The institution of Greek life, undeniably, has been built on the systematic exclusion of those who do not fit the mold of society’s “normal” and “desirable” classes, including Black and brown people, disabled people, people from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds, and members of the LGBTQ+ communities. 

In fact, that’s the whole point of the rushing process. Those that have been accepted into the institution select others who they deem worthy of entrance and community. Mirroring the slow progression of our society, more and more of those previously mentioned classes have been accepted into Greek communities (though the majority of Greek life remains disproportionately rich and white and notoriously cisgender and straight). 

Advocates for reforming Greek life point to such progress as evidence for their cause, framing the Abolish Greek Life movement as a collection of radicals that are seeking to tear down an inherently good institution. 

While progress is certainly nothing to be scoffed at, proponents of reforming Greek life ignore the fact that our society will always have people who do not fit the mold of “normal” and “desirable,” and that the very idea of Greek life is to only accept those who fit that mold. We must examine the rush process, in which prospective brothers and sisters must prove to various fraternities and sororities that they are likable, relatable, and desirable enough to be offered a bid. 

Though I understand that each fraternity and sorority may have their own specific criteria when judging the members worthy of accepting a bid, the core of Greek life is social. It is not academic or professional, so it does not need to strive for any semblance of objectivity. Greek organizations are not basing their selections upon merit or effort, but more upon a variety of factors, mostly subjective qualities revolving around snap judgements of character.

So, what is the logical end of a selection process in which members are looking for people that they think will fit a certain kind of “vibe”? What happens when members are essentially choosing new people to recruit based on who they click with and who they think would be the “right fit” for the organization? In other words, who do we think that Chad from Sarasota will like more: Brad from Miami or Rajesh from rural Illinois? Social psychology (or basic common sense, take your pick) tells that these members will end up choosing recruits that are most like themselves in terms of  personality, background, and shared interests. As my social psychology professor (shoutout Professor Calvin Lai) would always say, birds of a feather flock together.

Given that this social subjectivity seems to be at the core of Greek life and its claims of “creating a community,” is it any wonder that members of the abolition movement are skeptical of reformist efforts? Fraternities today are undeniably more inclusive, allowing for people of different races and sexual orientations to join. One only has to hear stories about WashU in the 80s and 90s or even just ten years ago to understand that fact. But I argue that they will never truly be diverse. As an inherently exclusive social organization, Greek life’s commitment to inclusivity rings incredibly hollow. The existence of people of color in an organization is not proof that the organization is accepting of their background and identity. It seems like the structural equivalent of saying “I can’t be racist, I have a Black friend, and I voted for Barack Obama.”

At the end of the day, Greek life fosters a home and community in which people from low socio-economic backgrounds or people who want to express identities that are not seen as mainstream are not going to be fully welcome. 

To the credit of some of those in Greek life, particularly some sororities at WashU, this is not for lack of trying. Often, the individuals participating in these organizations turn out to be incredibly kind and understanding. However, the nature of facilitated social interactions, the kind that Greek organizations are built on, make this exclusion inevitable. How can an organization built upon the idea of social exclusion, that some people deserve material benefits because they fit the vibe, ever be inclusive enough to include those of us that don’t fit their mold?