To the Editor,
Having read the initiative recommendations, I am sadly disappointed. It strikes me that the committee proposes a great deal of curtailment of what is currently the heart of the Dartmouth social system without significant imaginative suggestions for what will serve as a replacement. A large part of the beauty of Dartmouth's Greek system was its open nature. It provided large physical spaces for cohesive groups to organize social functions at which any and all are welcome (in sharp contrast to many other schools). In the proposed new system, there is nothing that goes beyond the disastrous systems that were instituted in similar fits of social planning at Williams and numerous other smaller New England schools. If one takes the time to examine what has happened to social life at these schools, one would find that rather than promoting a more open community, the system forces groups to gather in smaller, more exclusive groups, in situations which are far more difficult to regulate. Social events planned by committee with College approval will never be the primary social outlets, despite the best intentions of those involved in this process. What a shame that the strong emotional reaction against the "exclusionary" nature of these open organizations has caused the College to take a step back rather than a move forward. I do not disagree with the need to expand competing social options to the Greek system or with the need to more effectively align the Greek houses with their stated goals. But I strongly object to this knee-jerk reaction which will do nothing but destroy without creating. It could not be more obvious to a student of history that this kind of redistribution (of social equity?) and social planning always fails to create more options and serves only to mollify those elite few who get to make the decisions. Despite what I am sure are noble intentions, those involved in this process should be ashamed of their efforts. Their punishment will be to watch the campus lose a large part of the energy and creativity, which made it unique.
