For some reason, I've come across a couple of college guides recently during trips to bookstores. Curious as to what they say about my alma mater-to be, I always look for the page on Dartmouth College.
Naturally, they inevitably report that the academic experience Dartmouth offers far exceeds that of nearly every institution of higher learning. I'm more disheartened though, by the evaluations of the student body.
We're conformists, they claim. We "go along to get along," focused on climbing the social ladder and the corporate ladder, generally lacking a sense of individuality. Or at least they say so.
Well, is that true? After all, they haven't gone here for four years. I, on the other hand, have. Well, I have mixed feelings at best. I've had a number of friends with whom I've had good times. I've found myself stimulated intellectually on many occasions here. But, if I were asked, I would have to say I find that the proposition about Dartmouth students is more true than false.
What would cause me, you might ask, to make such a statement? Well, a lot of things, the most recent of which is Steve Schmidt '97's column urging '99s to join houses, particularly men to join fraternities.
I'm not as disheartened by the arguments Schmidt makes as I am by the idea that some people may be swayed by those arguments. The litany of reasons he lists to join the Greek system, particularly the fraternity system, either inadvertently or intentionally, play to all the "go along to get along" tendencies of students here.
"Keep the beer flowing," he says. If you let your desire for free beer cloud your judgment about whether or not you want to surrender part of your identity to a house and a system you may otherwise object to, then you should probably stop reading here. I don't really have anything further to say to you.
Schmidt implies that you can't really have lasting friendships here without a Greek house, but there's definitely a need to evaluate that statement. If you can only gain friendship with someone by having them humiliate you and treat you like dirt and then ask you to bribe them in the form of membership dues to be considered for their friendship, then what are those sorts of bonds worth? Some of them may of course be your friends anyway, but any friendship wholly contingent on forced subordination and money is worth nothing.
He implies that joining the Greek system is a way to "stand up to the administration." Well, if anyone remembers their middle school days, they will recall that it can be far tougher to stand up to the sort of peer pressure Schmidt is trying to employ than to anything Dean Lee Pelton or College President James Freedman might wish you to do. If his illogic fools you, you're the kind of patsy that advertising agencies drool over. If you really want to stand up for yourself, I might suggest refusing to contribute financially to a system of formally organized peer pressure.
Many will doubtless dismiss this piece as a perfect example of "political correctness," meaning an attempt to stifle debate about a subject through one form of intimidation or another. However, the best example of "political correctness" on this campus doesn't come from the feminists or even Parkhurst, but actually is exhibited by defenders of the Greek system. The very same people who are so quick to attack "political correctness" are the same ones who jump down the throats of anyone who dares question the motives or actions of the Greek system or of its constituent houses. If you don't believe me now, just wait for the barrage of angry responses to this column.
My experiences with the CFSC and the Greek system and its members have indicated that a siege mentality has developed among Greeks -- a phenomenon usually but not always explained in terms of an allegedly hostile College administration. Talk of "territories," "borders," and "insiders" and "outsiders" abounds.
Are these "us vs. them" mentalities that seem endemic to this system of social organization healthy? Is it any wonder, then, that this system provides a framework where alcohol addiction and sexual violence are accepted norms, or at the very least not regarded as major problems? Is there a better way of establishing campus social life rather than this enforced segregation by gender, which is practiced by the majority, possibly for no reason other than inertia? Can the status quo be defended on some basis stronger than simple "tradition?" Will we ever find out? The political discourse on this campus has seldom, if ever, actually addressed these questions.
My message to '99s is this: please at least consider staying independent. If enough of you do, maybe things will change for the better, or maybe a better way to organize campus social life will be found.
In a world where "give in" and "give out" are often the only two options, this may be your only chance to make yourself heard. You not only owe it to yourself, but to countless numbers of future students who will feel they have no choice but to be sheep. Think twice and think hard. If even one '99 heeds these words, all the nasty looks I'll be getting between now and commencement for these words will be worth it to me.
