Dartmouth College "Editorial"
 

HANOVER, N.H. -- Late Wednesday night, I was talking with a friend in her room; she and three friends had just been through the rush process together. At its end, her three companions -- two of whom are her roommates -- were all granted a bid to their first-choice sorority. She was not given a bid to that sorority, or to any other.

Suddenly we heard paper rustling and low, excited voices in the hall. The noise settled just outside the room. "Oh God," my friend said, "They're here to decorate the door."

I stepped out into the hall and found myself confronted with three white women crammed into tiny clothing and plastered with makeup. They stared at me, in my jeans and flannel shirt, as though I had just materialized from another planet, or, perhaps, Brandeis.

"Hi. May I ask what you're doing?" The women replied they were decorating the door with their sorority letters, to proclaim that the room was home to two members of the elect. "I see. Were you aware that your sorority rejected my friend, who also lives here?" They were. But it's a tradition, one explained. "Ah. Well, listen: my friend is having a rough time right now, partly because your group rejected her. So until your 'sisterhood' is predicated on something other than exclusion, we don't want any part of it."

I closed the door. There was a muffled conference outside.

"Hey girl, it's me. Can I come in?" one of the women called. As she entered the room, my friend began apologizing profusely.

"I'm sorry for being such a bitch. I'm so sorry. I'm not myself. I was sexually assaulted two weeks ago, and my COS hearing is tomorrow."

"Oh, I'm sorry. Listen, we didn't reject you. It's the system, and yeah, it's screwed up. There are lists for making selections and it's really complicated and we don't really have much to do with it. I'm sorry you didn't get in. Don't worry, we can come back in a few days. And we won't tell your friends that we were here."

Not especially supportive. Not especially courageous. Not especially sisterly.

More like cowardly, obscuring any personal responsibility behind the incorporeal machinations of "The System."

You know this system: it's the same system that, apparently devoid of human involvement, deleted the name of at least one woman who rushed this term, ensuring that no house would accept her. It's the same system that allowed a sorority member to shamelessly ask another friend of mine, "We need a black girl in our sorority. Will you join?" It's the same system that commands that pledges constantly drag around a bunch of crap -- hair bands, Ramen noodles -- and entitles their older "sisters" to accost them and demand these items; if they are missing, their younger siblings must humiliate themselves in public. And it's the same system that teaches that none of this may be questioned.

I've got news for you, sorority women: your system stinks. It reeks of cattiness and jealousy and exclusion, and it is downright putrid. And guess what: if you're in it, then like it or not, you're responsible for it.

The system stinks of something else, too: privilege. According to the Student Life Initiative report (Jan. 2000), while 67 percent of Dartmouth's female student population is white, 81 percent of its sorority members are. This figure becomes even more dramatic when one realizes that it includes the members of our two historically black sororities. The same report also notes that only 45 percent of sorority members receive financial aid, compared to 61 percent of non-affiliated students.

But paramount among all the privileges within the greek system -- and the most antithetical to Dartmouth's stated mission of fostering a diverse, egalitarian and fully co-educational community -- is the privilege to exclude.

Professor Susan Ackerman called it out at a faculty meeting last spring:

"'You're just not right,' 'You'd be happier elsewhere,' 'You don't fit' ... we know this language. It is a language that has long served as a code for discriminating against blacks, Latinos and Latinas, Asians, Native Americans, Jews, gay men and lesbians and women. Like all codes, the language is covert -- so covert, indeed, that I suspect most fraternities and sororities would recoil at the idea that their organizations use this language in discriminatory ways. But I challenge these groups to examine their exclusionary principles carefully, and I remind them, and you, of the SLI data, that these organizations are significantly whiter than the rest of the Dartmouth campus."

To those of you now thinking how much your sorority has empowered you, I say, "Wonderful." But was it necessary for your empowerment that other women be excluded? Can you justify the scorning and marginalizing of your fellow women that occurs in the creation of your "sisterhood?"

Rejecting women who don't quite fit the mold is no way to uplift the status of women in general. Instead, it keeps us all down. It is, in fact, the mark of truly internalized oppression: our oppressors need no longer concern themselves with perpetuating our subjugation, because we women will take care of it ourselves.
This was posted in Dartmouth's paper yesterday....to me, it's very disengenuous....just thought I'd post it here to get everyone else's thoughts.....

I had some good friends at Dartmouth and I visited there a number of times.

That is one of the most racially divided campuses I have ever seen. Integration in sororities should be the LEAST of their problems. None of the black women I met were the slightest bit interested in anything outside of AKA or DST.

Sounds like more than one person got a rejection notice!! (oops - couldn't resist!)

As usual, we are being punished because we don't want every Sally-Sleep-With-Me or Tequila-Sheila out there. Maybe if this so-called enlightened person would go to our national websites, and READ the criteria for membership, then she would understand, that *wow* we really don't check bank statements, and designer jeans at the door.

Sounds to me like she's also confusing racial issues with issues of sisterhood selection. Stupid! And for her to say that these women were crammed into tiny clothing and plastered with make-up....sorry, but isn't that making a judgement of another person in the same regard??

Hypocrisy -- maybe the author needs to look that one up!

What a bit@h! Of course by telling sorority women how horrid they are she is being open minded and nonjudgemental. :rolleyes:
Jeeze-louise.
Heidi

My soror makes an excellent point.
Greek organizations, ultimately, are voluntary activities and fall, somewhere in the larger scheme of things, somewhat short of being able to secure a quality education, being able to compete for jobs and being able to live where you can afford to live.

Re: Dartmouth College "Editorial"
 

Dartmouth is a highly selective college. I don't know the exact numbers, but I would be willing to be that accepts less than 20% of applicants. To me, that really undercuts the writer's assertion that sorority members belong to a rarified, privileged class. Every student at Dartmouth is, in my opinion, privileged.

Got an address?
 

LXA - is there an address (email or otherwise) that we can respond to? I really am jumping at the chance to point out how judgemental the reject....dang - I really meant to say author is being while pointing her finger in the face of greeks.

Lovelyivy84 is right on target - if this campus is racially divided, then greeks should be the least of the worries.

Ignorance -- too many people with this genetic flaw are breeding!

I highly encourage everyone to read the Rick Reilly article in the 1/30/02 issue of Sports Illustrated. For those of you not familiar with him or S.I., it is the last page of the magazine.

Kill Whitey - Chris Farley

My dad was Lamda Chi Alpha at Dartmouth..so he forwarded me this same article..it reminded me of one written in our school paper, The Daily, called "Inside rush: the real story of going Greek" which was absolutely horrible. I tried to find the link, but the paper's archives aren't all on the website it seems. There is, however, one of my sorority sister's letter to the editor about it available..

http://www.thedaily.washington.edu/a...Date=10/8/2001


Anyway, people frustrate me when they try to "expose" the recruitment process like they know what they're talking about..sheesh.

I just read this and am not offended (even though I'm not a white guy). Reilly's work is familiar to me -- he appears regularly on the Jim Rome show and he wrote a wonderful column a couple of years ago praising "Sugar" Shaquille O'Neal. :cool:

Re: Got an address?
 

You can go to the link where I found the article, and there is a response link on that page.

By the way, the uwiretoday is an interesting clearing house for news, editorials, and columns (where I found this) for all aspects of college life...

http://www.uwiretoday.com/columns013002008.html

I really dig how the author is using the sexual assualt thing for sensationalism in the editorial. Has nothing to do withthe story and is extraneous. Like how in journalism you arent suppose dto identify someones race unless it pertains to the story. Same thing here.

I wonder how many of the allegations of hazing, "hair bands, ramen noodles" the author has actually seen? Probably more of a "Well a friend of a friend told me" thing.

I agree with Krose - everyone at Dartmoth is exclusive- because of the 20% acceptance policy. As for the racil gap quoted in the ststisitcs given, a 14% discrepancy doesnt seem that big. I would be much more shocked and outraged had it been 70 or 80% difference. "and I remind them, and you, of the SLI data, that these organizations are significantly whiter than the rest of the Dartmouth campus." I simply disagree withthe author that 14% is significant. Come on, 14% of a hundred dollars, is $14 bucks and that wont even get you a CD. If youre gonna use stats, make sure they reflect your argument. :rolleyes: <lifesaver announces to author, "um, you have a call on line one, its your academic advisor telling you to enroll in MAT 3233, Scope and Methods in Statistical Analysis.">


blah, blah, blah, same leftist crap we always get just repackaged. BTW, ya got some granola on your flannel shirt.

Life - well said brother! The sexual assault is nothing more than a red herring...I was wondering who else caught that. Brilliant.

ZAX

Its just occurring to me that Rush is, in many ways, good preparation for the process of job interviews.

Think about it-- most of us have had a job that we really wanted, that we were really close to getting--

Take me--

A number of years ago I interviewed with a behemoth and legendary digital effects company. This would have been a recruitment coordinator position and I would have been in large part responsible for hiring the digital artists used when they did the effects for an Oscar winning movie.

The office was on the beach. The setting was uber cool. I wanted that job so bad I could taste it.

The interview process was grueling. I was interviewed by SEVEN different people. They narrowed it down to me and someone else and called us back in to meet with some head honcho woman.

I'd sailed thru my previous seven interviews and could pretty much smell the ink on my business cards.

I met with Ms. X. Her first question ; So are the connections you made at USC worth the money your parents paid for you to go there?

WTF? I replied that I went to USC for an education, not for connections. I said that while my parents did pay for a portion of my education, I also received financial aid that I was responsible for paying back. I replied that the amount of debt I carried as a result was somewhat staggering, but I wouldn't trade my experience at USC, wouldn't trade the education I got there, for anything. And those loans? Well they were just teaching me financial responsibility, which was something I needed to learn as well.

She made some comment about spoiled children and ended the interview?

I found out later that this woman and most of the people in the department had attended a local public university that had a, well, pathetic academic reputation. They also had major chips on their shoulders and couldn't see past their perception of a USC grad to see all I was capable of.

How is that any more or less fair than a sorority not picking you because they don't think you'd fit in personality wise?

THis is the RIGHT we have in our society--to choose the MOST QUALIFIED. The most qualified person for a job--based on flexible and subjective criteria-- the most qualified member of a sorority or fraternity based on flexible, subjective and ever changing criteria.

If GLO's were required to take every Trash talking Tina and druggie Darla out there-- how would this in any way prepare us for the rejection we are bound to face in our post-collegiate careers?

Sure, not all Rushees are cut completely, or don't get the house of their chocie-- but most rushees face decisions and choices in the proccess as do the members--they've collectively got to decide what's best for the overall good of their chapter.

Just like a company will have to do when interviewing you for a position. And just because its the real world, doesn't mean their reasons for wanting or not wanting you are any more fair than Rush was.

Well, there is always two sides to every story. It does bother me that it seems like Greeks are always measured against the norm. Why should our stats be the exact same as the schools, who said we had to have a certian amount of anything to be good groups.

We take the best members we can, we do not base our membership selection on figures and stats, that is what I would deem as impersonal. As a selective group we have the power to take who we wish, just like other groups, but since we are a large target we get the most fired at us and the system.

To each their own.

Thank Goodness I went to a (2) State Schools! 1 kicked out of and 1 Graduated from! I was a name, not a number!

I had a much different situation as was kicked out of a Fraternity and started my own to later affiliate with LXA!

I feel privileged to belong to a Greek Organization as I learned more there than I did at school!

All Organizations are not for everyone. I was very upset when I found I had a Black Brother, that is until I met hem and found out what a great person he is! I am Proud to call him my Brother along with other non-white Brothers!

I worked to pay way my way to school, ever sling a mop and run a waxing machine? Hang on as it will kick you butt! This was in the dorm so I got a lot of Sh^*! from the guys in the dorm!

Peel the skin off, and we all are pink inside and Bleed Red, well except maybe at Dartmouthy!:) Moronic Asswhole, semi-blue nosed snobs!:cool:

Hey Tom....

Why did it make you upset to find out that you had a black brother?

Why doesn't the author harass or belittle the many WOMEN'S magazines that allow potraits of waif women to seep into society so those who don't fit THAT MOLD feel more inadiquate!?
There are plenty other things that harm the mentality of women and oppress us...NOT JUST SORORITIES!
Furthermore, did she ever take a look at what good things would not be accomplished without the aide of sorority philanthropic work? How many millions of dollars wouldn't be donated to cancer research if the ZETAS didn't hold their fundraisers? How many hundreds of kids wouldn't be encouraged to read without Chi Omegas offering books and reading time to them? How many thousands of dollars wouldn't go to alziemers (sp?) research without the help of Sigma Kappa?
But we are so damn self centered I suppose we deserve that sort of BS! :mad:

Hootie

Life,
Please explain what polotics has to do with this?

I believe you just tend to hear far more anti-greek / anti-establishment rhetoric from the far left, than on the right.

Her entire column was about her belief that greeks are exclusionary and that we are not sensitive to issues of class. An argument often heard from the far left.

I am a politics major, and I have learned that everything has politics to do with it, intended or unintended.

Just my opinion.

BTW, I tend to lean a little of the left of the spectrum.

Place blame appropriately
 

ARRRRGH. stupid people make me tired. tired tired tired.

If this silly bimbo would do some research about her OWN school, she would see that the main reason women go bidless is the fault of Dartmouth's administration. They have refused to allow another sorority to form - ANY sorority, be it NPC, NPHC, service, local, anything. The women have asked for it and have the numbers for it, but the school prevents it (thus making the sororities look like they are the bad guys). Plus, the school imposes a membership cap. There are only 6 sororities and with the popularity of Greeks at Dartmouth, they could easily support two more.

From what I've read, this is a panhel that busts their ass to try and place everyone who signs a bid. That is definitely not the case everywhere, as we've seen.

As Casey Stengel or one of those other old baseball dudes said "you could look it up." So I did.

http://www.thedartmouth.com/article....d=199905070101

The last couple paragraphs in this next article hit the nail right on the head.

http://www.thedartmouth.com/article....d=199305180201

I'm confused. I thought Dartmouth was closing down the non-coed Greeks. So they're still rushing?

OK, I'm replying to my own question, which I guess makes me a big dork ;), but apparently Dartmouth's plan to end single-sex groups was abandoned. They're definitely still having rush. http://www.thedartmouth.com/article....d=200201040103

But seriously, the last time I had heard anything was in 1999 when the Trustees announced the plan to eliminate single-sex groups, and I had not heard that plan was reversed. Was it just not as big news?

Fuzziealum,

Their student life initiative got a massive amount of bad press and hostility from alums, including a lot of alums cutting off donations. So instead of yanking it all at once they are doing little things like taking the taps out of the houses, being more strict etc etc.

If you go to http://dartreview.com and click on Greeks it outlines it pretty well.

If they elimenated single sex groups, for example GLOs, they would have to get rid of all single sex groups? Hmm...I wonder how the gay student union might feel about that. They're a same sex group!! Or why stop there, since sex is only one issue that makes people different from each other. No more Campous Crusade because you have to be Christian to join. Or no more school play, because the only people in those are actors!!!!

See...You need your token liberal. ;)

Thanks, 33. I actually had stumbled across the Review site but just kept going b/c I couldn't tell when everything was from. I'll give it another look.

I am not defending anti-Greeks in any way ... but it seems to me that Greeks are easier to say are "discriminatory" because they have exact membership lists. Most campus groups have hard core members, more apathetic members, and that guy who showed up once. So who is a member and who isn't? And I bet the campus GLBA group would say, hey we welcome straight people, and the Christian groups we say, hey Buddhists are welcome to come to our meetings - whether or not in reality a Buddhist ever would! Greeks are just more up front and clear but about who their members are, and so that makes them stand out as targets for those who want to take on "elitism." Of course honor societies have firm members and non-members, but it's hard for a university, whose purpose is education, to say academic selectivity is a bad thing.

Personally, I think that students should be able form whatever kind of groups they want. If someone wants to start a group only for Asian men over 6 feet tall who play the kettle drum, or for white girls who plan to be trophy wives, let them. That doesn't mean I'll join, of course, or even that I would approve of their ideas. But, as everyone likes to say, it IS a free country.

When can I joined this club? And can I play the congo instead of the kettle?

Ok, well I dont go to Dartmouth, and I'm not in a Sorority go figure. But I figured I would put in my two cents worth. Ok as bad as that may feel to be in your terms "rejected" if she couldnt handle that rejection why did she rush. If shes at Dartmouth chances are shes a smart girl, she knew there was a possibility she wouldnt get a bid. 2nd, I just want to say its very rude to bitch at the girls on this website just because they are greek. They cant help what happened, and by you coming on here the way you did you certainly arent helping. Maybe what happened wasnt fair, but alot of things in life arent, one of them being the girls on this site being bashed by you. I would hope that in the future you could find more mature ways to get your point across....

I don't want their support. Dartreview sucks.

Agreed - seems like my only contact with the Dartreview is when they spout out meaningless tripe about the greek system. To hell with that . . .

Gawd, KS R C you Rock and are Right ON!!!! Again!!!!!!:D

HANOVER, N.H. -- The best thing about being white at Dartmouth College is that you don't have to think about it. Well, maybe that's changing. We have gently scratched the surface of understanding what it means to be part of white society. Going any deeper may hurt a little, but I've always believed in that little cliché about pain. So let's look at some hard facts.

Dartmouth, like many similar institutions, has made a real buzzword out of "diversity" lately. There's been talk of writing it into a new mission statement and there's been a World Cultures Initiative, but as admirable as these efforts have been, I feel we're missing the opportunity to learn from diversity where its potential is greatest. The College expends a tremendous amount of effort to draw and put together a diverse student body. Are we really making use of our diversity, interacting with and learning from people of different backgrounds, or does it say enough that Dartmouth has its own cliché about racial division? You know -- the one about every race having its own table in Food Court.

It's too easy to shift the blame off on minority groups for "self-segregating" (a third cliché), as if they are, in that act, deciding to let differences divide them from mainstream culture. There's nothing wrong with the fact that we tend to congregate with those who are similar to us. There is, however, something wrong with the presumption that only minorities let race affect their social culture, that "mainstream" culture has nothing to do with race.

Mainstream culture has a whole heck of a lot to do with race, and with the "whiteness" that many of us have been discussing over the past week. Nowhere is this more obvious than in our greek system. Looking at the numbers, white dominance of the greek system is in staggering disproportion to the percentage of whites on campus. These numbers, however don't even begin to tell what percentage of greek membership excluding the historically minority-affiliated houses is white. But what do the numbers mean? Certainly not that half of this campus is racist. It's more complicated than that.

The culture of any greek house is, intentionally, self-perpetuating, very slow to change and contingent upon the exclusion of those who don't quite "belong" or "fit in." Lots of factors contribute to the social identity of a house. Take athletics, for example. Many fraternities are known as being largely composed of members of certain teams. That doesn't mean that every member of a given house is on the corresponding team, but it helps to characterize that house. Anyone who rushes the bobsledding house has to be comfortable spending a lot of time with bobsledders and their shared identity.

Is race a comparable factor? We know that minority-affiliated houses are aware of and open about their appeal to their specific minority cultures, but can it be said that mostly white houses project a white cultural identity? As many of us started to discover at last week's Community Hour and as I wrote in Tuesday's issue of The Dartmouth (Dan Rothfarb, "The Importance of Being White"), we cannot presume that we are "normal" people who are not affected by race or who are a default group, lacking race. So does "whiteness" figure into the identity of exclusive social groups? You bet your bobsled it does. And what's most surprising is that the members of these groups have perpetuated white identity without even realizing it existed.

How is that possible? We've already seen how "whiteness" goes unnoticed and understood only as the norm. Greek houses depend upon obscure, subjective norms as ways of defining themselves. While skin color is not likely to be a norm taken into consideration, culturally influenced characteristics such as personality and interests weigh heavily into the equation. This fact cannot be denied by any organization whose membership is subjectively determined, exclusive and lacking any clear definition of what its members should be. (Groups based on service or campus leadership, for example, are somewhat different in that they have a less than arbitrary definition)

Furthermore, if the character of an exclusive organization is so dependent upon culture, members of different cultures may not feel comfortable rushing a house whose identity is so disparate from their own. Not all members of a certain race will feel this way, but one who doesn't feel sufficiently assimilated into white culture will probably not want to be part of a group that is based on sharing culture that he or she does not feel part of. The possibility of diversity is, in many cases, limited before the selection process begins. And the problem is not solved by the introduction of minority houses, which serve a good purpose as long as the other houses exist, but neither changes the social division on campus nor matches the privilege inherent in white male domination of student-controlled social space.

Every house, every pledge class, every member of the greek system is different and no one is singularly accountable for the way things are. I have no solution for the problems I see in the greek system without calling for its eventual end; for the meantime I can only suggest that we take some long, hard, personal looks into what brings us together and what can bring us together in the breadth of our diversity to stand together as the sons and daughters of old Dartmouth.

Wow, you know most human interactions, maybe all, can be likened to a game. We create rules of behavior and social structure to in order to make the world more knowable and manipulate people's actions.

And I'm fine with that. I approve of manipulating the masses. it means I'll be richer later as I capitalize on the lack of thinking ability of my fellow man. The thought leaves me warm and tingly on the inside.

However, a sign of maturity is understanding that it IS a game with variable rules, shifting positions, and lot of spin as people try to sell you on behavioral patterns that coincide with their world views and comfort zones.

PC, and multiculturism are just new faces on these very old systems. Multiculturism when it first came out was actually supposed to be a way of increasing interface ability. IT acknowledged that different cultural backgrounds often reflected different learning styles. So the idea was to teach to the culture the same body of knowledge as mainstream education has always tried to teach. However, it has since become a political movement with a lot of Spin on it and its almost defensive in nature. ITs come to mean that different cultures shouldn't be expected to learn certain bodies of knowledge.

Anyway, this guy doesn't seem to understand that point. He is trying to make an argument that certain institutions are inherently wrong and don't even know they are wrong. When honestly, most of these institutions just really exist any valu ejudgment placed on them is in the perception of their perceivers.

In his case he seems to be offended by the idea of greek ORganizations . . . And comes up with lucid arguments to try to spread the offense to other people that haven't form a strong opinion one way or another.

Life must be a litle bitter for him.

I just wanted to clarify since I think you might have misunderstood...no one was bitching at anyone. LXA Alum just pasted the article on here from The Dartmouth's site. No one posting on here is the one who wrote it. If the chickie-babe who wrote it DID come on here and try to bitch at us, she'd probably end up running away screaming. :D

My sentiments exactly! There are people that are so anti-establishment, it's laughable. I had a girl completely degrading me under her breath and basically trash talking about me and my girls behind us in a lecture when she assumed we were in a sorority. I was absolutely shocked. The audacity of this girl! After spending way too much time defending the greek system in an honorable fashion, I was exhausted. I just breathed heavily to my girls "sad when people are so bitter about not getting a bid." Yes, a low blow, a catty remark. But she shut up after that.

It took me quite some time to realize that I could not be the sole defender of all that's Greek, so you just have to be so satisfied with yourself and confident in the values and benefits of your chapter that ignorant, assinine comments roll of your back.

I don't like any support from an organization that
(a) stereotype - which they did with their editorial on who is the enemy. They are doing exactly the same thing that they are accusing the left of doing, stereotyping. See http://www.dartreview.com/issues/1.21.02/edit.html

(b) they have a sense of self-righteousnoss that I haven't seen since the so called moral majority bs with contract with america. I'm for smaller government, that mean government out of women's body and bedroom. Not the so caled moral majority government of less on welfare, but more legilation telling me who i can sleep with or if my girlfriend want to abort her baby.

They thing they are conservative, but in reality, they are as radical as your so called left.

Sure Glad I did not attend Dartmouthy College!:D

These people sound like their self importance is underwhelming to me!:cool:

" I am me and can only be as no other can, nor can I be as another":)

God what a Great quote, Glad I said that! Does anyone understand it?:confused: