To the Editor:
I was amused to see a point/counterpoint in The Dartmouth on Tuesday, April 27 that did not involve any true clash of ideas. Josh Green '00 firmly supported the removal of the Greek System and Case Dorkey '99 supported its eventual removal. The argument was simply over time frame, not, as the title suggested, "Should the Greek System Go?"
Green's central point is that the campus has been polarized to the point of "zero compromise" by the issue. The outcome of that polarization is that the minority that opposes the Greek System feels marginalized. This may well be the case. However, what Green fails to note is why the Greek community adopted a "for us or against us" tone at the beginning of this debate.
Simply put, the Greek System was faced with extinction. Backed up against the wall and told they were negative, no-good and down right ugly. They were also threatened with the loss of their houses and the elimination of the social system they had created. In that environment, is it possible to compromise? Of course it isn't. As the debate evolved, so did the tone. Unfortunately, much polarization had already occurred, perhaps irrevocably.
No one in the Greek System feels that it is "OK" that people are unhappy, as Green implies. Many of those with whom I have spoken feel that there are concerns that others have that must be addressed. At the same time, many of those who are not happy with the current system express a desire to simply kill it.
Where is the compromise in that? I do not see it. And in so doing, we will be made "happier and healthier" according to Green. Is that what we need? To be made happier and healthier?
Perhaps we should prescribe anti-depressants and a low-fat/high-fiber diet to everyone entering Dartmouth College. This would clearly benefit the Dartmouth community, as relations between the sexes, races and religious fractions would almost certainly improve if we just were "healthier and happier."
Dorkey never really responds to this. Instead, his central point is whether we need to start anew or simply cleave out all that is metastasized from what we currently have. Again, this misses a major point. Either option destroys houses and organizations that people have worked to build up simply because some view them as negative.
One of Dorkey's proposals is combining some fraternities with sororities to make room for more sororities. Magically, a more equal mix of male, female and coed houses. He refers to this as "trade-offs," trade-offs he does not know how to make.
Why are these choices so difficult? Because many houses are privately owned, and it seems wrong to force people to sell something or give it up. And all were built up over time by people who cared about them and their direction.
Some would argue that that direction is misguided or has been perverted. People fall back on traditions, they are weak, uncreative. Perhaps. But that does not give anyone the right to steal those things away. Not in the name of community, or in the name of virtue or even in an outright declaration of power.
This is the point/counterpoint and the reason for polarization. Most agree that there are problems and inequalities but no one wants to give up the systems that they have established for themselves. This includes those who have clustered in what have been termed "alternate social systems" by some. No system is really an alternative to another to the person who has adopted that system. It is their system and their choice.
Why should we go about forcing people to change their systems? No one goes out and drags people to parties. No one is handed a drink and forced to consume it. Neither is Bach piped into every dorm room or vegetarian the only dining option. I think that we should all keep this in mind as we set about the process of defining Dartmouth, because it is that very freedom that enables the diverse community that makes this place thrive.
