Greek life: Let it be

President Tilghman recently announced her decision to ban freshmen from rushing and “affiliating” with Greek organizations, effectively dealing a fatal blow to Princeton’s fraternities and sororities. In a letter to students, she explained that, “[the decision] is driven primarily by a conviction that social and residential life at Princeton should continue to revolve around the residential colleges, the eating clubs and the shared experience of essentially all undergraduates living and dining on campus.” But this is a red herring, and she’s not fooling anyone.

Eric Schmidt ’76, executive chairman of Google, recently said, “Whatever the underlying problem is, the Internet is a reflection of that problem.” So look no further than The Daily Princetonian’s comments section to understand the topic of the real debate. There, hidden behind pseudonyms, students, alumni and faculty members are having an open and honest discussion. It goes something like this: “We should ban fraternities and sororities because they are [white, wealthy, preppy, alcoholics, exclusive, etc.]” In essence, many people look at the fraternities and sororities and see the old boy’s network staring back. They don’t like it. And as a fraternity member, I can admit that there is some validity to these concerns. So why don’t we just have that conversation?

The truth is the administration does not want to have a candid dialogue. It’s messy. If fraternities are white then the badminton team is Asian. If fraternities are preppy then so are the a cappella groups. If fraternities are rich then so are the legacy students from Andover. If fraternities isolate themselves then so do the athletic teams. If fraternities are [white, wealthy, preppy, alcoholics, exclusive, etc.] then so are numerous other Princeton organizations, teams and groups. So why are Greek organizations being attacked while the others are spared?

Well, because President Tilghman controlled the conversation. She picked the questions, asking students to submit their views to a closed website on which there was no community debate and you could not see anyone else’s submissions (even though they were anonymous). She controlled the information, hiding the survey data and results from the Princeton community. She controlled the discussion, by creating a “Working Committee” that was co-chaired by Princeton’s vice presidents and prohibited its members from talking about the group’s discussions. And she controlled the outcome, announcing her decision in a vague email to students. So much control, but to what end? If President Tilghman had fostered an open and honest dialogue, the discussion would have looked very different. And, more importantly, it would have yielded a much more productive and effective result. But she didn’t — the administration gave the lecture and skipped the precept. And that is disappointing.

President Tilghman can deal the “frat star” a slow and painful death, but until you ask the tough questions and have the ugly conversations, the institutionalized problems — the old boy’s network, the elitism, the exclusivity — will live on. Period. Every year the number of students admitted from Exeter is in the double-digits. And this feeder relationship exists with a number of other elite private schools. So to those rejoicing over the demise of the Greeks, what are you excited about? You may no longer see pledges running through lecture halls in their underwear, but you are naive if you think the “WASPs” are going to take up Salsa lessons in the Whitman Theatre.

That is the worst part of this whole debacle. President Tilghman’s decision is hurting the members of the Greek community — no, the Princeton community — that are the most innocent. Banning rush will not encourage the reclusive elites to join the greater Princeton community. And the freshmen from feeder schools will be just fine. They will already know plenty of current students that graduated from their alma maters who can help them navigate the intricacies of the Princeton social scene. But people like me — from urban public high schools that rarely send students to the “Ivies” — who cannot sing, make horrible jokes and do not want to write more than they already do in writing seminar, are left with fewer options when they arrive on campus.

All that being said, I guess what I really want to say is, “Why does anyone care if Greek life exists?” I mean, really. Even if you think fraternity members are derelict buffoons, let them be. Their “barbaric,” “immature” ways do not imperil your Princeton experience. It is the same reason why the argument against same-sex marriage bothers me. If two men want to get married, you should not be able to forbid it just because it does not align with your values. The debate over Greek life is similar. If you think sorority girls are silly, then laugh at them, but do not ban them because your activities are “superior.” Paternalism is not progressive, and it is not Princeton. If I wanted my educators — or fellow classmates — to have convictions about how I should socialize, I would have gone to West Point or Brigham Young University. But I didn’t, and I am damn disappointed that I was misled.

Josh Miller is a sociology major from Santa Monica, Calif. He can be reached at joshuam@princeton.edu.