n current brouhaha about the future of the Greek system, none of the factions seems to have taken into account something that Dean Larimore and President Wright clearly spelled out in their letters last month after the College’s derecognition of Zeta Psi fraternity: the Principle of Community.
The College does not exist to ensure that each individual who consents to be a member of its community has the ability to do whatever he or she wants. It is a private institution that can exclude members based upon whatever criterion it deems valid. This is the central feature of the Principle of Community: if the College deems something that a member of its community does detrimental to the community as a whole, the College can and should ask members to cease that behavior.
Defenders of the Greek system argue that the College should be held to the same standards as the federal government. They argue that the College cannot ban students from belonging to same-sex organizations because it would abridge their freedom of association, a constitutionally guaranteed right. What these people misunderstand or ignore is the fact that the College is not the federal government; it is a private organization that can create its community by whatever standards it chooses. If an individual disagrees with the community’s principles, they have the right to forfeit their membership. Dean Larimore verbalizes this idea in his May 11 letter to the community: “Dartmouth has the right and the obligation to remove from its residential life system an organization that will not conform to the standards of that system.”
The necessity and legitimacy of the College’s ability to enforce a Principle of Community is all the more clear given the freedom of association doublespeak employed by pro-Greek people. They vehemently argue that frats and sororities should be able to do whatever they want because they are private groups of individuals, yet they fail to see or refuse to accept that the College, too, is a private group that can do whatever it wants. The converse is also true: if there is such a big problem with the College saying that it can do whatever it wants, then maybe we should be more suspicious of the claim made by Greeks that they should be able to do whatever they want.
The Greek system’s detrimental effect on campus gender relations also illustrates why it should not be able to do whatever it wants. Recent public displays of Greek-related sexism are but the tip of the iceberg; most sexism within the Greek system is far more insidious. Sexist remarks and degrading stares are but a few of the symptoms of the unhealthy gender relations encouraged and perpetuated by the Greek system at Dartmouth. The notion that a house can be a place for social interaction on equal ground, while it is used primarily as a single sex forum and the rules are set entirely by people of one sex, is laughable.
My argument is not some essentialist notion that women need to be members of fraternities to "emasculate" or "neuter" those "rowdy frat boys." On the contrary, I feel that the same thing happens or has the potential to happen in sororities. Whenever people exist disconnected from those different from them, a gap is created between those groups. It becomes much easier to make degrading jokes about someone or an entire group of people when they are far away, doing the same thing in their own basement. People can become objects to joke about when they are far away. The division of the sexes in the existing Greek system invites a "herd mentality" to develop in and overrun the mind and conscience of otherwise respectful, well-intentioned people.
This is not to say that the Greek system is without merit or that I agree in totality with those who protest it. In fact, I agree that there is something to be said for forming a close-knit group of friends to share one’s most intimate experiences and feelings with. This group should not, however, necessarily be comprised only of members of one sex, nor should it be a forum to degrade others; I feel that the single sex Greek system turns close friendships into such an institution.
The polarized gender relations that exist on Dartmouth’s campus are not simply a problem that results from social relations; the Zetemouth is not the norm of social interaction between men and women in almost any other community I am aware of. When the ability of members of the Dartmouth community to interact on an equal plane in a civil, respectful manner is abridged, as I feel it is by the existence of a single sex Greek system, institutional action is justified. In this case, the Administration must put an end to sex-based exclusion. By living coed, we can begin turning relationships with members of the opposite sex into productive ones characterized by mutual respect and friendship.
