To the Editor:
I am not writing this letter to discuss the inappropriateness of "The Zetemouth" or other Greek indiscretions. While the intent of an action may not coincide with its outcome, intent is part of the very definition of maliciousness; all too often we rush to blame people for their intolerance without considering that this intolerance may be bred from ignorance, rather than hate. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea (the act is not criminal unless the intent is criminal). Whereas I may question the wisdom and discretion of those involved in this incident, I realize that I, too, am guilty of saying and doing things that have perhaps offended others. Just because I didn't put them in print doesn't give me the right to judge another person. And it certainly doesn't give me the right to judge an entire system. Deciding exactly who is guilty does little to foster progressive attitudes of acceptance and does even less to dispel ignorance and/or hate.
I have just one question for the Dartmouth administration: who are you going to blame for your institution's problems when the Greek system is gone? When the only social structures in existence are those you deem "acceptable" and -- gasp! -- racism and misogyny still rear their ugly heads, who will you point your finger at? The world -- both inside and outside of Dartmouth -- is a mirror, and blaming others does more to point out your own shortcomings than theirs.
In all of this discussion about the place of fraternities at Dartmouth, I am disturbed by the lack of discussion about the role of sororities. I suppose most people lump them in with the entire eyesore that is the Greek system. One of the central tenets of the opposition to the Greek system is that it fosters outmoded and potentially dangerous attitudes toward women. So where does this argument leave sororities? For all of those who complain that women are marginalized by the Greek system, please don't discount the sororities so quickly, even if we don't match your idea of what feminism should be.
When I arrived at Dartmouth as a naive freshman, I looked upon the Greek system with a distrustful eye -- who would want to join an institution that squelched individualism and forced allegiance to outdated notions of exclusivity? So I didn't join a sorority.
Instead, I started one, however fine that distinction may be. And like all persons who have set out to start something new, I was filled with the idealistic hope that I could help to create an organization where women would feel comfortable on campus, where women would be able to assume leadership roles and where a feeling of sisterhood could develop that would last beyond Dartmouth. Those of us who spent almost all four years of our time at Dartmouth building Alpha Xi Delta quickly learned that nothing ever turns out quite the way you expect. We thought we were giving back to the school that had given us so much, only to have the administration toss our gift out with gloved hands because it wasn't what they wanted. Well, a sorority wasn't exactly what I wanted, but I can unequivocally say that I am a stronger woman -- and person -- today because of my experience in Alpha Xi Delta. I learned how to speak my mind without being afraid of the sound of my own voice; I learned how to meld a hundred different opinions into a coherent organization; I learned that although organizations are made up of individuals, individual behavior becomes reflective of the organization.
To all those people who say that fraternities and sororities squash individualism: blaming an entire institution -- of individuals -- for the mistakes of a few is similarly homogenizing. The people who berate Greeks for being spineless conformists are the same ones who blame the Greek leadership for not keeping their members in line. So which is it: do we make everyone act in a manner you deem appropriate or do we leave room for individuality, however distasteful we may find those individual personalities? How do we actively promote acceptance in an environment that increasingly does not accept us? While we should certainly promote an atmosphere of tolerance and speak out against intolerant attitudes, there is ultimately a limit to our influence over the behavior of others. If there is one thing I learned from my years at Dartmouth, it is that idealism can disappoint as well as it can inspire.
To those persons, such as Therese Pope (The Dartmouth, April 23rd, "Campus (De)recognition") who feel sorry for me as a Dartmouth woman: keep your pity. Never once did I feel any more threatened in a fraternity basement party than in a dorm room party. Never once did I hear more offensive comments from a fraternity member than from a non-member. I am not blind enough to say the Greek system doesn't have problems -- even the national electoral process has problems, but you don't hear a great clamor to eradicate democracy. Instead, what is needed is change -- on an individual level, for that is ultimately the only way to change an organization. Getting rid of the Greek system is like taking a cough suppressant for pneumonia: those around you are relieved, but you're still sick, and it's only a matter of time until you start coughing again. Misogyny, racism, homophobia, and other types of intolerance are worldwide problems; while we should all work individually and together to improve our own attitudes and educate those around us, it is naive to think that Dartmouth is any more or less intolerant than the rest of the world or that we should be held to a higher standard. If I am ashamed of anything about my time at Dartmouth, it is the hypersensitivity of my fellow students who rely on the media to provide them with causes to be outraged about and who use these causes to promote the eradication of organizations they don't like. Please, tell me when I have offended you. Please, help me to change my actions. But, please, don't destroy me because I'm not perfect -- for then you have done nothing to improve me.
