1. From Hazing to Praising:
An Organizational Analysis of Brown University’s Delta Tau Fraternity
SOC1030: Fall 2008
Professor Mark Suchman
Caroline Sholem (Seoul)
Cynthia Pollack (Crystal)
Andrew Rapp (Crystal)
1

2. From Hazing to Praising:
An Organizational Analysis of Brown University’s Delta Tau Fraternity
American fraternities and sororities have historically been recognized for their
membership exclusivity, reckless behavior, and extreme hazing practices. These destructive
procedures have been glorified through a myriad of facets in American pop culture including
popular films such as National Lampoon’s Animal House and Old School. However, Brown
University’s fraternity Delta Tau (D Tau) attempts to deviate from the social norms typically
associated with Greek life through its history and its unique set of customs. D Tau represents
the Organic Model of organizational analysis predominately in that its history displays its
necessity for survival; furthermore, the organization has struggled to maintain a unique identity
within the Brown University community through its rituals, brotherhood, and attitude, thus
representing the Cultural Model as well.
Delta Tau originated at Brown as a chapter of the Delta Tau Delta national fraternal
organization on January 1, 1896. According to Steve Dunn, a 1974 alumnus of Brown
University and member of Delta Tau Delta from 1972 to 1974, the organization followed the
typical norms associated with fraternities by organizing and hosting both social and philanthropic
events. These activities allowed the fraternity to maintain its semi-permeable membrane within
its open system by interacting with its environment, whether with other Brown University
students or charitable organizations within the Providence, Rhode Island community. The
chapter also fit into the mold of the stereotypical fraternity by practicing hazing rituals on new
members, thereby constituting a cultural system through its use of customs and traditions. Dunn
recalls once “being blind-folded and dropped off in the middle of the Newport Bridge in the
middle of the night” among other hazardous activities as a part of the hazing and initiation
2

3. process. Dunn also recollects that “it was not looked upon very favorably to miss a ‘house
meeting’” as the rules in the house were fairly strict and attendance at meetings and fraternity
sponsored events was strongly encouraged, if not explicitly required.
As the fraternity continued its active role in the Greek community throughout the
upcoming years, many of the traditions within Delta Tau Delta remained the same, including its
decision to host parties at which alcoholic beverages were served. The national chapter
historically required that each of its chapter bases remain “dry”, meaning that no alcohol was to
be present within the fraternity, especially at parties. This requirement greatly contradicted the
habits at Delta Tau Delta at Brown, and the house believed its cultural practices which included
the regular consumption of alcohol took precedence over the national chapters’ rules. This
difference of opinion was a major factor leading to the separation of the Brown fraternity house
from the national chapter on November 7th, 1991. This severing of ties caused the fraternity to
shorten its name to Delta Tau, or as it is commonly known, D Tau. This separation displayed
that the Brown chapter recognized the three elements of culture: symbols, ethos, and worldview.
After analyzing which elements were most important to its members, the D Tau brothers clearly
chose to value their ethos, by continuing to serve and consume alcohol, more than their
worldview, which included social values and rules banning alcohol which were imposed by
members high in the hierarchal chain on the national level. In cultural organizations, there must
be a balance between the three elements, but as seen with D Tau, at times certain elements take
priority over others.
The fraternity continued to evolve and, in contrast to a house predominantly composed of
football and hockey players as existed in Dunn’s era, by the late 1990’s Delta Tau transitioned to
a membership largely consisting of football players and wrestlers. During this period, D Tau
3

4. became especially rambunctious and destructive. From a variety of widely publicized incidents,
the fraternity built a bad reputation for itself around the Brown campus. Examples of the
house’s offensive behavior included members throwing couches through windows, hosting
“weigh-in parties” in which there were sliding admission fees based on the attractiveness of
female entrants, and throwing the wildest alcoholic parties on campus. The wrestling coaches
noticed the negative attention D Tau was attracting, and banned their players from joining any
Brown fraternities. Once the wrestlers were no longer a part of D Tau, the football players
slowly shifted membership to the Theta Delta Chi fraternity, where a large number of Brown
football players still reside. After the wrestlers and football players left Delta Tau, membership
plummeted and the fraternity dropped to an all time low with a mere four members during the
2004 to 2005 school year. The fraternity’s fight for continued existence, especially throughout
these trying times, exemplified the organic system’s main goal of survival.
In 2005, the remaining fraternity members saw that the existence of D Tau was in great
danger and reacted as organic systems do, by desperately struggling to survive. The four
members resorted to drastic measures to save Delta Tau by distributing flyers across campus
asking if any students were interested in “taking over a frat.” A group of thirty freshmen friends
responded and moved into the house the following fall, thus instituting a new era of D Tau. The
students who took over the fraternity formed the structure with a view that was unique from the
other fraternities on campus. The students felt that the rigid structure, exclusivity, and hazing
practices which were all traditionally associated with the house were not necessary in the
formation of the “new” Delta Tau. They strove to create a fraternity house on campus with a
much more lax attitude, where friends could live together without the social constraints of
intense hierarchy and demeaning pledging.
4

5. The fraternity experienced definite organizational change in 2005 in the eyes of
Organizational Ecologists, who define organizational change as a shift in the core. The
organization’s mission statement was previously more focused on exclusivity and the
maintenance of reckless traditional stereotypes which have typically been associated with
fraternities. Since D Tau now focuses on stressing its willingness to accept new members into
its laid-back culture, the core has definitely shifted, therefore supporting the conclusion that
organizational change has indeed occurred. This phenomenon can also be construed as
Organizational Learning. The Organizational Learning model prompts modification of goals,
practices, and technologies through the acquisition of knowledge and the analysis of prior events.
The newer members of Delta Tau looked back upon the history of the fraternity and chose to
develop a different, less obstreperous reputation, which is safer in terms of survival. Without
change of some sort, D Tau may have “died out” completely.
The more relaxed attitude adopted by the fraternity after its shift in control also displays
that D Tau is a cultural system. Some of the goals in cultural systems are to serve the members
within the organization while maintaining various customs, which coincided with the fraternity’s
new outlook. Culture can be defined as “a set of understandings or meaning shared by a group
of people. The meanings are largely tacit among the members, are clearly relevant to a
particular group, and are distinctive to the group.” While D Tau’s customs are not necessarily
tacit since its members publicly pride themselves on their uniqueness from other fraternities on
campus, they are definitely distinct in being the only house on campus to stress its openness
toward new members and informal style.
The students reforming the fraternity felt that as a part of their novel culture, new
member hazing was unnecessary and that the brothers would bond together even more strongly if
5

6. they eliminated hazing altogether and allowed entrance into the fraternity to anyone who wished
to join. They replaced the original culture of hazing with one of friendship and respect. The
brothers still share this view today and, as was revealed through various interviews, an attitude of
general acceptance and tolerance is actually what initially enticed many of the brothers to join.
Today, Delta Tau members are more interested in creating a diverse and accepting community,
rather than forming an exclusive society. Will Baumann, a sophomore in the fraternity who
currently serves as Social Chair, stated that one of the reasons he chose to rush and pledge at D
Tau was that he could “join and be a part of the house without having to deal with any of the
other pledge stuff that the other fraternities have, such as Hell Week.” Another brother, Matt
Kahn, current junior and treasurer of Delta Tau, claimed his reasons for joining were that he
“liked the mix of traditional frat activities minus the elitism and harsh pledging. [He] also liked
that it was still re-forming and [that he] could influence where D Tau was going.” Organizational
change takes time to fully occur within an establishment and Kahn recognizes that, while the
initial shift in leadership and mission statement occurred a few years ago, development and the
effects of organizational change are still taking place. Decisions greatly affecting the future of
the fraternity are still being made in 2008, three years after the fundamental change was adopted
at the fraternity house.
Kahn’s recognition that he, or any other individual who chooses to join, could help
structure the fraternity demonstrates Delta Tau’s horizontal structure. Each individual member
has the ability to affect the fraternity’s culture and its procedures. Most fraternities follow a
strict chain-of-command. Within such systems, it takes time for members to gain the status
within the organization required to implement change. This, however, is not the case in Delta
Tau. While there is a hierarchy in place, with Mike Mochizuki currently serving as president
6

7. and various other members holding officer and chair positions, a strict echelon complex is not
closely followed. Each member with a specific position in the fraternity has his own
responsibilities, but it would be hard to differentiate elected officials from other brothers in the
fraternity by merely observing a regular meeting.
Meetings, called and theoretically led by the president, are held every Monday night at
nine o’clock in the house lounge. Formal meetings serve as a means for the brothers to
congregate and express their opinions to others within the fraternity more efficiently than would
transpire if the organization relied strictly on private conversations. Though there are currently
eighty-three members of D Tau, only twenty members on average attend any given meeting.
Because of the lax cultural stigmas in place, every member is not expected to attend each
meeting. This expectation generally leaves only the brothers who truly care about improving the
fraternity to make decisions each week. The members who do choose to attend participate in
informal discussions that review past events and plan the details of future events. Brothers wait
their turn to speak, and each can voice his opinion when the previous person has stopped talking,
regardless of rank, further emphasizing the horizontal structure of the organization. In analyzing
past events and evaluating its strengths and weaknesses, the fraternity acts as an organic system
by implementing smaller-scale experiential organizational learning as a means of enhancing its
chances of survival. During meetings, members gain feedback from each other on which
aspects of the events were successful and which were not, and use this information to make
informative decisions regarding future activities for the group.
Though the brothers generally tend to agree on most decisions facing the fraternity,
compromises can typically be reached between brothers with differing opinions. They vote and
the majority rules on larger issues that cannot be resolved through simple discussion and
7

8. concession. The problem-solving solutions practiced further demonstrate the organization’s
horizontal, organic structure. While a hierarchy is technically in place, power is distributed
among all members – though chiefly to those who regularly choose to attend meetings, where
voting actually takes place. Although only approximately one fourth of the members attend the
weekly meetings at which minor decisions are made, attendance is much higher at annual
meetings when elections are held for the coming year’s officers.
These elected officers include such positions as President, Vice President, Secretary,
Treasurer, and Social, Rush, Pledge, Community Service, and Alumni Relations Chairs.
Although the organization’s structure has proven to be horizontal, and lacks a real chain-of-
command, each officer is given specific responsibilities and duties. However, those employed
within organic systems, such as the officers of D Tau, are recognized to have unique thoughts
and personalities. They are believed to be affected by both their intra- and extra-organizational
environments. If their cumulative needs are not met, they could become unmotivated and the
institution may prove unsuccessful. Under the organismic theory, if a company desires to
function and survive, individual jobholders must be driven by task completion and feelings that
they are useful and responsible, as well as satisfaction through recognition and rewards. The
casual and open auras associated with the organization mesh well with these principles.
Constituents who attend meetings are generally understanding of those members who have other
obligations, so long as they fulfill at least some responsibilities, such as party attendance or
cleaning. Delta Tau maintains recognition of task completion among its members and,
especially, officers through its cultural system of brotherhood. The instilled feeling of
brotherhood provides officers and constituents both a sense of responsibility to and respect for
others that motivates them to fulfill their assigned tasks.
8

9. While this sense of brotherhood instills feelings of responsibility in most brothers and
therefore should in theory leads them to fulfill their duties, this is not the case with all members
of Delta Tau. Since the fraternity has laid-back and does not reprimand mild misbehavior, some
members are allowed to live in the house and call themselves D Tau brothers, yet never assist in
D Tau events or fulfill their responsibilities. This has created problems within the fraternity.
Recently, a group of members who reside in a suite at Delta Tau have been in conflict with other
brothers who live in the fraternity. Many members feel that not all of the “suite kids” contribute
to the institution, which has caused tension and troubles. It has been suggested in meetings that
the “suite kids” be denied housing if they do not show more allegiance to Delta Tau or pull their
weight in some way. Although this matter is still pending, a cultural analysis of D Tau would
predict that punitive actions are not likely to be imposed. Sub-cultures are very easily formed in
a social organization such as a fraternity. In Delta Tau, the underlying custom of tolerance does
not lend itself well to confrontations or punishment, and sub-cultures can thrive freely. The
members therefore are much more likely to embrace a “live and let live” attitude when an actual
vote on this issue takes place, if history and cultural ties are accurate indicators. Members of
Delta Tau, because of their organization’s structure and organic and cultural makeup, are more
willing to overlook certain inefficiencies to preserve their beliefs and ways of life.
Although there is a definite sense of openness and understanding within the fraternity, the
goals of the organization should in specific contexts take certain precedence over those of its
individual constituents. According to organizational analysts W. Scott and G. Davis, “Goals
[in natural systems] serve as a source of identification and motivation for participants.” A
natural, or organic, system such as Delta Tau needs both general and explicit objectives in order
to link together its members and serve as an impetus for cathexis, as well as define the institution
9

10. as a whole. Without a sense of personal investment instilled in existing members, or a
reputation that can attract new students, the fraternity could not have survived in the past, nor
would it have hope for success in the future.
D Tau’s long-term goals and goal attainment strategies exemplify how the fraternity has
been able to survive and gain its current reputation. One of Delta Tau’s most vital objectives is
membership maintenance. This objective reflects the organic metaphor in that it is a “natural”
goal; without adequate enrollment, the fraternity could not exist. This point was especially
salient during Delta Tau’s 2004 to 2005 membership crisis. The goal of survival, at that pivotal
time, became vital, and finding new recruits to “inherit” the fraternity overrode all other long and
short term goals. Although not always the primary focus, sustained membership is always on
the fraternity’s agenda.
The importance of generating new membership can be witnessed through annual rush and
pledging periods. Every spring semester, students considering joining Greek life choose to rush
houses of interest (i.e. visit them during formal gatherings to gain information about the
individual institutions and glean some sense of fraternities’ cultures). Delta Tau’s rush process
is reflective of its particular views and lifestyle. Prospective members are wined and dined.
Events such as movie nights and “show time” talent parties are held, which reflect Delta Tau’s
distinctive emphasis on easygoing living and having a good time with friends. This lifestyle
completed the prior abolishment of intense pledging rituals, attracts members who fit in with the
fraternity’s present culture, and will perpetuate it for the foreseeable future. The organization’s
long term goal of membership maintenance therefore is used both organically and culturally.
Without constituents who are both sufficient in number and consistent in attitude, the fraternity
could neither survive nor preserve its current system of beliefs and behaviors.
10

11. Once students are committed to the fraternity, they must be provided with reason to
remain in the organization. Sergiovanni and Corbally define culture as “the system of values,
symbols, and shared meanings of a group including the embodiment of these values, symbols,
and meanings into material objects and ritualized practices…” The essence of fraternal spirit
relies heavily on the concept of brotherhood and the feeling of happiness that this bond creates.
By hosting intimate affairs such as Hookah Night and brothers-only events including Secret
Santa, members of D Tau feel connected to each other through both socialization and planning
activities involving collaborative responsibilities. Meetings also reflect Sergiovanni and
Corbally’s description of organizational culture. It is routine on a normative level for members
across different levels of the hierarchy to talk and joke, producing an overall ethos of unity and
joviality. Delta Tau must set goals that reinforce its principal themes of friendship and
informality to give meaning to the fraternity and continue to motivate its members and potential
pledges.
This manifestation of an informal organizational culture can, however, lead to possible
inefficiencies. For example, D Tau’s Rush Chair, Dylan Nelson, seems to take advantage of the
current casually run system. When asked whether there were any repercussions for not
completely fulfilling his Board duties, Nelson replied, “My friends will be upset with me. D
Tau will be hurt as an organization, but this is not very important to me.” The fraternity’s
balance between social accord and institutional allegiance is tipped heavily towards the former,
creating a distinct set of values and behaviors. As is evident from the current inter-clique, sub-
culture struggle, brothers can at times shirk off their responsibilities, choosing obligatory action
(utilizing their pre-existing roles of “house slackers”) over consequential action, which
ultimately hurts the fraternity. If members transgress, there is little the establishment can do,
11

12. and peer-motivation is not invariably reliable. Nevertheless, this aspect of the culture
emphasizes Delta Tau’s ideals and post-2005 core values. In an organization so culturally
based, some productivity will always be sacrificed. Without personal satisfaction, there would
be little incentive to join groups such as Greek houses.
Not only must Delta Tau garner support from contented affiliates, but it must also have
purpose. The fraternity is distinguished from a group of friends living together by its set of
goals, which are met through environmental interaction. One such involvement is “customer
satisfaction” – or the pleasing of its partygoers. The fraternity’s view on this process is
reflective of the tenet of Total Quality Management (TQM). TQM is a method adopted by an
organization in an attempt to improve overall caliber and performance. Total Quality
Management is accomplished by targeting the customers’ wants and needs, and adjusting the
institution accordingly. To produce a valuable service for the Brown community, and thus
endow some meaning upon the entire organization, Delta Tau must hold parties that students will
appreciate and enjoy. For example, in hosting theme parties such as the “Boo’s Fest”
Halloween bash and “BlackOut III”, which was held this year as an alternative event to
SexPowerGod, D Tau recognizes the community’s demand, and responds accordingly by
fulfilling its varying needs. This organically based strategy allows Delta Tau to maintain its
overall mission and meet its goals. By doing so, the fraternity is able to bolster survival by
guaranteeing consumer satisfaction and perpetuation.
Fraternities and sororities also provide a means for students to give back to the Brown
and greater communities through philanthropy. The exogenous environment is constantly
changing and reforming its necessities; to be charitable in a requisite fashion, D Tau must take
advantage of its open system setup and semi-permeable membrane. One way it does so is by
12

13. building bridges with other organizations. One tactic of organizational bridging is the formation
of associations. Associations are links between two or more connected institutions for the
purpose of pursuing and facilitating intersecting or similar goals. Delta Tau, for instance, is a
member of Brown University’s Greek Council. Some of Greek Council’s missions include:
“[serving] as the governing and supervisory body of the Greek System, [serving] as the liaison
between the Brown Community and the Greek System, [serving] as a regulatory body for the
Greek System and to discipline Greek Houses as necessary, [and organizing] social and
community service on behalf of the entire Brown Community.” D Tau’s connection to the Greek
Council provides greater opportunity to help with both inter-group based philanthropic projects,
such as Relay for Life, to link the different Greek houses. This process enables programs such
as Trick-or-Treat at Wriston Quad to succeed because all Brown University fraternities and
sororities can work together for a common good.
Besides the long term goals of membership and purpose, Delta Tau also pursues a
plethora of short term goals. For example, the long term goal of pleasing students who attend its
parties also has a short-run objective. D Tau’s parties have the reputation in the Brown
community of being both animated and alcoholic, especially after the fraternity’s cultural
separation from the Delta Tau Delta national chapter. To ensure the preservation of this repute,
members decide which events to hold during their meetings and assign roles to each member.
Certain brothers buy alcohol, others bartend or act as monitors, and all are expected to attend and
invite friends to make the parties successful even in their early hours. These goals not only
reinforce the fraternity’s “wet”, fun image and culture, but also add to the feeling of brotherly
cooperation and shared responsibilities.
Short term goals also include the control of normal accidents. Perrow’s view on normal
13

14. accidents is that they “emerge from the characteristics of the systems themselves.” Problems
such as overcrowding, running out of alcohol, and clashing with the Greek Council could be
considered unavoidable but, at times, are unexpected. One such example is an event sponsored
by the fraternity, which was held early this school year. At the event, the sponsors ran out of
alcohol early in the evening, ending the party before its natural peak. Fraternity-hosted parties
occasionally fall victim to such complications, due to the inherent nature of their parties, which
attract large numbers of students and must be thrown using as little cash outlay as possible. To
attempt to prevent this problem, however, the brothers could have considered Perrow’s four
characteristics of a normal accident and tried to prevent them although even Perrow admits that
foresight in these situations is extremely difficult. If a signal such as high building occupancy
had been noticed earlier, perhaps an alcohol run could have been made, or entry could have been
controlled to reduce alcohol requirements. Human inaccuracy in bartending, such as over-
pouring shots or spilling, may also have been a contributing factor. Equipment error may also
have added to the problem, if low-quality plastic cups used. Cheap cups could have cracked or
ripped, resulted in alcohol spillage, and therefore required students to get replacement drinks.
Mostly however, negative synergy – or the combination of these multiple elements – caused this
normal accident and made this situation nearly unavoidable. Thus, in the short term, Delta Tau
must attempt to avoid, and unfortunately sometimes cope with, the incidence of normal
accidents.
Delta Tau has been able to overcome adversity and survive while preserving its unique
image and cultural habits. The house’s continual survive is largely due to its structural makeup
and emphasis on the attainment of its goals. While its goals, hierarchy, and overall image have
shifted throughout the course of its existence, D Tau has always used both the cultural and
14

15. organic models of organizational metatheory to survive and flourish within the Brown University
community.
Bibliography
15

16. Baumann, William. Interviewed by Pollack, Cynthia. Personal interview. December 8, 2008.
Email interview.
Dunn, Steve. Interviewed by Sholem, Caroline. Personal interview. December 12, 2008. Email
interview.
Kahn, Matt. Interviewed by Sholem, Caroline. Personal Interview. December 7, 2008. Email
interview.
Kroll, Adam. Interviewed by Sholem, Caroline. Personal interview. December 8, 2008. Email
interview.
Mochizuki, Mike. Interviewed by Pollack, Cynthia. Personal interview. November 17, 2008.
Location of Delta Tau House Lounge.
Nelson, Dylan. Interviewed by Cynthia, Pollack. Personal interview. December 10, 2008. Email
interview.
Perrow, Charles. "Normal Accident at Three Mile Island." Society (1981): 17-26.
Scott, W. R., and Gerald F. Davis. Organizations and Organizing : Rational, Natural and Open
Systems Perspectives. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2006.
Sergiovanni, Thomas, and John E. Corbally, eds. Leadership and Organizational Culture : New
Perspectives on Administrative Theory and Practice. New York: University of Illinois P, 1986.
16