Perhaps John Cortese '02 should spend less time bowling and more considering the issues at hand before expounding upon them publicly. His editorial, an unstated rebuttal of Janelle Ruley's column, displays faulty logic as well as a lack of full comprehension of the debate up to this point.
First, Mr. Cortese suggests that for a student to enjoy the "benefits" of the Greek system, while simultaneously calling for the end of its existence is hypocrisy. This line of thinking is all too sophomoric. His conclusion is all too easily, and flippantly reached. It reveals a lack of careful consideration of the complexities of both Ms. Ruley's feelings and the matter at hand. When Ms. Ruley partakes of the "Greek system," she does not do so for such silly antics as those alluded to by Mr. Cortese's account of his bowling and cheese fries excursion, she does so to be among her friends; this is the fundamental point.
Ms. Ruley visits houses to see her friends. More often than not, they are at these houses and perhaps this is what she laments. Under the current system there exists a certain sense of inevitability as to the setting in which students satisfy their social needs. As there are currently few viable alternatives to the Greek system for most, along with a pervasive ingrained sense of the necessity of the system, students flock to it year after year. The favored statistic cited by "pro-Greeks" is the so-called "overwhelming majority" of students supporting the Greek system versus the "statistically insignificant" students that support change in some form.
I think that a more telling statistic would be to find the percentage of students who come to Dartmouth with specific plans to join the Greek system. I know that the percentage would not match up to the 50 percent that actually join during their Dartmouth careers. How many join because "it's been this way for years?" How many more engage in Greek centered activities because it is by and large the only game in a small town? How few even consider the possibility of alternative once they're ensconced within the system?
Mr. Cortese's comments concerning the issues of racism and sexism are disturbing. His assertion that "the welfare of our houses must be fought for immediately and with much emotion" only serves to underscore the extent to which his, and many others', perspective is skewed. It suggests that passion to preserve a localized status quo system should naturally outdistance the passion to combat more important social injustices. After all, as he suggests, the fates of racism and sexism at Dartmouth are not to be determined soon, so why should we devote our time to them? Such injustices will always exist, why should we work towards addressing it? I detect apathy in such assertions dear reader, do you?
Apathy of course disappears when it comes to the Greek system. When the Trustees' Initiative emerged, the student outcry was tremendous. Dartmouth students steeled themselves to battle the impending injustice. Let's see, Dartmouth has seen huge protests surrounding such issues as Vietnam and South African Apartheid, issues such as racial intolerance, and preserving a status quo Greek system that is in many ways outmoded.
For those of us who attempted to address pressing social issues in public settings, the student turnout for the "save the Greeks" rally was abhorrent. Was this the cause that Dartmouth students rallied around at the turn of the century? Where were the numbers when we protested racial and sexual intolerance? Oh I forgot. These injustices will be there for us to worry about at a later date -- when they come to a "do-or-die campus wide decision." Thanks for the reminder, Mr. Cortese.
I have a new label for the so-called "hypocrites." I would call them visionaries. These people have the courage to stand up and go against a perceived grain. They dare imagine and envision a changed and improved Dartmouth. A Dartmouth in which the Greek system is gone, altered, or simply robbed of its ubiquity.
The true hypocrisy would be for them to recognize the need for change and say nothing. Will their fellow students, the "pro-Greeks" respond to them by pondering the situation with careful consideration, or will they act reflexively to uphold a system that in many ways has become obligatory? Will my visionaries enact an improvement upon Dartmouth, or will they be limited to the role of hopeless dreamers, devoured by a "popular opinion" which rests upon feeble foundations?
