by Nina Bahadur
Recently, the University announced that they will be banning freshmen in the Class of 2016 and subsequent years from taking part in the “rush” process for Greek organizations. Greek life is not officially recognized by the Princeton administration, but three sororities and eleven fraternities are active on campus and traditionally recruit freshman new members in the fall or early spring of the school year. Currently, it is unclear what form this rush ban will take. Presumably, non-freshman students caught conducting rush processes in which freshmen are involved will be subject to disciplinary action, as will the rushees themselves.
Full disclosure: I am in a Princeton sorority. As a freshman, my experiences in the Greek system at Princeton were unspeakably valuable. I am disappointed that other students will be denied similar experiences in the future, but that is not the main reason I am upset with the impending ban. The University claims that the ban is designed to prevent freshmen from narrowing their circle of friends prematurely, and that it will tackle the noble issue of socioeconomic stratification amongst students along with the sense of social exclusivity and privilege that students who participate in Greek life are assumed to hold. There are some elements of truth here; there are also a number of assumptions being made.
I am personally not convinced that Greek communities truly and irrevocably stratify students by race or class. Inevitably, students who are able to pay Greek dues are those who have access to some sort of disposable income. Princeton accepts a great number of privileged students, and membership in a community that requires some financial contribution reflects this. However, this does not mean that one must be, or should be, from a wealthy family to be a part of Greek life at Princeton. A number of Greek people I know work an extra campus job in order to pay their dues themselves, rather than relying on their families.
As for racial stratification, consider this. Does the administration criticize other student groups who are made up of a certain racial majority, by name or by nature? Consider the Society of Black Engineers, Triple 8, or Naacho. None of these groups discriminate against potential members due to their race, but it’s undeniable that there is a certain racial majority within them. But, because the racial majorities of these groups are non-white, it is not perceived as a problem. I don’t think that Greek life operates under a spoken or unspoken policy of white preference any more than I think PSAT has a policy of South Asian preference.
And then we have gender. By being all-male or all-female, Greek communities exclude those who identify as the “incorrect” gender. However, is this more problematic than Expressions being an all-female dance group, or the Nassoons an all-male a cappella group? There are plenty of co-ed groups, not to mention fraternity-esque societies, that Princeton students can pursue. To attack sororities and frats for being single-sex seems unfair, given the single-sex status of so many other campus groups. So, while I agree that the issues of class and race stratification are much more complex and require a great deal more dialogue, the argument that gender stratification of certain groups is a problem that prevents freshmen from making friends does not resonate with me whatsoever.
Gender, race, and class aside, my problem lies with the message that the administration is sending through their justification of the ban: that freshmen are too naive to make their own decisions regarding their social affiliations. The ban is being packaged as a piece of social justice, for the good of Princeton students. But why do freshmen need this administrative interference, this “protection”? Should an 18-year-old coming to a world-renowned university be treated like a child, or should they be informed and left to make their own decisions?
Yes, freshmen are “fresh” — an 18-year-old does not an emotionally mature adult make. It is also true that, when it comes to Greek life, getting credible information is very difficult. Part of the mystery lies in the fact that Greek life, by necessity, operates under the radar. I can, from a practical point of view, understand why the administration worries about unsavory elements of Greek life. However, I simply cannot agree with an administrative decision to limit freshmens’ personal choices.
I would hope that Princeton accepts students who they perceive to be young adults, not children. I hope that they accept students who know the difference between right and wrong, who are not afraid to say “no”, who try new things, who broaden their horizons, and who stand up for what they want and what they believe. When it comes to Greek life, the majority of Princeton students do say “no”. To suggest that enough of those who participate in Greek life as freshmen are too young to know better, and would make a different choice if they were forced to wait a year, calls into question the intelligence and decision-making capability of Princeton freshmen.
As an 18-year-old, I needed guidance, and I needed a safety net when things went wrong. The University provided both of those things adequately. What I did not need, and certainly would not have appreciated, was a blanket policy telling me that I was too young to make a choice for myself — that I needed to wait until next year, for my own good. Why? Because I would be unable to withstand certain pressures. Because I could not be trusted to make the right decisions for myself. Because if I made a decision I regretted, I would not be able to extricate myself from the situation. Because I was… a freshman.
Photo from specvthis‘s flickr
First they came for the communists….
My point being that freedom of association has been trampled over both legally and socially without, I would venture to say, much of an outcry from progressive-types. Anti-discrimination laws are a prominent example. Also notable is the Boy Scouts v. Dale case, where if I am not mistaken the left-leaning response at the Boy Scouts being able to exclude gay leaders was short of joyful. In fact I think few of your co-bloggers would take your side on this question.
Perhaps having your own freedom compromised by heavy-handed morality from on high will make a good lesson.
Are you suggesting that having my freedom of association limited is something I deserve because I have not suffered it before (or at least you assume that to be the case)? Or that I would accept/support the Dale vs. Boy Scouts outcome because I identify as left-leaning? Both suggestions are absurd.
Furthermore, the individuals who blog for Equal Writes are not part of some hive mind where we all have the same views. My co-bloggers are more than welcome to disagree with me, perhaps many do. But I don’t think that any of them would tell me I deserve the “lesson” of “heavy-handed morality from on high”.
Deserve got nothin to do with it.
My point was simply that the value of certain freedoms and rights are often is often not appreciated until the restriction of them is up close and personal. When that happens, suddenly people start singing another tune. And while I could be mistaken, I’m pretty confident that most bloggers here, and indeed most college students, aren’t all up in arms about the infringement of your freedom to, say, openly discriminate against women when hiring. Yet freedom of association becomes an important value for you when it is your own freedom that is threatened.
Thus, your experience with ST might lead you to ponder the wisdom of authoritarian interventions in private lives done to implement someone’s idea of the social good. Perhaps you had already learned that lesson…but I doubt it
P.S. To clarify, Dale is most certainly NOT a decision I would expect a left-leaning person to support.
I agree with G.
There’s something you’re missing. See what there is in this ‘lesson’ for you to learn. The goggles you’re seeing through are goggles of privilege, of being in the ‘in’ group. If you were in the ‘out’ group, then you’d see how greek communities do stratify by race and class. And comparing it to Black Engineers group is missing the point. Groups like that are often formed because those members don’t find support in existing groups that exclude them.
Your whole argument is sounding so similar to the affirmative action argument – that it’s reverse racism. And the reason, psychologically, that most white people have against affirmative action, is that they see it in terms of what they are losing, and not the bigger picture.
I don’t follow. Affirmative action is racist in the sense that it treats people of some races more favorably than it treats others. There’s no denying that; what people would argue about is whether being racist is necessarily wrong. At a low level racial discrimination seems distasteful at best, but if you look at “the bigger picture” maybe it starts to seem justified, even morally required.
Isn’t it curious, though, that this case of “reverse” racism also reverses the political sides–you have the right pleading for equal treatment and the left not only condoning but urging racial discrimination. Almost as if social animals think in terms of people they like or dislike instead of principles they can reason about.
You are making this argument, that one’s group affiliation dominates everything else. But the author could as easily turn that around on you–claim that your views are dictated by your group affiliation, which I infer is not one you feel is mainstream. Thus is Marxism defeated.
My point was that personal experience can let you look at things in a different light. I doubt that anyone is going to start protesting the 1964 Civil Rights Act, etc., because of their experience, but it might help them have a more nuanced view of things.