I think the Greek system should stay. An over-simplification for an opening but at least it's a starting point. This is my first, and likely last, column at Dartmouth and I would not, however simple I try to make it, have it be a defense of the status quo.
I've spent a good deal of my four years here doing what little I can to affect my surroundings. It's my nature to always believe that things can be better and that I can contribute to making them so. This belief continues with respect to the Greek system. In fact, the first premise of this column is that ultimately change should and must occur. Dare I say even "substantial" change?
This column is not, however, about specific changes. I am the first to admit that I do not have all the answers, and the ideas I do have are why I am involved with the working groups formulating a response to the Trustees.
This column is also not about the rights of Greek organizations with respect to the houses that they own. First of all, I know little of the legal issues. More importantly, I don't believe that digging in our collective heels will "save" the Greek system. Any argument other than "let's do what's best for this College as a whole" is, I think, not only inappropriate, but will also fail.
My point, at first glance, is a simple one. In improving a system, our goal should be to remove what is bad and preserve what is good. So simple and too simple, which is why there is, of course, a catch. But, for now, I will start with the good.
Most people do see some good in the current system. It could be the positive experiences and fond memories that led my dad to bring me back to Theta Delt before anywhere else. Or, the advantages of single-sex environments. Or, the support network and continuity. Or, the student poll that yielded 80% support. If you check the opinions in the pages of the D since February I'm sure you can find plenty more reasons.
To me it actually matters less what one sees as "the good" of the current system. The real challenge is, if you believe in these positive aspects (as I do), then what do you do with them, if you also believe (as I do) that change should occur.
One model that has been presented is to replace the old system with a new one that incorporates the best of the old. The problem is that although building from the ground up supposedly provides a clean slate, it also by definition erases much of whatever good has been built up already.
I was originally going to say that it is impossible to replace over-night what it has taken years to create. I know the response to this claim is that new institutions and organizations start up successfully all the time. My own experience is that they tend to succeed because they are generated at the grassroots and then develop upwards, rather than being mandated from above. But I realize these arguments are secondary to the point.
At the end of the day, whether it is possible or not to go back to zero and build anew, it is a mistake to do so. The good (as well as the bad but we'll get to that) is enriched by its history. This is something that should be worked with and taken advantage of, not erased.
This does not mean creating an "alternative" or "parallel" system on top of the current system. Our social system should be one integrated system because we are one community. On the other hand, it also does not mean a new system that undoes or tries to totally redo the strengths of the current system.
In my opinion, we should use the present parameters and history of the current system to create whatever new, better, broader, and ideally all-encompassing social and residential system we will bring into existence. I agree that there are aspects of the Greek system "as we know it" that should change, but just as important is the fact that a Greek system "as we know it" should also remain.
So, that being said, if you start with the good, you have to end with the bad.
Those who contend that we should entirely replace the current system, the good along with the bad, usually argue that both aspects are so linked that they can't be separated. The dichotomy breaks down because you can't keep the good without keeping the bad or change the bad without changing the good. Moreover, even if it were possible, change takes sacrifice and self-interest will prevent the self-sacrifice requisite for any real change.
Maybe I am an idealist, but I do not believe these things to be true. However, the only way I feel one can defend this position is to prove it. Prove that it does not require destroying what is good in order to change what is bad. Prove that preserving the Greek system and improving social life can and should happen together.
I may not like the way the Trustee announcement unfolded, but I do recognize the potential in this new committment to social and residential life. I also see the challenge. The fact is that the bad aspects of the Greek system are as entrenched in history as the good are. Such change does not come without consequences and some sacrifice.
For example, as much as I think about it, I see no easy way to right the glaring imbalance between the number of fraternities on the one hand, and sororities and co-eds on the other. Do you combine some fraternities and sororities to open up houses for new sororities or co-eds? Do you allow some criteria to determine a number of fraternities that will be replaced? Do you move some established houses to a new location to allow new houses to start up in an established location?
I already have admitted that I don't have the answers. I do not know which trade-offs to make. Take it as you will, but all I can tell you is what I personally believe.
I believe it is worth making sacrifice to achieve change without undoing all that we have already. I believe that if we do this the Trustees will listen in a way that they won't yield to protests or lawsuits. Most of all, I believe in the student body. I believe that, together, students are capable of meeting this challenge and proving our case.
