’t get me wrong. I am not here to justify any of their actions that led to the death of those two young law students. It was patently wrong. I do not subscribe to beating a person to his/her death just to call him “brod” or “sis” a few hours later. But I want everyone to know that not all of us are motivated by this hideous need to hurt a person. Not all members of these affiliated groups join so we can one day have the chance to hurt someone else, too. Of course not; that would be ridiculous. I want all of you to know that we do have legitimate reasons for joining—like to gain more friends, to have useful connections, and to have at least someone who can guide us through the bumps on the road toward our goal to become a lawyer.

We are not bad persons. It’s just that there are some of us who make bad decisions and actions. Please do not judge all of us.

Like any other student, we also strive hard, maybe even harder, because a lot more people are counting on us to succeed. We have eyes on us all the time, not just those of our family but also those of the members of the organization to which we belong. There is a lot more pressure, but in turn we get more support. Apart from our family, our fraternities or sororities also give us the much-needed help and inspiration in this tedious journey to become a lawyer.

I do not expect all of you to subscribe to our cause or to think positively of us. All I ask is for you to keep your mind open. Do not put us in a stereotype because like any other organization, we are diverse and individually unique. Do not punish us for the wrongdoing of a few. We are more than a few bad choices and carelessness.

Unica Amor R. Mananquil, 25, from Quezon City, is a product of the University of Santo Tomas’ Faculty of Arts and Letters major in legal management (Batch 2009) and Faculty of Civil Law (Batch 2014).