UP LINKS
System Homepage
Diliman
Manila
Visayas
Mindanao
Baguio
Open University

ONLINE NEWS
UP Newsletter
Collegian
UPDate

Inside the Brotherhood
Thoughts on fraternity violence
By Raymund Narag

So many promising young men have been put to waste. So many dreams have been shattered. So many families have been broken.

The fraternity system has become a big black hole that sucks in promising young men and hurls them to their graves. The fraternity as an institution, despite its avowed noble and lofty ideals, has degenerated into a barbaric gang. Internally, its organizational structure has become so hierarchically feudal, with the head becoming the law and the members losing their individuality. Externally, it has imbibed the culture of the tribesmen and treats other tribes as unforgivable “enemies.”

With the barbaric culture of the fraternities, school administrations have responded with iron fist. They apply more stringent measures and harsher penalties on those caught in the act of violence. Others have totally banned the formation of the fraternities in the campus and deny the fraternities’ existence. Some schools even equate frat members with criminals preying on unsuspecting students/victims.

However, strict mechanisms have not deterred frat members from committing acts of violence. They have simply adopted other instruments and methods of war suitable to the changed terrain. Fistfights have given way to cutters, lead pipes, baseball bats, and now handguns and grenades. To elude identification, they wear masks. The advent of cellular phones, has opened opportunities to inflict harm over unknowing members of the other party. The war continues and continues more recklessly.

Administrative and criminal cases filed in school and judicial authorities have become, in themselves, battlegrounds for warring frat members. It does not matter if the parties are telling the truth or committing perjury. And expulsion from schools and putting innocent men behind bars are now viewed as ways of scoring against the other party.

UP DILIMAN has been observed to have the most number of sensationalized fraternity-related violence resulting in the death of students Dennis Venturina, Mark Martin, Miguel Icasiano, Nino Calinao and Den Daniel Reyes. Such violence has put the university in a bad light. Most students look up to fraternities and view them as models. They are, however, ugly models of how to make pillboxes and how to maim a fellow student. The violence has grown. There are now reported incidents of grenade throwing by university students in Metro Manila campuses. And alas, even high school students and out-of-school youth in the provinces and slum areas have their own gory tales to tell. Fraternity violence has become a big concern that poses a considerable threat to the educational and social system.

The seeds of violence
Though cloaked with noble and lofty ideals such as academic excellence, nationalism, leadership, rule of law, and intellectual integrity, the fraternities have developed strong organizational cultures that lean towards violence and that contradict such ideals.

Hazing
The seeds of violence are sown early in the heart of a frat man the moment he enters the fraternity. The rites of passage an applicant has to go through before he can be considered a “brother” are replete with physical and psychological violence. By testing their mettle through pain and humiliation, the new members are inducted to become blood brothers. In hazing or initiations, the neophytes are made to believe that their fraternity is the one and only fraternity existing. All the rest are mere dance troupes. The “masters” train their “neophytes” to hate the “enemy” and vow to work for the destruction of their enemy-fraternities.

The physical violence frat members undergo during initiations becomes the rational for the acceptability of the other forms of violence. Members accept violence as a normal practice.

Source of hatred
The culture of hate is passed on from one generation to another. Stories of “war exploits” by senior and alumni members are told again and again to young members exhorting them to do their fair share in advancing the fraternity’s “glorious tradition.” They have evolved the “warrior class” to act as vanguard in their military efforts. The warrior class has the special mission of collecting information against the other parties, in plotting attacks and developing the paraphernalia of war. Members who do not adhere to the militarist tradition are considered outcasts or have low fraternity stature. The voices of those who have cracked more skulls or have proven themselves to be “the man” command more following than those who advocate good academic performance.

Psychological Violence
The other kind of violence that is less blatant but equally repressive is the psychological violence imposed on the frat men. Frat members are obliged to conform to the “high ideals” of the fraternity. They are asked to do some tasks which test their loyalty to the fraternity yet could be humiliating. As junior members or new recruits, they cannot express their opinions and ideas on the policies made by the fraternity officers. The members should follow rules without question. In the process, the individuality of the members is subsumed under the greater “interest of the fraternity”.

This setup makes it easy to mobilize frat members in times of war. The head of the frat can easily command the whole membership and assign them specific tasks. Even those who are anti-violence and peace advocates within the frat have no option but to comply. They are asked to hold a lead pipe or baseball bat even if their hearts and minds find no logic for it. In a frat war situation, the other party does not distinguish who are the hotheads and the cool heads. The only considerations are if they are members of the “enemy” and the target of the hit.

Members who do not want to be involved in this practice are considered pariah. They are the butt of jokes and the objects of scorn. Some frat members simply become less visible in the tambayan because they cannot accept the norms of the frat. However, they may be called upon once in a while to perform some tasks. But they do this at their own risk. In times of rumbles, they cannot be easily informed and updated about the status of war. They may attend their classes, but they may also end up in a hospital. It then pays to become one of the boys.

Those who have inclinations to campus politics, academics, campus papers etc. are given high esteem only if they have proven themselves to the fraternity. While it brings glory to a frat to have members in the student councils and school papers, nonetheless, the higher premium is still given to those who become officers and heads of the frat. That is why, there are members who are “picked” and “arranged” to become campus politicians. Their being in office is a manifestation of the fraternity’s flexing of the muscle.

The psychological violence is therefore cloaked in sophistication. While the frat members are obliged to surrender some of their individual rights, the promise of reward for the members come in the full enjoyment of benefits the frat receives as a whole.

Code of Silence
The fraternities anchor their strength on secrecy. Like the Sicilian code of omerta, fraternity members are bound to keep the secrets from the non-members. They have codes and symbols that frat members alone can understand. They know if there are problems in campus by mere signs posted in conspicuous places. They have a different way of communicating, like inverting the spelling of words, so that ordinary conversations cannot be decoded by non-members.

It takes a lot of acculturation for frat members to imbibe the code of silence. The members have to be mainstays in the tambayan to know the latest developments about new members and the activities of other frats. Secrets are even denied to some members who are not really “in.” They have to earn a reputation to be part of the inner sanctum, to be considered a “true blue member.”

The code of silence reinforces the feeling of elitism. The fraternities are worlds unto themselves. They are sovereign in their existence. They have their own myths, concepts and worldviews. Save perhaps their alumni association, they do not recognize any other authority but their head.

Rumbles
Rumbles are the physical manifestations of the psychological state of war among the members. Simple actions like “titigan” or “pagdaan sa tambayan ng kabilang frat” can be misunderstood as invitation for trouble. “Panliligaw sa girlfriend,” or “nakabangga sa inuman” are explosive causes of war because these directly affect the macho image of the frat member. There are also more childish reasons like “trip maghanap ng away”. This usually happens when young members are still high from stories their alumni members share with them during drinking sprees. The young members are regaled about incidents of war during the alumni’s time. After the drinking session, the first “enemy” sighted is mauled and the incident becomes part of the frat’s war exploits.

There are also rumbles waged in the interest of the fraternity. This is usually in the defense of the fraternities’ name and image. Examples would be in the conduct of campus elections or when other fraternities encroach in the traditional projects of other fraternities. School debates or sports tournaments, thus, cannot be handled by a frat if there already is another fraternity that has been implementing such projects.
Other reasons of rumbles could be the desire to take on “Godfather-like” proportions. Rumbles are meant to strike fear in the heart of the “enemy”. When a frat is engaged in rumble, it must beat the “enemy” with a strong exclamation point, such that the “enemy” would no longer have the physical and psychological strength to wage a rumble.

The culture of rumble is also self-perpetuating. When a fraternity has “lost” in a particular incident of war, that fraternity would present itself as a “victim”. It would contact friends in the media, file charges in the administrative and judicial bodies and portray itself as the aggrieved. Any bad publicity against the other party, expulsions and suspensions from schools and incarceration in jails are ways of getting back at the “enemy”. Then the fraternity buys time. It waits till the “enemy” is complacent and then unloads its vengeance and makes its score. Physical violence is still the highest premium in exacting flesh and blood. The other party now becomes the “victim”. It would file the appropriate charges and undergo the same motions. And then, the attack comes.

Rumbles are cyclical. And it excludes no one. Not even the grade-conscious, peace loving frat members who are easy targets since they attend classes regularly and are more visible in the campus. Thus, their schedules are easy to discern. Their routines can be easily plotted out in preparation for an attack.

Cool heads and hotheads
Not all frat members however share the inclination or penchant for rumble and violence. In a fraternity there are more cool heads than hotheads. For every ten members, there are likely to be eight cool heads and only two hot heads. However, the cool heads are the silent majority in the fraternity. They seldom speak during meetings and are not elected during frat elections. Their opinions and views on how to run the affairs of the fraternity are not properly and openly articulated. The cool heads have no identity in the frat. They are lost in the multitude. They do not know each other. They do not even know that they exist. Their longing for peace is gobbled up by the voices of the hotheads.

The hotheads, on the other hand, are the speakers and articulators of the “glorious tradition of the fraternity”, the tradition of war and violence. They egg the other members to always look at their frat with “pride and honor.” The hotheads continually put premium on the need and necessity of putting up a fight if the interest of the fraternity so demands. They are in constant search for new members who share their beliefs and to whom they can pass on the practices and techniques of war. They are the “moral” vanguards of the fraternity. They applaud members who undergo experiences that prove their mettle, like gallantly fighting during rumbles. The hotheads make and determine the policy of the officers by default. If, for example, they wish to consolidate the fraternity, they simply launch an attack against another frat. This would compel all the frat members to unite for one cause.

The hotheads and the cool heads in a fraternity cannot easily be distinguished from one another. During times of rumbles, they act as if they are one. The cool heads become hotheads if after some prodding and exhortation, they agree to move as one. The hotheads may also become cool heads, if after some horrifying experience, they rediscover that there is nothing good that comes out of fraternity violence.

Battle of two cultures
The culture of violence and the culture of peace have adherents in every fraternity. Among the fraternities themselves, there are always continuing debates on rumbles.

Most of the time, the advocates of violence win over the others. It is an adventurous way of life anyway, and there seems to be no hazard at all. Since most of the members are teenagers—young and wild and free—violence becomes an attraction, the fad, the “in thing” to do. Having a rumble once in a while pumps up the adrenaline inside the body. It seems a “healthy” way of releasing unspent energies. During and after rumbles, especially if the frat wins, the members are all high and ecstatic in sharing their little war exploits. It bonds the members together.

However, when the culture of violence reaches a certain level and accidents become regular, the voice of the adherents for peace can be heard again. The death of a member, or conviction in criminal cases involving the fraternity, especially when reported by the media, is like cold water splashed on the frat members. For a while, the culture of peace becomes more dominant. After an incident that puts the entire fraternity system in a bad light, the different fraternities, whether sincere or not, put up a semblance of a desire to maintain peace on campus. At such times, the fraternity members forge peace alliances to rediscover the beauty of having friends with other fraternities. Different fraternities would come together to play basketball and vow to settle their disputes peacefully. They become careful not to engage in anything that would only stir up more debate or add to their already negative image. The fraternities are aware they would likely have less number of recruits as a result of bad public image.

However, when the issue in the media about frat violence simmers down, or when a new set officers takes control of the affairs of the fraternity, the seeds for maintaining a culture of peace slowly die. The hotheads in the fraternity and the stories of the alumni members about the need to always look out for the other fraternities once again take the upper hand in the battle of the two cultures. The mechanisms for dialogue as a way to resolve dispute are forgotten. At the first sign of a crack on the fragile peace a rush of violent confrontations sets in. It is as if the fraternities have awaken from a long hibernation and now have rediscovered their first love.

Public Apathy
Non-frat members do not understand the mechanics of the fraternities. They do not see any logic in the violent activities fraternity members engage in. And so they simply dissociate themselves from the problems that plague the fraternity system. They do not care if the frat members become maimed or killed in an incident of war. While they feel the loss and the pain of the families who have been victims of frat violence, their sympathy is extended only to sighs of utter hopelessness. They blame the depraved sense of values of the fraternities yet mock the frat member for his stupidity in joining a frat. When the issue of violence dies down, the public loses interest. Until another incident claims another victim.

During times when rumbles do not provide mortal results, the public joins in the scoring game and applaud the frat that does the greater damage to the other party. Such response feeds the frat members’ ego and gives them more reason to engage in rumbles.

Peace efforts
Violence has taken a heavy toll on the fraternities. There are individual alumni members who have seen the futility of waging wars with other fraternities and have initiated a campaign for peace. There are resident frat members, who, after the death of one of their own brothers, have modified their initiation procedures of applicants. The university administration, after a drop in the enrollment and low government budget due to the negative publicity caused by the rush of rumbles, has begun to implement programs and activities jointly conducted by the fraternities. There are students, who after witnessing their friends beaten to death, have declared their areas as peace zones.

These are all efforts to curb the ills that afflict the fraternity system. Yet, the efforts are not sustained. Many campaigns are launched only during the heat of the issue. They live only as long as the newspapers cover them. Worse, there are some campaigns launched to prop up the public image of the fraternities but not to effect genuine change in the frat system and culture.

Many efforts fail because they come from the outside. There are efforts initiated by the alumni members that did not involve the participation of the resident frat members. There are highly publicized peace accords signed by distinguished luminaries of the fraternities only to be ignored the following day, the resident members being unaware that they were not to engage in a rumble because their frats had just signed an eternal peace pact.

Furthermore, there are no structures for conflict resolution and mediation among the fraternities themselves. The atmosphere is full of suspicion and fraternities are apprehensive of the motives of one another. While the fraternities may adhere to the idea of maintaining peace, they do not have workable guidelines on how to achieve it. For example, the fraternities may reach a consensus to police their own ranks and give disciplinary action against erring members, but there is no mechanism to ensure the penalty. They have to rely on the integrity of each other’s word, which is the word of their “enemy.”

The university administration effort to mediate conflicts is superficial. Usually, upon learning that a rumble has occurred, the administration officials would summon the heads of the fraternities and oblige them to make a truce. The head of the fraternity who fails to attend the truce in a specified time faces dire consequences like suspension and expulsion. The heads, given such conditions, would sign the truce and promise not to engage their group in any additional form of aggression. The formality of peace is forged.

But the conflict is not solved that easily. The general membership of the frat simply changes their head to absolve him of any responsibility. In their view, this frees the fraternity of its previous commitment. Also, in order to avoid identification and the formal filing of charges, the fraternities may simply go underground. No fraternity would ever think of presenting its roster of members and set of leaders to the school administration. But in order to continue with its programs and activities, it simply forms a new student organization, with the frat men as members, and registers this with the administration. While administration may be able to temporarily shelve the problem, the possibility of a rumble erupting can happen anytime.
Peace efforts will fail as long as the fraternity members do not have the realization—that peace comes from within. No amount of coaxing from the alumni members, no perfect structure for conflict mediation, no joint activity, no arm twisting from the administration can ever guarantee the end of fraternity violence.

Voice of the victims
Fraternity violence has destroyed many lives. There are many students now staying in jail. There are many more who have been expelled from schools. Not a few have met their untimely deaths.

Fraternity members are all victims here. The members are drowned in a culture they themselves do not understand. The frat members are like moths playing with fire. They never know when their wings will be smoldered.

The victims should speak now. They should not meekly accept their fate. Their experiences should not simply be sad stories in the frat lore. The thought that their doom is a simple consequence of being a frat man should be shattered.

The victims are not mere accidents. They are flesh and blood individuals who are bound to carry the burden of their bitter experience through out their lives. They should break the code of silence and voice their concern over the growing barbarism of the institution they belong to. The victims should speak saying that all those who ever held a paddle and lead pipe are all guilty for the fate that had befallen their frat brothers.

The victims must find their voice: the enemy here is not the “other” fraternity, the enemy is ourselves. The culprit is the culture of violence that engulfs the fraternity system.

Editor’s Note: After almost seven years of imprisonment, the author was acquitted on 28 Feb. 2002 in connection with a criminal case that caused the death of Dennis Venturina in 1994. On 20 April 2002, the National College of Public Administration and Governance (NCPAG), conferred upon him his bachelor’s degree, cum laude. Today, he takes a leading role in promoting peace and genuine brotherhood among fraternities.