Editorial: How the rush ban can work

President Tilghman’s recent decision to ban freshman rush has excited both the supporters and opponents of the fraternities and sororities on campus. Advocates of Greek organizations see the measure as draconian — a thinly veiled attempt to cripple fraternities and sororities overall — while opponents question why the administration did not enact an outright ban. The Editorial Board has previously written against this prohibition, advocating instead a shift of rush to the second semester of freshman year, and we remain convinced that such a policy would be more effective at alleviating the problems that the University believes Greek organizations cause. Nonetheless, it seems unlikely that the University will repeal its recent decision in the near future. Thus, a more pressing concern is how the administration will implement this ban next fall.

In the coming months, Dean of Undergraduate Students Kathleen Deignan and a committee of students, faculty and staff will draft procedures for administering this prohibition. This new policy will only be effective if the University punishes offenders severely, likely threatening suspension or perhaps even expulsion for upperclassmen who organize freshman rush or haze younger students. However, the severity of these measures ought to be tempered when dealing with freshmen, for, unlike seniors or even sophomores, freshmen face unique social pressures and adjustment periods that make them likely to violate these measures even if they do not intend to flout University policy. Freshmen that are potentially confused about the policy might not be able to distinguish between a rush party and a simple event hosted by a fraternity, and such ambiguities ought not to lead overly harsh punishments for them.

This question of ambiguity speaks to another concern in implementing this prohibition: The committee must be sure to define illicit behavior, sharply delineating the outer limits of this ban, and must define what exactly constitutes a Greek organization. Potentially vague definitions pose a problem not only to unassuming freshmen, who are most likely to stumble into trouble, but also to the credibility of this policy overall. Respect for this ban will require the cooperation of Greek organizations and the University administration, but Greek organizations will be more likely to undermine these provisions if they see them as a license to discipline the fraternities and sororities rather than a ban on freshman rush only. Further, this Board recommends that the University allow those fraternities and sororities in compliance with the policy to access sophomore class listservs and to announce rush events to the entire class. These measures will make the whole process more transparent, decreasing the perception of secrecy and elitism while strengthening the Greek organizations’ relationship with the administration.

The precise contours of this prohibition remain vague, but it seems that a compromise can still be reached. In banning freshman rush, the University can diffuse social pressures and combat the creation of social hierarchies while still recognizing that by sophomore fall, undergraduates are mature enough to decide whether Greek life is right for them.