Circa 1370 BCE, the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten moved his capital north from Thebes to the city of Tell-el-Amarna. There he renounced the other gods, specifically Amun-Re, the head of the Egyptian pantheon, and worshipped only the solar disk Aten. Akhenaten's 17 year reign was later dubbed "the Amarna heresy."
In January of 1994, Dean Lee Pelton recognized Amarna as Dartmouth College's second undergraduate society and renounced other types of social organizations, specifically the Greek system. Pelton said, "The College understands that there's a need for students to have a social life outside of the classroom ... we are hoping that the undergraduate societies will be able to carry out social events in a healthy way that is consistent with the objectives of the College," ["Some students link Amarna to Greek system," The Dartmouth, May 31, 1994].
Within three months of their recognition, it was announced that Amarna had acquired a house on 23 East Wheelock Street. Amarna was bumped ahead of many other organizations on the waiting list for a physical plant. But the perks don't end there. The administration governs Amarna and Panarchy (the first undergraduate society) by a different set of rules than the Greek houses. The undergraduate societies receive two main benefits: they do not have to undergo an annual Minimum Standards Review, and sophomores are eligible to live in their houses during their sophomore fall.
Every year, all Greek houses must go through a Minimum Standards Review. Undergraduate societies are held to certain standards as well, but they are not as strict as those for Greek houses, and they do not have to undergo a formal annual review process.
A more explicit double standard is seen in the area of housing. Sophomores are not allowed to live in Greek houses during their sophomore fall. Undergraduate societies may allow sophomores to live in their houses during the fall, however. Due to the revisions in the housing lottery, sophomores always receive the lowest housing priority. It is sophomores who are looking for a place to live during the fall housing crunch. The College tells them that they cannot live in a Greek house, yet an undergraduate society is a perfectly acceptable alternative (meanwhile, beds in Greek houses go unfilled, to the detriment of everyone).
What makes an undergraduate society so different from a Greek house? Why are they "able to carry out social events in a healthy way that is consistent with the objectives of the College" while Greek houses are not? Is it that they're coeducational? No --- there are three coed Greek houses on campus -- Alpha Theta, Phi Tau, and Tabard. Why does the College insist on blatantly promoting the undergraduate societies over the coeds? The only true difference is that the undergraduate societies claim to have no rush and no pledge period. Are these two trivial differences a substantial basis for creating a new type of social organization with a new set of policies governing it? I would argue no. From the perspective of the coed houses, rush and pledge period are positive experiences that exist for very good reasons, and we do not wish to compromise these.
Rush is not "elitist." Tabard has a non-selective clause in its constitution. Although Alpha Theta and Phi Tau reserve the right to "ding" potential members, the mathematical formulas used make it very hard for a rushee not to receive a bid. We use the bid process simply to make sure that new members have a strong interest in our house, and will respect its members and property. Also, the community holds us accountable for the actions of our members, so we need to control who those members are. We're rarely more judgmental than that, and we don't need to be. Usually, by the time people have rushed, we're already convinced that they've satisfied these criteria.
Pledges are members with all the rights and privileges thereof the minute they sign their membership contract on sink night. We maintain the pledge period because it functions as a rite of passage into the house. The pledge period consists of positive education and membership development which supports the values of the house. It then seems that the difference between coed pledge period and the first term of membership in an undergraduate society is purely rhetorical.
It should here be said that I hold nothing against Amarna, Panarchy, or the members of these organizations. They are both great houses, and I attend their events and hang out with my friends who are members. What bothers me is the political message that the administration is sending: that the undergraduate society is the ideal form of a social organization. By giving perks to the undergraduate societies while tightening rules on the Greek houses, the administration is sending a clear message that they wish all houses to imitate the model of Amarna and become undergraduate societies. This attempt at social engineering does not appreciate the diversity of social options at Dartmouth and amounts to no less than the Amarna heresy that Akhenaten committed almost 3400 years ago.
