A few weeks ago, after one of my classes, fellow students and I entered into a conversation about biology; namely, research that is done to find cures for the many diseases which vex our world.

The conversation went quite well until an issue arose about the 50 physicians wishing to inject themselves with the HIV virus.

During the conversation, one of the young men — sporting a fraternity tattoo — informed the group that he thinks people with AIDS and HIV should be “taken out and shot.” I informed him that I didn’t think his idea would work, but his reply disturbed me even more. “You’re right, some of them would try to hide.”

I want to make it clear that this person was not intending to make a joke. I asked him why he felt this way and in his opinion, this is the best way to deal with the disease and to keep it from getting into the population of “normal people.”

I asked him to explain what his idea of “normal” was, but he was unable to provide a clear answer. It is my assumption that since we were in such a diverse group of students during this discussion, he was unwilling to give his concrete opinion.

I mention the tattoo because of another recent conversation I had. I have an acquaintance who graduated from Iowa State and is very involved with his fraternity house. He feels minorities, especially gays, caused their own problems — whether it be illness or any other issue — and for the rest of the “real world” to worry about it is a waste of time and money.

Being a fiscal conservative, I will admit that wasting money on certain programs to benefit minorities is a waste of money. In fact, it can even be argued that government-sponsored programs geared at enhancing the lives of only a few people in society does more to hurt them as a group than help them.

In no way am I talking about welfare here. There are far more white people who have absolutely no minority ties on the welfare roles than any other group in our country. In my opinion any assistance should be based on need, not social grouping.

But let’s get back to the conversation at hand. What upsets me most about my two examples is that if these people are supposed to represent the greek system it will be thought of as nothing more than a place that fosters hate, narrow mindedness and bigotry.

I am not saying all members of the greek system are as shallow as the two examples I have given. That would make me just as guilty as they are. However, these are the only examples I have.

Fraternities and sororities have the opportunity to shape themselves and their members into productive citizens. Ideas based on hate and lack of knowledge do nothing to increase productivity. The greek system can do, and has done, a great deal of good for the community. A recent walk for Alzheimer’s Disease in which students raised money and awareness for the charity comes to mind.

From a completely economic perspective, the current work force will not support people with these types of attitudes. Major corporations cannot afford to put their companies in a negative light. One of the largest employers in Des Moines, The Principal Financial Group, spends a great deal of time and money trying to eliminate such narrow attitudes.

I can assure you they are not alone. If a person were to come into The Principal with such attitudes, their employment most likely would end.

I wonder, though, if the greek system spends any time trying to make students aware of different ideas and different backgrounds. I hope my two examples just happened to slip through the cracks.

Usually the cause of such beliefs is a lack of education. With the hostility over Catt Hall and how Dr. Jischke handled (or didn’t handle) the issue, I am not surprised to see these types of attitudes on campus.

But I hope members of fraternities and sororities will try to do more to raise awareness. There is more at stake than just your education.

---

Rex Nipper

Sophomore

English