I’m sure glad I chose not to attend Emory University. I’m glad for many reasons, not the least of which is an aspect of campus life in which I never thought I’d partake: Greek Life. Say what you will about WU’s fraternities and sororities, but they could be a lot worse (and a lot better). They could be your stereotypical State-School-U institutions. Or they could be more like Emory’s, which all but codify a specific mode of dress for their members. A high school friend of mine at the Atlanta school is dating a sorority girl who owns eight pairs of “black pants.” Eight pairs!
Unfortunately, the WU administration, with the assistance of the Greek Life Office and the Interfraternity Council (IFC), has undertaken a series of steps designed to undermine our unique Greek culture. These steps include a requirement that all fraternity houses be sold to the University, more stringent standards for what is and is not acceptable during rush and pledge “education,” and the recently imposed “guidelines” regarding the opening of Fraternity Row. Some of these measures are commendable, others are not. This column will not directly address efforts to curb underage drinking, nor will it digress into a discussion of whether such drinking is inevitable. Rather, here I will take issue with a single guideline recently adopted by the Greek Life Office and implemented by the Interfraternity Council and the Row’s member fraternities: guest lists.
Historically, WU fraternities have been unique (if not alone) in their decision not to adopt guest lists at advertised parties. Each fraternity may have chosen to keep its parties open based upon different grounds, but they all reached the same conclusion: open parties, limited exclusivity. From this decision grew a sense of tolerance and of community. A fraternity may have a historic athletic or religious rivalry with another fraternity, but all are welcome at each other’s parties. Indeed, open parties may contribute to the relative lack of violent, physical, conflict between fraternity members at WU. Perhaps more importantly, open parties undermine the perception, always present, of Greeks as exclusive and set-aside from the larger campus population.
An administration legally responsible for the physical well being of university students can take legitimate measures to curb underage drinking. But requiring guest lists at parties – forcing elitism down the throats of reluctant fraternity members – is not one of them. Admitting students based upon whom they know or are related to is this university’s prerogative. It’s their house, so to speak. Admitting partygoers based upon whom they know or to whom they are related should be an individual fraternity’s prerogative. It’s our house. Unless, or course, the university bought it from us.
______________________
In each of the last three issues of Student Life, I’ve come under attack for an opinion in which I suggested government equalize funding in our nation’s public schools. I argued government should abandon the current system, based on property taxes, which privelegs primarily rich white students at the expense of primarily poor non-white pupils.
While space restrictions prevent me from addressing all of the arguments presented by my critics, let me respond to their most important arguments. In his letter, Dan McCarthy suggests that maybe I “have never met a working-class white person. There are a lot of white cab drivers, hotel doormen, and supermarket clerks.” In making this (patently false) claim, he overgeneralizes my argument. I did not suggest that ALL white people are priveleged, nor that ALL African-Americans are underpriveledged. Rather, statistically speaking, government spends more to educate a given white student than it does a non-white student. Were these disparities the natural product of hard work, as suggested by Scott Rogers in his letter, the situation would merely be unfortunate. As it was, a history of legal and institutional racial discrimination – in government programs, in private industry, and in personal relationships – led to the formation of affluent all-white suburbs and communities in which many of our nation’s best public schools are currently located.
One particular student sent me a piece of hate e-mail suggesting that I am a self-hater. Scott wrote that my theory is a “tired replay of the old White Guilt ploy.” Both claims are, to say the least, incorrect. Rather, not only am I proud of my heritage (see my prior piece in Student Life), but I advocate funding equity from my sense of justice, not from a sense of guilt. Finally, both Scott and Julia Kreyskop argue that I tell minorities they are victims, and “that their situation is hopeless and no amount of hard work will help.” A popular conservative argument, “victimization” overlooks the reality that real disrimination and inequality exist in our society. If anything, injustices minorities observe in daily life are much more likely to lead to the pessimistic attitude Scott discusses than is my opinion. For my part, I’ll continue to believe that drawing attention to societal problems only serves to facilitate the creation of solutions.