Or so the administration says. Last Monday, the administration issued a moratorium on the Coed, Fraternity and Sorority Council, prohibiting the recognition of any new Greek social organizations on campus. This is a powerful message from the College because it's intent is to prevent people from investing time and energy into creating positive social outlets for themselves "just in case" something happens next winter with the Trustees' new steering committee and the Greek system no longer exists. I had not realized that was an option, and I do not think that the majority of the student body feels like that is a viable option, either. So, my questions is, is anyone listening to the students? Because at this point in time, I don't feel like anyone is.
Two-and-a-half months ago, the Trustees made a bombshell announcement that the Greek system "as we know it" was going to end. Students were in an uproar because we had never been consulted about our social lives. No one had asked us about more residential options, or a new social system. Yet suddenly, the Trustees decided that it was time for a change and they conceived the Five Principles which every Dartmouth student probably knows by heart at this point. New social spaces, better residential living options, continuity in housing, substantially coeducational student life ... who could complain about such ideas?
But this isn't about residential living arrangements, it's not about continuity in housing, and it's not even about social spaces anymore. This is about the Greek system. I know that sounds biased and one-sided, that some will say that I am affiliated and that I'm not looking at the big picture, but I disagree. I AM looking at the big picture. I have gone to Working Group meetings, I have had breakfast with the Trustees, I have tirelessly discussed this issue with alumni, national sorority and fraternity leaders, underclassmen and faculty members. And I am so impressed with the creativity and ingenuity in some of the ideas of my peers and I am amazed at the proactive response this has inspired in people across campus. But if this is not a plan aimed at destroying the Greek system, why has the College quietly placed this moratorium on CFSC? Why will they not allow new social organizations to form, if the intent of the Trustees' principles was truly to create new, more diverse social options?
I guess I'm just a little confused. Three weeks ago, I sat at the Trustee breakfast and I listened to several Trustees talk about their visions for the College. We discussed so many things, like tearing down the River Cluster and reconstructing dormitories down there, building a "Party Barn" to give us back the social space lost by the renovation of Webster Hall, and reevaluating the D-plan. Inevitably, the Greek system was also discussed, and there were many interesting ideas: use a third-party vendor to help control alcohol consumption, give houses economic incentive to go coed, correct the drastic imbalance between the fraternities and sororities, aim to remove the exclusivity from the system. These were great conversations, and what pleased me the most was when, at the end, the students were told to continue talking, to keep thinking and discussing new ideas ... because, as Trustee Bosworth said, the Trustees are listening.
Well, then why aren't we being heard? Why is it that the Panhellenic Council has received no recognition from the administration of the hundreds and hundreds of names that we collected of women on this campus who felt that their voices were not being heard in the battle about the future of the College? Why is it that we had close to 500 balloons on the senior fence three banners full of names of unaffiliated as well as affiliated women, from graduate students to prospective '03s. Did anyone hear that? Or what about the fact that 40 women came to a meeting last week about starting a new sorority, or that my inbox continues to be filled each day with women asking me questions about what "9" stands for (a new sorority would be the ninth sorority on campus) and how they can get on the blitzlist? How is it that we have 706 women in six sorority houses on campus? That is close to 120 women in each house! Fraternities have entire memberships smaller than the number of women in my pledge class! And this fall's rush is looking like the largest ever ... is each house going to be expected to take in a pledge class of 50 women? That's ridiculous. Not only does that go against all principles of sisterhood, since it makes it virtually impossible to know every women in your house when you've got over 150 sisters, but it also is detrimental to the new members. How can they be expected to reap the benefits of being part of an organization that is supposed to foster friendship, provide support, and create leadership when they can't even fit into the chapter room for meetings because it's too crowded? Do 300 freshman women not make enough noise to be heard by the College? Would the 700 women already in sororities be loud enough? When will the students be heard?
I'm left wondering what it is that they fear. Are they worried that a new sorority would work? That a social organization that is not residential and not exclusive (it would be created by a process of continuous open bidding, in which any woman who wanted to join, could, as long as she was of sophomore status or older) could actually succeed on campus? That women simply want and need sororities, despite what the administration wants to believe? If this isn't a Greek issue, then why not allow new social organizations to form. There is a group of sophomore students who are interested in starting a new coed house ... why not let them meet, give them support. Let these women who want to form a sorority give it a try. They aren't asking for much, they just want to be heard.
