Upon reading the latest Mirror column by Matthew Ritger '10 ("The Gospel According to Matthew," Oct. 30), my initial inclination as a Dartmouth student was to write a scathing, sarcastic, point-by-point rebuttal of his most recent verbal effluent. It is tempting to address Ritger's column with a string of ad hominem attacks. As Coed Council president, however, I feel it is necessary to respond in a manner consistent with those responsibilities, and present an official response to Ritger's misguided remarks.
Coed houses make up an important part of the Dartmouth social scene. There are three coed fraternities and two undergraduate societies that provide coeducational social and living spaces, as well as alternative opportunities for interaction among Dartmouth students. However, since they are a part of the social fabric of Dartmouth, they are equally susceptible to many of the social ills that Ritger describes in his column.
The coeds, like the rest of the Greeks on campus, do everything we can to combat issues such as sexual assault, hazing, excessive drinking; the list continues. However, membership in a coed house does not grant one immunity from, nor necessarily reduce exposure to, these issues. To say that increasing the number of coeds would go any distance to reduce the social ills that plague this campus is a disingenuous and dangerous oversimplification.
Were the proliferation of coed houses on campus the answer to all of our problems, there would still be many reasons why it wasn't feasible. First, membership in coed houses is not at the point where we are searching for more coed organizations to reduce pledge class numbers, as is the case in the sorority system. Second, all coed fraternities are local, and it is very difficult to raise the funds and create the infrastructure necessary to support a local coed house. In terms of financials, it may be feasible to have a single fraternity switch over to coed; it is not currently possible to enact any widespread change, such as Ritger proposes.
Third, and most importantly, simply adding women to a fraternity does not eliminate the risk of hazing, sexual assault or physical intimidation. A large percentage of women on this campus seek out and take comfort in their own social spaces, on their own terms, and forcing them into a fraternity is not healthy for any of the parties involved.
I do not take issue with the core point of Ritger's column: that Greek life must be improved, and that students themselves have to create this change. I do have a problem with the fact that he chooses to stand on his soapbox, surrounded by such hard-hitting features as "Overheards" and "The Dartmouth Mirror Manual of Style," rather than engaging in a dialogue with those who might actually be able to effect the change he seeks. There are many avenues for someone such as Ritger to directly address the Greek system. For instance, he might engage in productive conversation with members of the Greek Leadership Council (IFC, Panhell, Coed Council, NPHC and NALFO), such as myself, or GLC moderator Ethan Lubka '10, or the many others on campus who have chosen to take an active role in shaping social institutions at Dartmouth.
In closing, I would encourage anyone who has not visited a coed house to visit us, and consider the possibility of rushing a coed house during your time here at Dartmouth.
However, if Greek organizations simply aren't for you, there are many students who spend their time at Dartmouth happily unaffiliated, taking part in clubs or affinity groups, and exploring other avenues to social fulfillment on their own.
Ritger argues that we need more choices on this campus, but that doesn't just mean more choices of where to play pong.
