It's that time of year again: the secrecy between friends, the camaraderie among strangers, private conversations and 3 a.m. raids, Monday night meetings and undisclosed locations. This past Friday, senior societies tapped their new members: '03s, this one is for you.
You are about to finish your third year at Dartmouth and have finally found your niche. You know who your friends are and who you are. Whether or not you are a member of a Greek organization, you have experienced the effects of rush and the Greek system and are hopefully ready to begin your senior year with a broader and more inclusive meaning of both community and education. But what do we '02s do, just when you might have it all figured out? We ask that you divide yourselves again along class and gender lines. Whether or not you are aware of it, a strong system of co-ed and single-sex senior societies exists at this school, both supported and protected by the administration. This system thrives on exclusivity and, for certain societies, on secrecy. Why do some students and administrators hold such a system in high regard?
As Dartmouth students, we have a habit of defining ourselves by the organizations to which we belong. We find support and confidence as members of structured groups. This is evidenced by the overwhelmingly institutionalized nature of our social lives. It feels good to be part of a group, to have someone recognize you and to ask you to be part of their circle. It is a validation of your existence on this campus. But it is important not to forget that part of this flattery is derived at the expense of others. We have witnessed how tapping can become a popularity contest, validating some and alienating others. This leads to the next mystery: why would you voluntarily join a social organization that does not welcome your friends? Some societies go so far as to prohibit you from telling your friends that you are a member.
We are not alleging that all senior societies are merely social, as this would be a vast simplification of the issue. Many societies were formed as service organizations with missions of anonymously and unselfishly improving the community. Undeniably, any group that actively prompts students to enhance the lives of others deserves respect. What is incomprehensible, however, is why the ability to contribute to these community-enhancing activities should be limited. Carrying out the mission of performing community service without recognition is not contingent upon restrictive membership. The same anonymous deeds could be done by an organization that opens its doors to all.
So what's wrong with being exclusive? As members of the Dartmouth community, we have voluntarily entered an institution that selectively picks and chooses who it will admit. It maintains its high rank among colleges and universities because its selection process is restrictive. Isn't this admissions process perpetrating the same elitism? While both are exclusive, the parallel between the two groups is faulty. Among the myriad of differences between them, there is one fundamental distinction: opportunity of entry. Theoretically, Dartmouth opens the admissions process to all students and judges them on academic and intellectual criteria, regardless of finances and (should the student so choose) race and ethnicity. Senior societies are, with few exceptions, by invitation only.
We can rethink the way senior societies function and what they add to the Dartmouth campus. You, the Class of 2003, have the opportunity to instigate change. Consider the impact of the system and the consequences of membership. An alternate system can exist. Imagine a group of societies that is open to all seniors, based on the fact that together we have completed three incredibly intense years at this institution. Societies that maintain their missions, that allow anyone to apply or even (gasp!) join, would give us the opportunity in the process to meet other seniors whom we didn't know before. Then together, we could contribute amazing things to Dartmouth in our last year as students? Yes, many of these positive aspects already exist in societies, but shouldn't they be available to everyone?
