To the Editor:
In Scott Jacobs' column and a multi-authored letter to the editor ("SA's Resolution Ignores Non-Affiliated Interests") of April 15, several crticisms were made of the resolution sponsored by Ryan Clark '01 and myself. These criticisms are misguided. The central points appear to be that the resolution maintains the status quo in the Greek system, and excludes non-Greeks from the process of changing the residential and social options on this campus. In regard to the first I would suggest the authors re-read the resolution. Changes, even major changes, are not opposed. They are encouraged in the second resolved clause which calls on all students to address the problems of the current system. Only fundamental changes, meaning changes to the essential nature of the system, require the agreement of the system.
Which leads to the second major criticism of the resolution: it excludes those outside the system. What the opponents of the resolution appear to desire is that the whole student body have the right to "explicitly agree" with major changes. An amendment to this effect failed overwhelmingly for two reasons. First, the student body CANNOT explicitly agree to anything. It never has. Student Assembly is only partially elective and so cannot speak for the students in such a matter. Which leaves what? A referendum? The student body cannot credibly lend its agreement to a specific administrative proposal, because it is, naturally, composed of too many people and groups with different perspective. The Greek system has shown, both now and in the past, that it can present a united front toward the administration.
The second problem with giving the "student body" responsibility is that it ignores the very real differences between Greeks and non-Greeks on this issue. Jacobs may say that Student Assembly should "work towards the representation of ALL students" but all
students do not have an equal stake in the Greek system. The Greek system affects the lives of non-members but not in the same way as it does those of members. That distinction must be recognized. The final decision is up to the members of each individual house, because it is THEIR house, and no one else's. That all houses have traditionally been able to unite their positions is to their credit. It is not feasible to expand that position to include all Dartmouth students.
Nor are non-Greeks excluded from the process, as Jacobs and Co. claim. They can suggest, discuss and work with the Greeks on the issue of fundamental changes. They can work with the administration on an equal level with the Greeks on the issue of non-fundamental changes. They have as much influence as the Greeks in what social and residential options will be added to the Greek system. In fact, they probably have far more. So why don't we stop whining about the "exclusion" of non-Greeks and get on with the real business at hand: building a new and better Dartmouth without losing the best of the old.