"The Machine and Campus Politics and The University of Alabama" Neal H. Hutchens Voices from the Capstone 2000
In looking at student life at The University of Alabama, one of the more notable, or
infamous, aspects of student life at the institution involves the existence of a group known,
among other things, as the Machine, which has exerted a decades-long influence over campus
politics and is credited with beginning the careers of many prominent political figures in the
state. The organization is currently regarded as consisting of members from elite white
fraternities and sororities who select candidates to receive bloc votes from the member Greek
organizations in the election of student government officers. In the mid-1990s, the alleged
activities of the Machine prompted university officials to suspend elected student government at
the school for a time.
While an appealing topic of discourse to those intrigued by clandestine midnight
meetings or conspiracy theories, on a more substantive level, an examination of the group also
contributes to a better understanding of the evolution of student life at the university. Tracing
the origins of the Machine and then examining its exploits in the decades following World War
II provide a useful perspective from which to consider the development of student life at the
university since the 1940s. Consideration of the Machine also informs current understanding of
contemporary patterns of student life at the school and serves as a source of comparison for other
One way to understand the Machine is as a holdover, a relic from student life as it existed
at colleges and universities before the dynamic changes that came to higher education following
World War II. Like other institutions, The University of Alabama underwent significant changes
in the years and decades following the war. These changes went far beyond a numerical increase
in the number of students and extended to the inclusion of African American students into
university life, an increase in equality and opportunities for female students, and the accessibility
of higher education to a much greater portion of society. Amid all these changes, the Machine
continued and represents a remnant of another time when higher education was open to only a
select few and reminds us that, instead of fading away, established patterns of thinking and
acting often stubbornly persist alongside social change.
As a "secret" organization, research on the Machine involves sorting, to the extent
possible, historical fact from campus myth. As an initial matter, little doubt exists that some
organization within the Greek system has sought to influence campus life and politics for
decades (One and All, 1998). The late Senator Lister Hill generally receives credit for founding
the organization as part of his becoming the first student government president of the university
in 1914 ("UA Machine," 1993; One and All).
In forming the Machine, Hill reportedly capitalized on the existence of the university's
chapter of Theta Nu Epsilon, a secret society that consisted of secretly chosen representatives
from fraternities at the institution (One and All, 1998). Theta Nu Epsillon was a secret society
designed to benefit the elite of Greek organizations and prepare them for future leadership roles.
In the early twentieth century, the organization was influential in pushing for student governance
at institutions of higher learning like The University of Alabama (One and All). The Greek
letters for Theta Nu Epsilon spell θΝΕ in English, likely some sort of acknowledgment or
designation of the organization as a kind of umbrella fraternity, a fraternity of fraternities (One
and All; Weiss, 1992). A 1992 expose of the Machine stated that the organization supposedly
enjoyed common "roots" with the Skull and Bones secret society at Yale University (Weiss, p.
The historical roots of the Machine, then, extend to the influence and prominence of
fraternities in student life at The University of Alabama in the decades before World War II.
Scanning articles in the student newspaper, The Crimson White, from the turn of the century
through the 1940s reveals how the activities of Greek organizations permeated many aspects of
student life at the university. An indication of the importance of Greek organizationss in relation
to student life appeared in a 1913 article in The Crimson White detailing some of the grievances
of non-fraternity students concerning the influence of Greek organizations at the school that
came out of a meeting between fraternity and non-fraternity students ("Non-Fraternity and Frat
Men Hold Joint Meeting," 1913). One complaint from the non-fraternity members concerned
the fact that "the fraternities have elected their men to office to the exclusion of the nonfraternity
men. Out of 120 leading offices in student organizations since 1892, statistics show
that only [a few non-fraternity students] have been elected." ("Non-Fraternity and Frat Men
Hold Joint Meeting," p. 1). Other criticism included the exclusion of non-fraternity students
from select editorial positions in university publications and discrimination in relation to clubs,
athletics and sports ("Non-Fraternity and Frat Men Hold Joint Meeting"). A student newspaper
article in 1914 even discussed the formation of an organization that sought the dissolution of
fraternities at Alabama as well as "at kindred institutions in the state" ("Anti-Fraternity Men,"
1914, p. 1). The supporters of the organization complained that wealthier students organized
themselves into fraternities to "the effect of which has been that the school has been dominated
by these organizations and the poorer students are disbarred from many privileges" ("Anti-
Fraternity Men," p. 1).
In looking at the Machine in a historical context, the group developed at a time when
higher education at The University of Alabama served a narrow student population. As noted by
James (2000), "[m]ost college social fraternities were formed when higher education catered
predominantly to white Protestant men" (p. 304). As discussed, articles in the campus paper
demonstrate how fraternal organizations exerted tremendous influence over student life at
Alabama before World War II. The formation of an organization such as the Machine is not
surprising when viewed as the progeny of Greek life. Rather, the group represented a
predictable outgrowth of Greek activities that was part and parcel of the kinds of ritual and
secrecy commonly associated with fraternal organizations. In addition to meeting emotional and
social needs, the fraternity movement, which began around the mid-1800s, also drew from the
secret practices and rituals of Freemasonry. (Rudolph, 1990, p. 144, 147). The origins of the
Machine, grounded in elitism and secrecy, represent an expression of the practices and values of
the fraternal organizations that created it.
The Machine Endures Despite Dramatic Changes in Student Life
Student life at Alabama, as at other institutions across the country, changed dramatically
in the decades following World War II. Despite shifts in student population and campus life in
the years following the war, the Machine, representative of the pre-war dominance of fraternities
on the campus, would persist. The group would compete against new visions for the ordering of
student life. Adapting as needed, such as eventually supporting women for high level positions
in student government, the organization would survive. And despite alterations, the organization
retained its core identity as promoting the interests of a narrow group of students.
The ending of the war resulted relatively quickly in a large upswing in enrollment at the
university. In March 1945, enrollment at the university for the spring quarter stood at 2,225
students ("2,225 Students Register," 1945). The number had increased to 3,069 students by the
following fall ("3,069 Register," 1945). Some 400 veterans were included in the student body in
fall 1945 ("Over 400 Veterans," 1945). The student population kept climbing so that enrollment
reached almost 4,100 by January 1946, with veterans accounting for more than 1,400 of that
number ("Enrollment Nears 4100," 1946).
Growing enrollment and changing social conditions would create opposition to the
Machine, but its dominance in campus politics continued. An April 1945 editorial in The
Crimson White, urging students to vote in upcoming campus elections, offered an approving
view of the Machine ("Stay Away from the Polls"). The editorial, chiding the student body for
turning out in too few of the numbers required to enact proposed amendments to the student
government constitution, criticized voter apathy blamed on "'machine politics'" ("Stay Away
from the Polls," p. 2). In discussing the group, the editorial stated that "[t]he machine should be
commended for at least putting up candidates and seeing that their people vote. That is probably
more than any other group will do. For that they should be commended" ("Stay Away from the
Polls," p. 2).
Benign sentiments from the campus media toward the machine would not last, however.
In January 1949, an editorial appeared in the school paper entitled "The Machine and its Cranks"
(p. 4). The editorial called for the election of "some candidates" on "merit and platform, rather
than secret promises." ("The Machine and its Cranks," p. 4). As an example of the pitfalls of
Machine dominance, the editorial alleged that a former student elected to a publications post had
"neither remembered nor bothered to learn, anything about journalism but defeated a capable
candidate because he wore the right fraternity pin" ("The Machine and its Cranks," p. 4).
According to the editorial, fraternity and sorority members loyal to the Machine would distribute
ballots listing who Greek members should support in campus elections ("The Machine and its
An editorial the following February advocated a "Convention Plan" as a means to dilute
the Machine's control of campus politics ("Bama's Rule of the Few," 1949, p. 4). The editorial,
noting no problem per se with a minority group gaining the election of its candidates, found
fault, however, with "Theta Nu Epsilon or machine within [the] machine" for not basing such
minority success on democratic principles ("Bama's Rule of the Few," p. 4). The article
described threats and "attempted coercion" of members of fraternities and sororities as the
mechanism that had "kept the inner-machine in power here for many years." ("Bama's Rule of
the Few," p. 4). The student paper's criticism roiled the SGA president, who, though he
withdrew the motion, initially called for the resignation of the editor for the paper's criticism of
the student government (Lee, 1949).
Assault against the Machine by the campus paper flared again in spring 1961 when The
Crimson White ran a series of articles and editorials detailing the workings of the group. In one
article, with information coming from an alleged former member of the group, the paper
contended that a handful of independent students, in addition to fraternity and sorority
representatives, were included in the Machine's activities ("Grad Tells of Group," 1961). The
article also pointed out that, while the Machine counted on the support of sororities, women were
not allowed to join the group ("Grad Tells of Group"). Describing the organization as having
roots in Theta Nu Epsilon, the article stated that that the organization later changed its name to
"The Group" ("Grad Tells of Group," p. 1). The article also stated that in 1957 seventeen
fraternities belonged to the organization and that it refused to accept members who belonged to
the school's Jewish fraternity, although Jewish independent candidates, like other independent
candidates, could receive support from the Machine ("Grad Tells of Group"). The article also
stated that the Machine would penalize fraternities such as blocking their members from
backing for political office that refused to support the Machine ticket ("Grad Tells of Group").
In an interview with The Crimson White, a university official stated that the newspaper's
activities represented "'a good healthy sign that our students are thinking'" ("Administration
Gives Views," 1961, p. 1). Interestingly, the official also stated that he did not know of any
campus without its own version of the Machine ("Administration Gives Views").
In March 1968, the campus paper again launched an expose of the activities of the
Machine. The paper noted that following the 1961 articles and editorials about the Machine that
several "Anti-Machine" candidates had won offices but contended that since that time the
organization had "built back into power" (Crowe, 1968, p. 1). In its coverage, The Crimson
White listed the individuals it alleged comprised the Machine ("Roots of the Machine," 1968).
In discussing the history of the Machine, the paper described the organization, in addition to the
1961 crisis, as having experienced difficulty in 1947 ("Roots of the Machine"). At that time the
Machine was supposedly composed of an almost equal number of fraternity and independent
representatives, but independent students, according to the paper, became dissatisfied with
prominent positions going to fraternity members ("Roots of the Machine").
By the end of the 1960s, the reality of the Machine, whose existence even represented a
point of contention in earlier years, appeared an accepted issue. In April 1968, a student
government candidate, "an admitted member of The Machine," contended that his opposition had
left the group because he could not get its backing ("No Machine ties," 1968, p. 1). Neither
candidate, both fraternity members, sought to deny the existence of the organization ("No
Machine ties"). While individuals affiliated with the Machine often seemed to continue to deny
their direct involvement, the organization appeared to lose interest in strict adherence to secrecy.
During the 1960s, the Machine at times backed candidates, such as Bill Baxley, who
would become lieutenant governor of Alabama, who promoted a degree of racial tolerance
unusual for the state during this time (One and All, 1998). Despite such flashes, the Machine
undoubtedly played a key role in ensuring that student government at Alabama continued to be
all white and predominantly male throughout the 1960s and into the 1970s (One and All).
Eventually, the resistance of the Machine to support sorority members as officers in the student
government would result in a backlash in 1976. During that year, white sorority members
aligned with African American students to elect an African American student, Cleo Thomas, as
student government president (One and All).
During the election, white fraternity members burned crosses in the yard of a sorority
supporting Thomas (One and All, 1998). The incident marked the kind of Machine intimidation
and harassment that appears more common in the 1970s and 1980s and which helped lead to the
temporary disbandment of student government elections in the 1990s. The response of the
Machine to the election of Thomas also demonstrated that the Machine could adapt to the extent
necessary to maintain its influence over campus politics. After the 1976 election, the Machine
adjusted its structure to allow women the support of the Machine as student government officers
(One and All).
In 1983, another independent candidate, John Bolus, successfully challenged the
Machine (One and All, 1998). The campaign was marked by some serious acts attributed to the
Machine such as the tapping of Bolus' phone (One and All). An investigation by the FBI
resulted in two arrests (One and All). Several years later, another non-Machine candidate for
student government president, John Merrill, again successfully defeated the Machine. Merrill,
who was not in a fraternity during his undergraduate career, had been backed by the Machine in
a successful bid for student government vice president but had not accepted the group's
endorsement (J. H. Merrill, personal communication, November 8, 2001).
In sharing his experiences, Merrill stated that prior to arriving at the university he had
"no clue about the Machine" (J. H. Merrill, personal communication, November 8, 2001). He
discussed that twice in high school he had the opportunity to meet an individual active in the
student government at Alabama. During his freshman orientation, Merrill found out the person
was now student government president. Merrill, interested in becoming active in student
government, accepted a casual invitation to meet with the president. In describing the encounter,
Merrill stated that the meeting left him feeling that the president felt he was not student
government "material." The comments illustrated Merrill's later statement that the Machine
"greatly reduces" the opportunities of those not in a fraternity or sorority affiliated with the
Machine to become active in campus politics. He estimated that while he was in school that
probably 15 to 20 people were "told" by the Machine that they could aspire to become student
government president. Merrill related how at a freshman forum he once told the students present
that most of them would not benefit from the Machine. He pointed to one of the individuals at
the meeting, who was a member of the Jewish fraternity at the school, and told him that "the best
that you can ever hope for is vice president" because the Machine would not support a Jewish
student for president.
Merrill's involvement in student government had roots in the success of another
independent candidate, John Bolus (J. H. Merrill, personal communication, November 8, 2001).
According to Merrill, Bolus' campaign resulted in the distribution of a lot of information about
the Machine, and during the campaign Merrill introduced himself to Bolus and expressed his
appreciation and support for his candidacy. Bolus successfully defeated the Machine in spring
1983, and later that year Bolus appointed Merrill to the student government senate. Upon his
appointment to the senate, Merrill "realized just how few people were involved" in student
government. The lack of participation motivated Merrill to remain active and work for the
improvement of the student government.
Following his election as a male residence hall senator, Merrill successfully ran, in 1985,
for student government vice president (J. H. Merrill, personal communication, November 8,
2001). In the months preceding his official candidacy, Merrill learned that the Machine
appeared ready to endorse him for vice president, and in fall 1985 several individuals associated
with the Machine visited him to ask how he would feel about the group's endorsement. Merrill
told the individuals he was "happy" to take anyone's vote but informed them he was not
accepting formal endorsements from any organization. When asked why the Machine wanted to
support him, Merrill stated that he believed the group, wary that Merrill's possible support would
aid another independent student's campaign for president, calculated that limiting opposition to
Merrill would induce him to run a less vigorous campaign and result in reduced voter turnout.
While Merrill did not cooperate with the Machine in his winning the vice presidency, the
Machine candidate won the race for student government president.
As with the group's decision to support sorority members for higher level student
government positions following the election of Cleo Thomas, the Machine's dealings with
Merrill demonstrate its flexibility and adaptability through the years in working with individuals
or groups that threatened the organization's dominance over campus politics. The Machine
appeared to employ a "bend but don't break" mentality that allowed it to deal, to a degree, with
changing conditions of student life. With sororities, for example, the Machine found itself
willing to let go of one component of its elitism. After the election of Thomas, the Machine
would drop gender as a hallmark of its elitism, and, with its newfound gender egalitarianism,
focus on maintaining elite, white control over campus politics.
Merrill's later experiences with the Machine also demonstrated how incarnations of the
group would turn to harassment and bullying to maintain dominance over campus politics (J.H.
Merrill, personal communication, November 8, 2001). According to Merrill, when the Machine
determined that he intended to run for student government president, it began to engage in
varying levels of harassment. He described how people left harassing calls on his answering
machine such as threatening his wife with rape and told how he had to start hiding his vehicle
because "people would let the air out of the tires." In one startling instance, Merrill surprised
individuals who were breaking into his student government office. Merrill, who had two friends
with him, got one of them to go to the office of the campus paper, and a reporter came to
Merrill's office while one of the individuals was still there. The campus reporter photographed
the individual and wrote an article about the incident.
The attempted intimidation failed to distract Merrill, who conducted a well-organized
campaign (J. H. Merrill, personal communication, November 8, 2001). His activities included
purchasing space on two billboards in the community and running advertisements in the campus
paper that included endorsements from well-known student athletes at the university. Merrill
discussed how he openly defied several of the general election rules stipulated by the student
government such as purchasing advertisements in the campus paper larger than the rules
permitted. He joked that he would have defied the rules even more but ran out of campaign
funds. Merrill viewed the rules as purposely restrictive in order to benefit Machine candidates
and stated that he would have pursued legal action if attempts had been made to remove him
from the ballot based on the rules. Due to the candidacy of another independent candidate,
Merrill trailed in the general election by about 100 votes to the Machine candidate. In the runoff
election Merrill ended up winning, however, by about 110 votes out of approximately 5,000
In analyzing the success of Merrill, a better understanding emerges of the Machine's
dominance. As shown by his success, a determined, well-organized candidate can manage to
defeat the group. In the world of campus politics, however, an exceptionally well-organized and
sufficiently funded and supported candidate likely represents an exception rather than the general
rule. Independent candidates such as Merrill carry a high burden in motivating enough students
to vote in student government elections. The Machine's strength, in contrast, rests on low levels
of voter turnout in relation to the general student population. The group relies on an automatic
constituency that support its candidates. A non-Machine candidate, however, must motivate
disparate pockets of student groups to vote in elections.
In the 1980s and 1990s, the antics of the Machine demonstrate that, rather than a
sophisticated political entity, the group often operated in a crude and sophomoric fashion. In
1989, for example, the Machine backed a sorority member for president but the election was
marred by alleged voter fraud (One and All). As a result of the election, students were no longer
allowed oversight of future student government elections (One and All). During that same year,
another example of the Machine's tactics of bullying surfaced again. In retaliation against the
non-Machine candidate, whose father owned a local pizza restaurant, the Machine initiated a
Greek-organization boycott of the establishment that resulted in its closure (One and All; Weiss,
During the 1990s, university officials began to wrestle with containing the activities of
the Machine. Due to persistent problems related to the Machine's involvement in campus
politics, university officials took the step of suspending the student government in 1993 for three
years following an incident in which a non-Machine presidential candidate was allegedly
threatened and cut by a man wearing a mask and wielding a knife (One and All). In addition, the
candidate was also reportedly the target of threatening notes and had a cross burned in her yard
(One and All).
Following the return of elected student government, the Machine continued its
involvement in students politics. William Hankins, who served as student government president
during the 1998/99 school year and received the Machine's backing, discussed his involvement
with student government (personal communication, November 20, 2001). He stated a belief that
the group did not engage in the kinds of activities during his years of involvement with student
government that had occurred in the past. Stating that the mention of the Machine stirs images
of "negative connotations from the past," Hankins described its operation during his student
government tenure as an organized unit that promoted the election of its candidates. While
serving as president, Hankins stated that he sought to overcome the "elitist view" held by many
students of student government.
Discussing the Machine, according to Hankins, involved "talking about a lot of things"
(personal communication, November 20, 2001). He described the entity as "nebulous mix"
between Greek organizations and the formation of secret societies decades ago. In relation to
campus politics, he stated that one way to conceptualize the Machine is as "a very organized
group of individuals in the Greek system." Hankins freely admitted that leaders from fraternity
and sorority houses got together to decide which candidates would "represent the Greek system
well." He described the Machine as a natural outgrowth of a democratic system: "If you can
effectively get your message out, and [get] a message that draws people, and you can mobilize
those people in large numbers, you're entitled to win." While stating that the Machine is not
necessarily a "bad thing" for the campus, he noted that he did not like it if people were
discouraged from getting involved in campus politics because of the influence of the Machine
and spoke approvingly of independent voters organizing strong coalitions to influence student
government. Hankins stated that he believed bloc voting would take place no matter how
elections were structured on campus since "that is just how you win" elections.
The Machine has adapted to changing conditions in the past, and the comments from
Hankins indicate that the suspension of student government may have prompted the curtailment
of the kind of harassment documented previously (W. R. Hankins, personal communication,
November 20, 2001). Time must elapse, however, to determine if the Machine, recognizing a
low tolerance on the part of the administration for intimidation, will refrain from such activities.
The coming years will also gauge if the group, with its commitment to white elitism, manages to
maintain its control over campus elections. In the past, its greatest asset has been minimal
interest on the part of many students in campus elections. An upsurge in interest, from whatever
source, or some kind of alteration in the selection of student government officers could perhaps
overcome the historically effective but simple tactic of relying on the bloc voting of fraternities
Larger Relationship to Student Life
The continued existence of the Machine will also depend on broader developments in
campus life at the university. As suggested earlier, one perspective of the Machine is to view it
as a remnant of campus life at colleges and universities prior to World War II. As an
organization committed to white elitism, it represents, in some ways, a vestige of the racism that
once openly permeated the university and the state. James (2000), in discussing post-World War
II movements to end segregation in America's colleges and universities, described how though
"the incorporation of racial and religious minorities in the extracurricular life of American
campuses guaranteed fundamental civil rights, it also challenged accepted patterns of
interpersonal relationships" (p. 303). By the twentieth century, many fraternities had formal or
informal rules excluding racial minorities as well as certain religious adherents (James, p. 304).
Many fraternal organizations around the nation engaged in debates and controversies in
regards to expanding membership along racial and religious lines following World War II. In
many places, public exposure of the discriminatory practices of fraternity chapters helped spur
members to advocate greater inclusiveness (James, 2000, p. 314). A number of institutions also
sought to end discriminatory practices on their campuses (James, 315). Efforts to integrate,
however, were confined to schools in New England and larger institutions in the Midwest and
West Coast, and "[a]lthough fraternities in southern schools were keenly aware of the issue . . .
the rigid social segregation of the South precluded fraternity integration"(James, p. 323).
The kind of movement and debate involving integration of Greek life described by James
(2000) that began at many campuses decades ago had not begun to take place at Alabama until
recent years. For several years, school officials have placed increasing pressure on the white
Greek system to integrate and the continued segregation of the system has garnered national
attention (Hoover, 2001). While four black fraternities and four black sororities exist on
campus, the white organizations claim a membership of almost 3,000 (Hoover). To many, a
troubling aspect of university support for Greek organizations is that they lease land owned by
the university for token amounts (Hoover).
The Machine, with its fundamental connection to the white Greek organizations, will
likely remain committed to values of white elitism unless a corresponding alteration in Greek life
takes place at the school. In addition to perpetuating patterns of racial discrimination and
divisiveness, the image of the university also will likely continue to suffer in terms of national
perception. The current negative images raised by the recent controversy over integration of
fraternities was echoed several years ago in an article in Esquire magazine about the Machine
when the author stated the following:
The blacks I saw inside the white Greek houses over ten days at Alabama were blowing
horns in the band at a fraternity party or carrying boxes of frozen vegetables to the
kitchen. It's an embarrassing situation in a state that is more than 25 percent black. The
university is trying to force integration, but it has met enormous resistance from . . .
[those] who justify their segregation by invoking the great traditions of Greek life at
Alabama. (Weiss, 1992, p. 104)
Still, the issue of mandating integration among white fraternities and sororities is not a simple
issue. A Chronicle of Higher Education article from 1997 (Gose), relating the persistent efforts
of one English professor to force white fraternities and sororities to accept black members,
discussed that many African American students, professors, and administrators felt that African
American students did not wish to join organizations that had practiced discrimination even if
A consideration of the Machine, rather than a cloak and dagger story, really ends up
leading to broader issues of race and equality. The organization represents the persistence of
traditions relating to a much different time in college and university life. The groups shows that
established beliefs and prejudices can manage to remain influential in campus life, especially
when a minority can capitalize on its built-in organizational strengths stemming from its
historical ties to an institution that are not available to other segments of the student population.
While the Machine has shown flexibility, especially in relation to the role of white sorority
members, it has remained an organization committed to promoting the interests of elite white
students. Drawing upon the advantages bestowed to Greek organizations through their historic
ties to the university, the Machine has managed to exert a substantial influence over campus
politics for decades. Despite all the changes to campus life at the university in recent decades in
response to larger changes in the social fabric of the nation, the Machine demonstrates that the
process of social change often traverses an uneven and long, winding road.
Administration gives views. (1961, March 27). The Crimson White, p. 1.
The aftermath. (1961, March 27). The Crimson White, p. 4.
Anti-fraternity men hold meeting Monday. (1914, March 11). The Crimson White, p. 1.
Bama's rule of the few. (1949, February 2). The Crimson White, p. 4.
Crowe, B. (1968, March 28). Secret group exposed[:] Machine control 'substantial' now
in campus political affairs. The Crimson White, p. 1.
Enrollment nears 4100 mark as men return to campus. (1946, January 11). The Crimson
White, p. 1.
Gose, G. (1997, December 5). U. of Alabama studies why its fraternities and sororities
remain segregated by race[:] While some professors are bothered, most students black and
white don't seem to care. The Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. A54, A55.
Grad tells of group. (1961, March 27). The Crimson White, pp.1, 4.
Hoover, E. (2001, June 8). New scrutiny for powerful Greek systems[:] Incidents force
Dartmouth and the U. of Alabama to confront legacy of bigotry in fraternities and sororities.
The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. A35.
James, A.W. (2000). The college social fraternity antidiscrimination debate, 1945-1949.
The Historian, 62,(2), 303-324.
Lee, G. (1949, February 9). Killingsworth charges C-W ridicules SGA[:] Editor debates
indictments as special publications meet. The Crimson White, p. 1.
Letcher, M. (Producer/Director). (1998). One and All [Videotape]. (Available from The
University of Alabama Center for Public Television & Radio, Box 870150, Tuscaloosa, AL
The machine and its cranks. (1949, January 26). The Crimson White, p. 4.
'No machine ties' -- Moody. (1968, April 4). The Crimson White, p. 1.
Non-fraternity and frat men hold joint meeting and discuss live issues. (1913, April 15).
The Crimson White, p. 1.
Over 400 veterans now enrolled at Bama. (1945, October 19). The Crimson White, p. 1.
Roots of the machine seen in outlawed TNE. (1968, March 28). The Crimson White, pp.
Rudolph, F. (1990). The American college & university: A history. (2nd ed.). Athens,
GA: The University of Georgia Press.
Stay away from the polls --- you'll be sorry. (1945, April 20). The Crimson White, p. 2.
3,069 register for fall term, male roll increases rapidly. (1945, September 28). The
Crimson White, p. 1.
2,225 students register here spring quarter. (1945, March 30). The Crimson White, p. 1.
UA Machine, former members remain shrouded in secrecy. (1993, February 9). The
Tuscaloosa News, p. 6A.
Weiss, P. (1992, April). The most powerful fraternity in America. Esquire,117, 102-