According to Peter Carini, the College Archivist, the enduring tradition of ragging on freshmen during the Homecoming bonfire likely began in 1904, when upperclassmen chased first-year students around the bonfire.More than a century later, a small group of students rose to challenge this cherished custom.
"This effort grew from many peoples' articulations that they would enjoy a more welcoming atmosphere at Homecoming, and many peoples' articulations that they cherished the tradition of heckling freshmen as a rite of passage," Farzeen Mahmud '12, the propelling force behind the movement to reform Dartmouth Night, said. "I reached out to people I knew from all corners of campus, both affiliated and unaffiliated ... to create a space for people to express their voice as they wish, not to create a particular type of sound at the bonfire."
Rather than jeering, these upperclassmen brandished colorful signs with messages ranging from supportively positive to noncommittally neutral, such as "Welcome Home '15s," and "'15s are average." According to The Dartmouth, the effort was met with appreciation from members of the Class of 2015 as a demonstration of support ("Students succeed in touching the fire," Oct. 24).
Several days later, in a seemingly unrelated event, the Director of Greek Letter Organizations and Societies Wes Schaub said, "Most Greek leaders [are] people who understand that these are traditions but maybe might not have as much value as they once did," ("Greek orgs. evaluate pledge term activities," Oct. 26), in reference to some mandatory new member activities that can be legally branded as hazing. The majority of online commentators responded with opposition to GLOS's decision to ban the wearing of two prominent pledge materials Chi Gamma Epsilon fraternity's signs and the Alpha Chi Alpha fraternity's sirens. The Dartmouth Editorial Board subsequently critiqued GLOS's actions and the College's murky definition on hazing ("Verbum Ultimum: A Hazy Definition," Oct. 28).
The two disparate cases demonstrate recent challenges to long-standing Dartmouth traditions. While naysayers may decry these oppositions as a threat to the College's identity as an institution rooted in tradition, self-critique is necessary in order to ensure that our own iterations of tradition fit within the context of our times. However, the spirit of the students, rather than the paternalistic fretting of the administration, should be the primary impetus in initiating any and all significant changes.
Our collective adherence to College-specific rituals links us to previous generations, instilling a sense of community that transcends temporal boundaries. Yet traditions are also crucial in uniting the members of the present. While the specific details of our individual Dartmouth experiences may vary, we can find certain themes and events to which many current students can relate. Therefore, we must be wary that our adherence to traditions does not alienate or discourage other students and that our rituals fit within the context and boundaries of what is considered appropriate by contemporary standards and participants.
With the case of the bonfire, students decided to speak out in a non-intrusive manner that succeeded in garnering a positive reaction from underclassmen. On the other hand, in the case of pledge activities, GLOS managed to anger many members of the Greek system and incite additional criticism against an administration already facing an increasingly strained relationship with the student body. The former came off as supportive, the latter, as condescending and paternalistic.
Traditions should be critiqued and changed according to the demands of the times and the participants, and the members of the administration most of whom have not experienced the College as students should not be the ones to initiate permanent changes against traditions, lest it further incur the ire of current students and alumni. Instead, like Mahmud, students themselves must take charge of challenging traditions that they see as discouraging or demeaning, and as a community, we must become more willing to critique our behavior and ourselves.
