Wrong and “Wrong”

By Lauren Rosenbaum, The Dartmouth Staff

Published on Monday, November 22, 2010

• Print
• Report an Error
• Share

In responding to the two recent columns by Jordan Osserman ’11, Intra-Fraternity Council President Tyler Brace ’11 wrote, “[Osserman] cannot understand that wearing a uniform or carrying a lunchbox — surely a traumatizing and dehumanizing experience for all — is actually a mark of honor for pledges who choose to demonstrate their pride in becoming a part of something greater than themselves,” (“‘Right’ and Wrong,” Nov. 19).

Many campus organizations — from sororities to athletic teams to a capella groups — engage in practices that fall under the College’s definition of hazing, including “inappropriate scavenger hunts or road trips,” “wearing of apparel likely to subject the wearer to embarrassment or ridicule” and “engaging in public stunts and buffoonery.” The Dartmouth community largely dismisses these types of practices as harmless, because in most cases it is harmless. However, anyone who has rushed a fraternity, Brace included, knows that their truly “traumatizing and dehumanizing” hazing rituals occur behind closed doors and are far more dangerous than wearing a silly uniform.

As a member of a Greek house, I know certain “hazing” practices can be fun and foster a greater connection to one’s house. Having pledged a house while it was on probation and thus had limited initiation, I often envied my female friends in other houses who often went on “pledge missions” (or “inappropriate scavenger hunts,” if you will) or wore uniforms (“apparel likely to subject the wearer to embarrassment or ridicule”) that signified their attachment to their sororities.

But I have never envied my male friends during their pledge terms. I won’t pretend to know everything that goes on during a pledge term and frankly I would rather be kept in the dark when it comes to the most egregious rituals. Carrying lunchboxes is one thing, but students should not be forced to consume such massive quantities of alcohol, vomit on their fellow pledges, stay awake for unreasonable periods of time, eat raw animal products or touch their brothers in inappropriate ways (examples that friends have described to me) all in the name of becoming “a part of something greater than themselves.” Fraternities should not define their level of masculinity according to how degrading, disgusting and downright dangerous their pledge terms are.

Referring to an incident in which two fraternity brothers forced Osserman to leave their house, Brace asks, “If our guests fail to respect us, how can we be expected to respect them?” I would like to pose another question: If you fail to respect your own brothers, how can you be expected to respect members of the wider Dartmouth community who spend time in your fraternity house?

With the College’s current ban on the establishment of new local sororities, fraternities will continue to be the center of social life for a large portion of the campus population for many years to come. And although our Greek system might be “one of the most open and welcoming systems in the country” as Brace suggests, our overall social system on campus may well be one of the least “open and welcoming” precisely because it is so centered on fraternities. Members of the Greek system and individuals who spend considerable time in Greek houses generally enjoy this dynamic, but it is undeniable that many who are considered “outsiders” — as Osserman suggests — do not feel comfortable visiting fraternities.

Given that Osserman’s column described how the College could report incidents of hazing to law enforcement officials, even suggesting that “exposing rampant hazing” could allow Hanover Police Chief Nicholas Giaccone to “take the [Greek] system down,” it is understandable that the IFC took a defensive stance on the issue.

Yet, as IFC president, Brace is responsible for addressing the very real concerns that Osserman’s columns raised. Instead, he deliberately skirts the issue, failing to admit that fraternity hazing extends beyond “buffoonery.” Brace states, “We welcome constructive criticism and suggestions for how to improve ourselves.” Perhaps the IFC could translate this idea to practice, rather than resorting to denial and personal attacks.

Granting the Hanover Police free reign to investigate hazing practices would only create tensions between the fraternity system and the greater Dartmouth community, limiting meaningful change and threatening the openness that Brace champions. Brothers willingly participate in the system, and therefore the responsibility for initiating reform ultimately lies in the hands of members themselves. Nevertheless, Brace’s column makes clear that the IFC is not actually interested in confronting the problem.