To the Editor:
The future of the Greek system is almost beside the point. What is shocking is the utterly craven approach the Trustees and the President have taken to what they surely knew would be a controversial decision.
Where was the mention of eliminating the Greek system during Wright's inauguration? This year's matriculation speech? The letter he and his wife sent to the alumni? The meetings he held a week earlier with CFSC members?
The proposed changes -- no matter what the details -- would alter the character of Dartmouth to the greatest extent since coeducation. Yet the proposal is buried in a memo from the Board?
I recall much discussion when I was at Dartmouth of such principles as openness, tolerance, intellectual honesty, and community. In presenting the proposal as an authoritarian fait accompli, subject to neither discussion nor referendum, Wright and the Board have proven their thorough disregard for these principles; their contempt for the desires, opinions, and right to self-determination of the students (to say nothing of the alumni); and their deeply-seated hypocrisy.
Dartmouth is fortunate in having a relatively open Greek system, with social events rarely restricted to members. Further, the various houses' contributions to the Hanover community generally are underappreciated amidst all the rhetoric surrounding alcohol policies. (Incidentally, for those administrators who cannot draw lessons from national attempts at Prohibition, Dartmouth's insititutional memory should stretch at least as far back as 1992 to demonstrate the ultimate futility of paternalism.)
While the passing of the Greek system would be sad, a misguided attempt to dictate social alternatives, the real tragedy would be the loss of even a veil of liberty at the College. Should Dartmouth students not learn respect for due process, for personal and collective responsibility? Or should they be taught that those in power know better than they with whom they should associate, how they should spend their non-academic hours in college? Should they learn the futility of protest and activism? That a thousand students gathering on the President's lawn mean nothing next to the whims of a group of bureaucrats decades out of touch with the spirit and life of the College?
The actions of the administration in the coming weeks and months will have implications that run far deeper than social alternatives at the College. They will demonstrate the respect Dartmouth has for its students, and will exemplify the sort of leaders the College will encourage them to become. If an institution with the traditions and intellectual power of Dartmouth opts for the authoritarian rather than the democratic, then my fears for the future should extend far beyond the College.
