I opened my Hinman Box Saturday to find my red cardboard Student Assembly "newsletter." One-fourth of it was a plea that all students vote in the upcoming referendum: "Do you support the continued existence of single-sex fraternities and sororities at Dartmouth? Yes or no?" The Assembly feels it is "imperative" that I vote and take this chance to have my "voice heard."
Unfortunately, although I will vote on Thursday, there is absolutely no chance that my voice could actually be heard. The Assembly has effectively gagged me by asking such a meaningless question. My opinion on the issue does not manifest itself clearly when given a yes or no decision, so the Student Assembly is basically saying that my opinion does not count.
I must vote no, because to vote yes might be a great injustice to this campus, despite the fact that I actually think that single-sex houses are acceptable if current problems are dealt with properly. We seem aware of the problems. There is too much intelligent debate about the Greek system to try to end it now.
Our campus is in a process of examining our strengths and weaknesses by challenging the way the system exists. A yes vote might stop the flow of ideas and the heated discussions. A yes vote might slow the process of reform that many people on this campus are fighting for.
The results of this vote will allegedly help the Student Assembly and the Committee on Student Life suggest an "ideal model of a social system" for Dartmouth. This referendum, so perfectly scheduled before the College's Board of Trustees meeting, could never be used for such a purpose, and still be used properly.
The wording of the question implies that an "ideal social system" includes a Greek system of some form. How could this referendum help their proposal if that proposal didn't already call for a Greek system? But isn't it immoral and unethical to propose an ideal without asking about how a Greek system might be hurting people? The Assembly does not call for specific concerns by posing such a closed-minded question.
Even assuming an ideal social scene might include the Greek system, is the debate whether or not we support single-sex organizations? Even if the campus supports single-sex houses, can we assume that members of two sexes, various races, religions and sexual orientations feel comfortable in the houses as they exist now? If they don't feel comfortable, is it even possible for committee to draft a plan for a "ideal social system" at Dartmouth? If we support the continued existence of single-sex houses, can we assume that the system as it exists now does not need reform?
The answer to all of these questions is a resounding no. We can't assume that by supporting "the continued existence" of a single-sex system, the campus supports the current system. We can't discover the ideal until we figure out what is really the problem. We need to openly discuss and address the Greek system as a community. While a vote is open to the community, it does not capture the spirit of what "community" should mean on this campus.
Why is the Assembly dividing our campus over an issue like the Greek system, when we are striving to bring students together through common goals, ideals and spirit?
Assembly members don't really want to hear my voice, or any of your voices. They want to get their hands on a statistic. They want to happily proclaim that Dartmouth students would not stand for a co-ed Greek system. Their proclamation may have some truth hidden in it, but is the truth of that statement worth all of the lies that the Assembly is effectively telling by leaving out the whole story?
I urge everyone to vote no on Thursday. It is not hypocritical for any member of the Greek system to do so or for anyone who is in a single-sex house. It is not "anti-Greek" or even "anti-single-sex" to vote no, because the Assembly has worded the question so poorly and has decided it doesn't want to hear the truth.
When you vote, perhaps you should consider that the definition of "continue" in the American Heritage Dictionary is "to remain in the same state, capacity or place." Therefore if you vote yes, you might be interpreted by some Assembly members as saying that the single-sex houses should exist exactly the way they are. "Continued existence" would imply that you like everything about single-sex houses the way they are now.
Voting no is easier. It means you want change. It means something isn't right. Something has to be reformed. It doesn't mean the abolition of single-sex organizations, but perhaps just the support for the eventual abolishment of the inherent problems within these organizations as they exist under the status quo.
The Assembly has insulted the intelligence of every member of this campus by making the issue of the Greek system so simplistic that it is meaningless.
Some moderates may feel they have no choice but to vote yes. This is how the Assembly wants it. I hope they can see another solution: voting no.
I am a moderate. I would like some form of a single-sex system. But I must vote my conscience. I want single-sex houses on campus, but I am voting against the single-sex system we have now. Voting no on Thursday is the only way I might express my desire for Greek system reform to the Assembly.
