For many years, the College has used rush to regulate Greek organizations, punishing them in times of dissonance with later rush dates and more restrictions.
Rush has evolved over the years, surviving world wars and hostile administrations.
How rush is conducted throughout Dartmouth history is a product of the general conduct of fraternities, said Jere Daniell '55, a history professor and an expert on Dartmouth history.
In the 1920s, 1950s and early 1960s, the relationship between fraternities and the administration was stronger, as fraternities regulated their own actions to a greater extent, Daniell said.
Some changes in rush have been sparked less by relationships with the administration and more by world events. Winter rush, for example, was not first proposed in 1990s, but a half century earlier in 1942.
The Interfraternity Council suggested winter rush then for many of the same reasons they oppose it now -- as a means of raising revenue in times of financial trouble.
Fraternity members were being called for military service in World War II, and others were prematurely completing their studies in order to enlist. The IFC feared that with fewer members, less dues would be collected. Smaller houses would be forced to close their doors and others would face financial troubles.
To solve this problem and recruit new members, the IFC proposed an alternative system to rush all of the first-year class of 1946 at once, that January.
Before this time, the College did not permit first-year students to rush so early. There were two rush periods -- one in the spring for those who were just completing their first years and a larger rush period at the start of the fall semester for sophomores. Fraternity members would meet and recruit interested sophomores starting at Convocation. They would then register new pledges at Robinson Hall one week later.
The new proposal to recruit first-year students in the winter, was controversial, as the administration opposed first-year drinking. In response, the IFC issued a promise to cooperate with the College in eliminating this objectionable practice. This pledge of responsibility led the administration to adopt the IFC's winter rush proposal.
The IFC wrote in a petition that was printed in the Nov. 19, 1942 issue of the Dartmouth, "Houses are beginning to realize that their future at Dartmouth depends on their decorous conduct."
Fraternities continued to regulate their own conduct to a large extent in the 1950s, Daniell said. This was a period in which the fraternities, at the urging of the administration, became self-policing.
Fraternity members addressed issues like discrimination on their own, Daniell said, citing their commitment to end by 1960 all clauses that institutionalized racial or religious discrimination in fraternity recruitment, or punish the houses that still had them.
According to Daniell, the way Greek organizations reacted to the administration's concerns and regulated themselves changed in the late 1960s. Daniell blames what he calls "the anti-establishment movement" for this phenomenon.
Most visibly, during anti-Vietnam War protests, students stopped abiding by institutional restrictions and College regulations. "The Animal House phenomenon came right after that," Daniell said.
Fraternities also abolished procedures of self-regulation, including the regular chaperoning of house parties, Daniell said.
These actions and the administration's response had a direct impact on rush procedures and especially on when rush is conducted.
The implementation of the Student Life Initiative and the administration's moving the first rush period to winter is representative of the way the College has consistently addressed its concerns with the Greek system, Daniell said.
The College delays rush when more dissonance exists and allows earlier rush when fraternities act in ways the administration sees as more responsible, he said.
