This past week of rush served as an annual reminder of the remarkable inequalities between men and women at Dartmouth. The drawn-out, far less personal experience for women is a direct result of women's reliance on fraternities' social spaces. Because females interested in Greek life have dramatically fewer chances to experience sororities firsthand pre-rush, they are forced to make much less informed judgments about their prospective houses, and vice versa.
It's a sheer numbers game; women, affiliated or not, are all but forced to depend on the 13 Interfraternity Council houses if they want to hang out in the Greek scene, which encompasses well more than half of upperclassmen and is naturally dominant due to the absence of bars and clubs in Hanover. The sorority social options are much more limited, simply by virtue of there only being seven houses. This is exacerbated by four of those houses' ties to national organizations, which enforce rules that preclude their chapters from hosting parties like men's organizations here. While the three local sororities do host parties and guests, the bottom line is plain: three (not seven) against 13.
This year's high participation rates in rush illustrate that the prominence of the Greek system is not waning. This is a system that is here to stay, and if the development of new local sororities isn't accelerated as it should be, the noxious gender inequality on campus will remain rampant.
Dartmouth needs more sororities whose members can use their house spaces at their discretion. Realistically, the alcohol component is crucial: Women should be able to choose where and with whom they socially drink. The long-term vision for Greek life at Dartmouth should be one of equal social rules governing fraternities and sororities, period.
It could take 100 years to develop a structure such that there is an equal number of men's and women's houses with equal social rules. It took at least as long for men here to develop the extensive legacies and disproportionate resources that back their houses. While Dartmouth cannot change the policies of national sororities, for now it can change its own policy on founding new sororities on campus. The establishment of new local sororities should not only be allowed but encouraged over nationals. The administration's moratorium on new local sororities prevents us from creating more female-run social spaces governed by rules comparable to those of men's spaces.
Given that the stark inequality that exists today will take so many years to remedy, we must move far more expediently to fix it. This issue must be addressed with the priority it deserves. This priority belongs to College administration, to be sure, but also to alumni who plan to donate funds to this institution. Alumni who want equality for their alma mater, for both its daughters and sons, will make establishing more local sororities a higher priority on their funding agendas.
