We all know the stereotypes: the bakers, the pearl-sporting polo wearers, the girls who can out-drink the boys. Dartmouth's sororities have always been a source for the endless parade of labels, and I think most of the women about whom these stories are told are pretty tired of hearing them. But to what extent are these stereotypes true?
The only stereotype that I can say with certainty is true is that all the houses associated with the Panhellenic Council are homogenous; the sorority scene is dominated by white women, the vast majority of whom are heterosexual. In my house alone, I think I can count the number of minority women without removing my shoes. Friends in other houses have said that they don't have a single member who is African American, and they can't seem to think of even one sister who is openly gay.
Over lunch the other day, a few of my girlfriends and I started discussing this problem. We're all in different houses, and we all see the inherent problem in the lack of diversity. If a gay woman walks into a house where she knows everyone is heterosexual, plays pong with friends amidst talk of who is taking which guy to formal, she will naturally feel less comfortable. Even the most self-proclaimed open and tolerant of houses will still evoke an aura of exclusivity. The sororities seem to have adopted the mentality of "do as I say, not as I do," and while I think all they mean well, none of them are showing us with their actions that they truly believe what they're saying during rush.
My friends and I pondered this question over lunch, and all of us agreed that something had to be done. Is recruitment the answer? This is inherently fraught with problems, of course. Rush, at least as I see it, is an individualized process where each girl is evaluated on the basis of whether she would be a good fit for the house. If someone's personality doesn't mesh with the current sisters, but she's an African American rushee, is a house obligated to give her a bid simply to create racial diversity? I would argue the answer is no; sisters want to create a space in the spirit of togetherness, and anyone who doesn't fit into that vision should not become a member of the house.
However, the problem with letting people come naturally to the house is that by virtue of the fact that there are very few minority women who rush, there will naturally be fewer of them who will be eligible to join, which of course translates into fewer minority sisters. One of my lunchtime friends suggested that at first, minority and gay students should be recruited, or rather, aggressively sought after, so that there would be a "base" to build off of in the future. That way, if a homosexual woman were to start the rush process, she would know that there are current sisters who are like her, and that a particular house would be a safe, understanding space in which she could thrive.
What needs to happen first is a subtle change in language within the houses themselves. For example, instead of talking about formals in terms of what guy a sister is bringing, the discussion should be about who a sister chooses to invite. Say, "Who was your date last night?" instead of "What was his name?" While I generally despise the term "politically correct," I think that we need to respect what the phrase originally meant, and use our language to include all women, no matter who they are.
We can open the houses up to cultural events; do joint events with the more ethnically-based sororities. The opportunities are there; what needs to exist is a willingness to admit that maybe, just maybe, the sororities can be improved by adding sisters with depth of experience in many different areas -- not just those who can wield a pong paddle with the deadliest force.
I think the intentions are there, but the sororities need to start making good on their commitment to creating safe, fun spaces for all women.
