I want to make one thing clear right at the start -- I do not have a horse in the Alpha Epsilon Pi fraternity race. So my interest in reading about AEPi's second failed bid to win approval from the Interfraternity Council last week ("On Second Vote, IFC Denies AEPi Support," May 5) was purely voyeuristic.
That said, I was left bemused by the justifications the IFC offered for rejecting AEPi's application. Because, regardless of the fate of AEPi, it appears that the procedures the IFC is using to decide whether or not to permit the expansion of the fraternity system are not designed to give applicants a fair shake.
The Dartmouth reports that "the IFC rejected sponsorship on the basis of official IFC expansion policy, specifically current and projected rush numbers." IFC President Alex Lentz '07 is quoted as saying: "We simply felt that the Greek community could not support another fraternity at this time."
If that explanation is taken at face value, it means AEPi was denied a chance to exist not because there is anything deficient about their proposal, or because they would not be a positive addition to the campus. Indeed, Lentz conceded as much: "[T]hey had been doing a pretty good job towards satisfying the criteria for us to recognize them," he said.
Instead, it means that the IFC refused to accept AEPi because the existing fraternities did not like the idea of competing with yet another house for potential members. A decision made in that way does not have the best interests of Dartmouth students in mind, but rather makes use of the IFC's power over recognition to protect the interests of Dartmouth's established fraternities. It would be the equivalent of a local K-Mart, Wal-Mart and Sears getting together and deciding to prohibit Target from opening a store nearby, on the grounds that there are already enough department stores in the area. Under the pretext of concern for the customer base, the decision makers are really acting as a cartel by attempting to keep new competitors out of the system.
What would happen if a new fraternity (or a new sorority, or a new coed fraternity) opened? It might pull one or two recruits away from each current house, but it also might attract its members from those portions of the Dartmouth community that choose to remain non-Greek because they are not satisfied with the present slate of houses that are available. There is still a substantial percentage of students who avoid affiliation not because they are anti-Greek, but simply because they have not found a home within the Greek system. If expansion brings just a few of those students under the Greek umbrella, it will have strengthened the Greek system rather than weakening it.
Furthermore, for houses that find their memberships stagnant or in decline, the way to stem that tide is not by making it harder for potential members to go elsewhere by limiting their choices. Rather, the best solution is to address those aspects of house facilities, image or culture that are keeping possible recruits away. Such actions will provide a greater lasting benefit to this generation of students as well as classes yet to come, and a little extra pressure created by expansion might be the catalyst that is needed to start the process.
In short, the official IFC logic for obstructing AEPi makes no sense if the Council is concerned with the well-being of Dartmouth's Greek system and students. On the other hand, if the Council is concerned only with the short-term interests of its constituent houses, then the underlying logic becomes clear.
Whatever happens to AEPi, concerned students ought to expect more from the IFC. We ought to expect that petitions for recognition will be judged solely on the merits, rather than being subjugated to the private interests of those who hold the power to make or break recognition.
