As the vice president of the Panhellenic Council until as recently as last week, I hold myself personally accountable for everything (the good and the bad) that occurred during this year's Panhellenic winter recruitment. It is in that capacity, and as the person who was directly responsible for setting guidelines and matching bids this year, that I find myself in a prime position to respond to Katie Greenwood's Jan. 30 column in The Dartmouth, "System Failure."
I'd like to begin by debunking the myth that sorority bids are given out arbitrarily and that the "system," rather than individuals, is responsible for those decisions. That is simply not the case. As far as I am concerned, the "system" or the "computer" or any inanimate object that you choose to blame, is me. Let me explain. Panhellenic recruitment is based on a policy called "mutual selection." This is very different from the system of "rejection" that Ms. Greenwood has tried to present to you. What it entails is equal input from the six sororities and the potential new members. After every round, this information is matched by the vice president (in this case, me) and matches are returned to both parties. Let me reiterate that the computer program makes no decisions. Whenever there is a decision to be made, it stops and asks me what to do.
For the most part, my job was relatively easy. Chapter and rushee preferences matched up in most cases and I had good news to report. In some cases, there were women who were not offered an invite to a party. In that event, I did my best in conjunction with the recruitment chairs of the houses to find a place for each girl. In a few cases, that was simply not possible. Panhell does not guarantee bids because we would prefer not to put sororities and women in a situation in which they feel uncomfortable, namely to place forcefully a woman in a sorority where she was not chosen by the sisters. I have heard stories of that happening elsewhere and, as you can imagine, it hurts far more people than it helps.
Now, I'd like to take a moment to address the concern that sororities are "catty" and "discriminatory" and only for people of "privilege." These accusations have been made mostly by people who are outside of the system and therefore do not have an accurate picture of what takes place inside of a sorority -- specifically during rush and deliberations. When I participated last year, I too was surprised at how much these stereotypes turned out to be false. Judgments simply are not made based on what one is wearing or how much money her parents make. It is also not the case that we want to recruit women who are mirror images of ourselves. If I am any indication of the other women that I call my sisters, we think of ourselves as individuals first and then bring to our respective chapters what each of us possess in our own unique way.
My sorority has provided an opportunity for me to meet people with whom I otherwise never would have come into contact, whether those people are my sisters, other Greeks or unaffiliated students that I met through my involvement in Greek-sponsored events. These people are diverse geographically, racially, religiously and by any other standard to which diversity may be applied. The Greek system is not at all a uniform group. And, as I set this example of personal accountability, I ask, in return, for those who praise or criticize Greeks not to generalize, but to cite specific incidents and individuals.
Finally, I'd like to conclude with some personal commentary that I find difficult to put in the back of my mind when debating the so-called "exclusivity" of the Greeks. Neither I nor anyone else will tell you that the sorority system is perfect. We won't try to convince you that everyone had a positive "rush experience." But can you think of anything in the world that is without flaws and unequivocally favorable for all? When I try to imagine something in this manner, I have an overwhelming feeling of excruciating boredom. Can you imagine a society in which everyone got exactly what they wanted? Isn't it life's imperfections that make us interesting?
My point is that life is filled with imperfect systems that cannot please everyone. It does not follow that a system in which everyone is not 100 percent satisfied is a bad one. What about the people who benefit from that system every day? Let's take democracy for instance. Cynical as some may be, can any of you successfully argue that we should get rid of it? You would have a hard time convincing me. It may not be perfect and if you tried I am sure you could give me the name of 100 people who may have been falsely imprisoned this year, but do that and I'll find the names of 100,000 more who received a fair trial where they wouldn't have in a non-democratic country. Now I understand that this is no reassurance to those 100 people and their families, as it is no consolation to a Dartmouth woman who fails to receive a bid, for me to say that the system works for "most people." But it is a good start.
And it is more than a start. Two years ago, when the '02s rushed, almost a third of them failed to receive a bid. Last year the numbers were far more positive, and, this year, we were able to offer bids to all women who attended a preference night party. That statistic alone puts us ahead of most sorority systems in the nation. I have faith that our newly elected officers will continue this progress and that the next sorority recruitment will benefit from the lessons we have learned.
