Op-Ed: The Greek System, Debunked
September 22, 2016
Sometimes when I vocally question the role of the Greek system at Whitman, I feel like a radical. But then I remember that there are tons of colleges like us–small, progressive, thoughtful–that have made the decision to transition away from a Greek-dominated social structure.
I believe that Whitman has the potential to be a space for all students to have a voice. I believe that we can build organic communities that foster confidence and self-motivation. And I believe that Whitman has the power to change ourselves for the better and work to solve the various questions we currently face.
So, the letter. To my knowledge, the letter was not created to instigate a battle between Greeks and non-Greeks, but rather to highlight a divide that Greek life itself creates. The letter is in part intended to bring alternative voices that haven’t been a part of the recruitment conversation to light.
In Politics Senior Sem., we are encouraged to think about how debates are framed. A typical class question might be: How do the discourses around X shape a certain social groups’ ‘deservingness’ of a voice? Or, how do the discourses around X shape our conception of what is and isn’t politically ‘realistic?’
These questions hold relevance in our discussions around Greek life. When asked how Whitman College benefits from the Greek system, people most frequently respond with notions of community and brother/sisterhood. Second, is networking and alumni connections.
So what do discourses around Greek life say about who at Whitman is more ‘deserving’ of a voice? Using community and alumni networking to justify the existence of the Greek system preferences the experiences of those who are Greek. It follows that what is good for the Greek person is good for the community as a whole. Rarely are the advertised benefits advantageous to the entire Whitman community.
It’s clear that there are positive qualities or results from the Greek system for those affiliated, but how does it benefit the entire Whitman community? In my experience, the two most cited reasons are philanthropy and safe and centralized parties.
If this were Politics Senior Sem, an eager student might raise their hand at this point and ask; how do discourses around Greek life produce conceptions of what is and isn’t politically ‘realistic?’ In other words, using philanthropy and safe parties to justify the existence of the Greek system suggests that we could not have these benefits in its absence (i.e. it’s politically ‘unrealistic’). However, these benefits are politically realistic and can absolutely be achieved through other avenues. Whitman does not depend on Greek life for philanthropy and safe parties.
Thus, I draw two conclusions. First, just because members of the Greek system benefit from its existence in certain ways does not mean that the Greek system is good for the college as a whole. Second, just because the Greek system has certain positive contributions to the community does not mean that those results could not be achieved by other means.
Moving away from Greek life isn’t a radical prospect. Rather, it’s a strategic one.
indie lady • Sep 22, 2016 at 7:59 pm
your conclusions are each missing something necessary to compellingly demonstrate why Whitman shouldn’t have Greek life:
1) How Greek life is bad for Whitman and its community. You’ve demonstrated that the existence of benefits for its members doesn’t mean there are benefits for everyone. But I mean…duh?The statement “Greek life benefits those who are a part of it” already obviously doesn’t include nonmembers. Not sure why we need an op-ed to explain grammar and pretend it’s an argument. So absent a reason why Greek life is harmful to the community writ large (which would include harm to Greek members, presumably), there’s no reason why we should deny people the benefits of Greek life.
2) What’s wrong with the Greek system’s current provision of the two community-wide benefits you isolate. Obviously the fact that Greek life offers these benefits doesn’t mean it’s the only system that could. But why search for a better system if the current one seems to be working and no disadvantage to it is offered? What is strategic about moving away from Greek life if that doesn’t rectify some problem?
I’m not saying these arguments don’t exist. I’m saying that this op-ed doesn’t make those arguments. I’d rather Whitman not have greek life too. But I think you weaken the case for eliminating Greek life with these non-arguments.
Honestly, there are worse issues with Greek life and better reasons to abolish it. How about how much worse Whitman’s greek life is for sororities than frats? How about supporting organizations that, on a national level, are really fucked up? How about how arbitrary the emphasis on gender bonding is and how exclusionary that is to nonbinary people?
Greek life (esp. if you have a house) gives you a lot of opportunities for leadership, community and campus engagement, exploring cooperative living. Personally, I think off-campus parties are way more dangerous in terms of sexual violence and there’s at least some structure of assault prevention, however flawed it is, at Greek parties. You’re right we don’t need them for these benefits. So make them co-ops open to all genders or lack thereof.