On Tuesday, the Interfraternity Council voted not to grant a potential new fraternity, Alpha Epsilon Pi, the status of a recognized organization. While our article Wednesday ("IFC votes down Jewish Fraternity," Jan. 30) detailed their reasons -- primarily that over one fourth of the council felt there was no need for expansion of the fraternity system -- we are left wondering: Should the College have given this decision to the IFC in the first place?
Fraternities must be self-perpetuating because of their inherent structure. This becomes most obvious during rush season when houses compete to attract new members into their organizations. For national fraternities, the stakes to recruit pledges are even higher as national chapters sometimes offer monetary bonuses to those houses with large rush classes. And yet, in spite of this clear competition among houses, fraternity presidents were the ones given the option of whether or not to admit a new competitor into the fraternity system.
According to the new rules approved after the moratorium on single-sex, residential and selective organizations was lifted by the Board of Trustees in June 2005, receiving approval from the IFC is the first stage in the process of creating a new fraternity. But, one must question whether having leaders of the fraternity system act as the first line of review for aspiring houses is the most impartial or fair process the College can offer.
By selecting the IFC first to approve new fraternities, the College has taken a false step on the path toward the achievement of its agenda to increase social options. Asking fraternity presidents and other IFC members to vote against their own self-interest won't happen, nor should these leaders feel morally obligated to do so.
Instead, if the College truly wants to pursue more "options," it needs to create an independent council that can assess each new fraternity impartially and openly. This council, which would hopefully attract a spectrum of students, could then become the new first round of fraternity admission. In this capacity, it could develop guidelines to ensure that new organizations are assessed for the commitment of their founders and their potential to thrive on this campus instead of for the competition they inherently pose to other fraternities.
