Printer-Friendly Version
Click Here for PDF

"The Machine and Campus Politics and The University of Alabama"
Neal H. Hutchens
Voices from the Capstone
2000


Introduction

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 institutions.

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.

Origins

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. 102).

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 Cranks").

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 votes cast.

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, 1992).

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 and sororities.

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 they could.

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.

References

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 35487-0150).

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. 1, 3.

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- 110.