Thinking of college, many visions enter the mind - parties, beer, books and all-nighters to name a few. But overshadowing all of these collegiate forces is a monumental establishment - the committee, of which we have thousands. Here at Dartmouth, when we have a problem, you can count on the formation of a committee, or subcommittee or task force to look into the options for solving it.
The committee of the week, undoubtedly, is the Committee for Diversity and Community at Dartmouth, which recently released a 39-page report detailing its suggestions on promoting diversity here in Hanover. The last two pages of the report center on the need for an evaluation of some of the apparent problems that are entrenched in our Greek system. Among other things, the report accuses the system of fostering anti-intellectualism, homophobia, sexism and racism.
These findings spawned a response from a number of the prominent Greek leaders on campus. What was this response, you ask? Naturally, they are forming their own committee to conduct an evaluation, just as the CDCD suggests, called the Greek Life Evaluation Committee. This new committee is the brainchild of five junior Greek council presidents, Chris Donley of the Co-ed Fraternity Sorority Council, Scott Swenson of the InterFraternity Council, Liz Shor of the Co-ed Council, Melissa Trumbull of the Panhellenic Council and Hosea Harvey of the National Pan Hellenic Council.
The purpose of the Greek committee is to investigate the current state of the Greek system and discuss the validity of the common allegations which are present in such media as the CDCD report. This committee will be comprised of Greek leaders who will take a look at the system from within, while inviting input from both pro- and anti-Greek outsiders, such as the Student Assembly and the Dartmouth Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Organization. In addition, the Greek committee will make use of questionnaires to gauge general public opinion on issues.
One would think that this effort would be welcomed, since it is ideally an attempt to bring about change from within the Greek system itself. We see quite the opposite from The Dartmouth. The D's house editorial of January 26 attacked the Greek committee as an example of "defensiveness under the guise of a 'pro-active' appearance." In addition, the editorial took the position that no one would accept the Greek committee's recommendations as an "objective, fair and accurate self-appraisal."
What exactly is the problem with a Greek self-evaluation? The Greek committee's objective is not the problem for those who hold the viewpoints of the editorial. Their argument is based on the belief that the Greek committee cannot critique its own system objectively.
Never mind that the Committee on Diversity and Community had no representatives from the IFC or Panhellenic Council. The conclusions reached by the CDCD are just fine because the diversity committee members were predominantly anti-Greek and therefore biased in a good way. Also never mind that "evaluation" is what the CDCD calls for and that is just what the Greek committee intends to do.
The editorial universally accepts the recommendations of the CDCD while dubbing the Greek committee self-evaluation as an attempt to "save the [Greek] system and make life dandy for everyone." First, the system does not need to be "saved." It is alive and well and will not simply be swept under the carpet because some committee thinks it is an obstacle to diversity. And second, bias is bias whether it's pro- or anti-Greek. Some would say that the Greek committee will not achieve any valid results because of its bias while others hold that the CDCD was biased and its findings were erroneous to begin with.
Emerging from this committee mess, however, is an overwhelming concept. Change is a necessary component of any organization in order for survival, but that change must happen within the organization itself in order to be substantive. As CFSC President Donley said, "You can't force change on someone else."
There is nothing wrong with the Greek committee's plan. We should wait and see what its findings are before making premature attacks on the supposed interests of its members. It is a bit ridiculous that some would discard the Greek committee even while it is only in the formative stages. In the long run, though, none of this will make a large mark on our lives. The Trustees are not going to yank the rug from under the Greek houses anytime soon because for every committee which says Greeks are bad, there's another which will say Greeks are good.
So the moral is: All we are saying is give Greeks a chance.
