I had a wonderful experience as a Dartmouth student and in Theta Delt. However, putting my personal attachment to the existing system aside, I feel that the administration's proposal is seriously flawed. I will try to address what I see to be the administration's goals in moving forward with this plan and suggest why this proposal will fail to accomplish those goals.
First of all, the key buzzwords seem to be "inclusiveness" and "choice." The fraternity/sorority system is considered exclusionary and that is patently offensive to some. I feel that these critics are not looking at the issue correctly. For those who choose to consider Greek life, I think that the acceptance rate is extremely high. Also, I have never been to a campus where the vast majority of Greek parties were open to any interested guests. While open fraternity/sorority parties may not be every student's idea of a fun time, they do have the option to attend, free of charge. Should a student choose not to attend Greek events, they certainly have always had the option of forming of a group, formally or informally, of students with similar interests to have alternative events. They have also always had the option of attending school-sponsored events. It is hard to blame the Greek system for simply being more popular than these options and it is impossible to blame the Greek system for the fact that the alternative options offered were generally so poorly executed. Should the concern be one of too few options, I think everyone, including the Greeks, would welcome improved College-sponsored events and facilities or better funded coed houses. However, in the "open market" for social events in the past, the fact of the matter is that despite the College's best efforts, none of the alternatives, no matter how many College millions are thrown at them, have been able to effectively compete with the creativity and purity of purpose of the Greek system (self-funded) and that has apparently spelled the system's demise.
Circling back to the issue of choice, I think it is important to point out the hypocrisy of eliminating the choice of single sex social clubs in the name of choice. There are affinity houses for every ethnicity and social group (preferably "repressed") which by all accounts will remain untouched, if not more strongly funded. These groups have done very little to offer the broad campus any social outlets and are definitionally "exclusive." The Greek houses have provided the rest of the community with well-attended social events at great personal expense of time and money, and for that they are singled out as the problem in Dartmouth's social life. Why is it acceptable for exclusive social clubs defined by race, religion or social habits offering the rest of the campus nothing in the way of social options to continue to gather while those students who choose to gather with members of the same sex and interests in a fraternity or sorority which do provide any interested guests with a variety of social options will no longer have that choice. That kind of illogical political correctness would be laughable if it did not cause so much damage.
I think it is fair to ask, "What is the model non-Greek rural campus to which we aspire?". In my experience at schools ranging from Middlebury to Williams where fraternities were banned, the result was a far less open community. Students formed underground societies, which were forced to be extremely exclusive. They gathered in small groups in dormitories. They still do irresponsible things because they are simply young. That will not change. But there is no organization to keep behavior in check. There are no organizations for the administration to monitor. The result is a fragmented network of cliquey social options were students do not meet in the large groups which enable them to interact with other students from different backgrounds. It will also result in far greater temptation to pursue activities further off campus. The Dartmouth student body is well-financed and creative and will find a way to gather in whatever form it pleases. At best this will fragment the close-knit and open Dartmouth community and at worst will result in far greater risk of drunk driving deaths. Certainly the answer is not going to be found solely in College-sponsored events. Even when these events are planned by students, there is a lack of the personal ownership that comes in the Greek system and as a result, the diluted product is generally unsuccessful.
But let us assume that for whatever reason, be it the "Animal House" image or simply the legal liability of the possibility of a tragic alcohol-related event, the Greek system is inherently bad for Dartmouth. Today, there exist almost no other social options at Dartmouth. Rather than doing the logical thing and building strong alternatives to the Greek system before dealing it a death blow, the College has chosen to scrap the existing system without having provided any additional options. That strikes me as spiteful and small. I am very glad that my sister will graduate this year and will not be forced to suffer through the difficult transition to an uncertain future. Additionally, I would note that this monumental decision ("the biggest change since co-education") was undertaken without open discussion among the whole Dartmouth community. My understanding of Dartmouth's history was that, despite the inevitability of coeducation, the College went through the intense discussions with its students and alumni as to how best to make the shift. This recent proclamation has been undertaken by a faculty whose grasp of daily student life is tenuous and a Board, which despite its obvious professional and personal excellence, is even farther out of touch with the desires of today's students. To make such a shift, however inevitable, without open discussion again strikes me as purely spiteful and arrogant.
I am sure that Dartmouth will eventually emerge from this turbulent chapter in its history and continue to be a wonderful institution. I am equally sure that all of those involved in making this decision have the College's best interests in mind. However, I could not feel more strongly that this has been a poorly thought out and abysmally executed effort. As a passionate supporter of the school, I very much hope that this setback to the lives of Dartmouth's community can be righted in a thoughtful, logical and objective way. At the risk of waxing hyperbolic, I can say that otherwise, my faith in what is pure and good in the world will have been severely tested.
