I read with disappointment the responses to the editorial by Sean Donahue '96 which discussed the problems with fraternities. The responses to his discussion seemed to be reactionary and focused on unimportant details, shifting the topic of the discussion away from the crucial issues he raises.
In discussing the fraternity system, it seems that people who are in favor of the system must begin by saying that the people who are opposed to fraternities are in a minority. Such claims assume, I suppose, that the majority is always correct and those who do not agree with it should realize their stupidity and stop their protests.
I will begin by disagreeing with that claim and offer the shocking suggestion that large numbers of people who believe something is true do not necessarily make it so. After all, the majority of people once believed that the Earth was the center of the solar system and I think most people reading this will now tend to think that the majority was wrong in that case. There are other examples, as well, but I won't insult the great intelligence of the average Dartmouth student by going into them all here.
I believe that the people who find it necessary to use this type of rhetoric to strengthen their arguments don't really think that majority opinion necessarily represents truth. It merely frames their arguments in a way that preys upon the fear of being different. The entire problem of fraternities centers around this fear. Thus, it is not surprising that the "Pro-Greeks" use this tactic to lend legitimacy to their arguments.
It seems especially inappropriate to begin a (theoretically) intellectual debate by trying to discredit Donahue because he has previously expressed his dissatisfaction with the fraternity system. Personally, I think that calling midnight postering and chalking "guerrilla tactics" to be a bit of an over-statement. I don't quite see how these forms of expression can be construed as particularly dangerous or threatening to anyone.
It would seem reasonable that the best way to have a productive debate over such an important issue would be to respect each person's right to express him or herself and then to try to be as open-minded about the issues as possible. Responding to Donahue's well-thought out piece with the complaint that he hasn't thought of alternatives and that people need a place to dance seems to be a digression that does not help further the debate. Obviously, there need to be social options, however, I think the point is that fraternities are not positive social options because of other problems which cause more damage to people than a lack of dances would.
Each of Donahue's critics also said that they do not believe that fraternities can cause sexism or homophobia. However, while fraternities may not themselves be the cause of either of these things, they certainly provide an environment which fosters both of these things, which are most likely latent in all of the men who join.
Certainly, fraternities have not made men this way -- society has. Claiming that individuals become this way because of their background does not recognize that the culture in which most Dartmouth students have been raised is fraught with sexism, racism and homophobia.
Overcoming these attitudes is very difficult without the most supportive of environments. Isolating men and women into different social groups makes the discussion of these issues in a mutually supportive environment very difficult, if not impossible. That is not to say that single-sex groups cannot provide support. Obviously, they can. But as the primary social option for the majority of students, and one that is based on discrimination, the fraternity system hurts the individuals within it.
In my experience, the majority of students do not enter Dartmouth intending to rush a house. Many join fraternities and sororities because it is easy or because their friends do or because they feel compelled to do so for many other reasons. These people often become the most vocal supporters of the system.
Perhaps they are defensive because they have felt uncomfortable all along and need to rationalize their choice to themselves. Maybe they really have found a group that is supportive of them. In fact, it would be surprising if most of the men in the houses didn't find it to be that way. If its members didn't feel they were supported by the people who chose to include them in their group, the system could hardly continue to exist.
However, it is too bad that all Dartmouth students cannot support one another. There are limited options for people who do not want to be part of an exclusive system and want to find groups which are founded on the principle of respect and support for all people. In theory, at least, there should be more people at an intellectual institution who are bothered by that. However, it seems that people at Dartmouth think much more about a lack of dances than about broader topics of concern.
