CFS Has the Right to Self-Determination

by John Webb | 4/16/99 5:00am

To the Editor:

In response to the April 15 letter "SA's Resolution Ignores Non-Affiliated Interests," I would like to say that the four authors, along with their wildly inaccurate statistics and use of phantom quotations, share an almost ludicrous view of the so called "CFS resolution" passed by SA this week. This action simply says that SA supports the CFS' right to have significant autonomy in making internal changes. Isn't that basically what this country is founded on?

Let me make a little analogy to show what is happening. Let's say that affiliated and nonaffiliated students are residents of separate states; I'll just pick two randomly, say California and New Jersey. The citizens of California allow people from New Jersey to enter their state whenever they want; you can go to Disneyland, Hollywood, San Francisco, Venice Beach, etc; but should citizens of New Jersey be allowed to vote in California state elections? I should hope not. Sure, if California changes the highway speed limit or raises the sales tax, it effects New Jerseyites, but that doesn't mean that New Jersey should be given suffrage for California elections. If New Jersey citizens like California that much and want to vote in their elections, they are free to move there and become Californians.

I'd love to force Amarna to host a keg jump, or make the members of the secret societies wear purple bows in their hair, but because I'm not a member of these organizations, I don't have the right to tell them what to do.

If you want to have a voice in the CFS system, then first become a part of it (and I certainly encourage you to do so); if you dislike all that fraternities and sororities embody, then create a competing social system. But certainly don't whine when you aren't allowed to make changes in a system that you aren't truly a part of.