W 5 THEN you say men are brothers, what do you mean? Some persons imply that only native Protestants of Nordic stock are white men, and restrict fraternal relations to family, lodge and religious circles. In such cases, brotherhood connotes intimate association with nice people, like ourselves. Liberal democrats of Jeffersonian strain assert that all men are inherently equal, and should enjoy similar rights. But the term is usually limited to legal privileges. Social and economic opportunities are often ignored. In this case, 'fraternity means equal liberty to act within bounds established by the state. Apparently there are diverse interpretations of brotherhood. So it is interesting and important to understand what is in the minds of people who discuss the term. As a means of estimating the inclusiveness of this idea, we have measured the combined judgments of a hundred university students concerning the acceptance of certain peculiar persons in significant social relations. I Table I shows the general attitude of exclusiveness toward all the characters in each of these relationships, and also the bias toward each of the characters in al1 the relationships. Evidently marriage is considered the most narrowly restricted association; whereas church and state are regarded as very wide in their inclusion. Beggars and libertines would be debarred from more than half these social contacts; foreign born whites and illegitimate offspring would be accepted in more than seven-eighths of all relations. Apparently the scope of equal rights broadens more rapidly with the order of persons than with the order of associations. It is noteworthy that the proportion of persons accepted as inferiors increases in the wider associations, while it decreases among the more acceptable characters. The increase of superiors recognized among the latter may help explain this tendency. Other interesting trends of opinion are disclosed by the separate items for each character in every association; but typographic difficulties prevent our spreading all the subclasses before the reader. We are here concerned more with general slants of judgment that seem to affect group attitudes. Chart I shows the percentile distribu1 The Sociology Department in the University of Washington offers a course on Fraternity. In order to discover what limits of sympathy and toleration the students have fixed in their minds, a questionnaire is given them early in the course. It contains a list of characters marked by some one social disability; and also a number of relationships in which such persons might bc included. The students are asked to indicate frankly whether or not they would wish to accept these persons as superiors, equals or inferiors in the associations mentioned. No names are signed; but to aid in interpreting responses, data concerning sex, age, parentage and residence, as well as academic, economic, political and religious affiliation are requested. This year wc extended the scope of inquiry, by inviting other advanced classes in sociology and psychology to express their preferences. From about two hundred replies, one hundred reasonably complete sheets werc taken as samples of local student opinions and atritudes concerning fraternity. Men and women each contributed half the number, so that discrepancies due to sex might be compensated. By rcstricting the treatment to ten characters in ten social relations, the statistical work was simplified. Thanks are due to my pupils, Miss Ryan and Mr. Wcstby, for preliminary tabulation of data.