The Cavalier daily Tuesday, February 17, 1970 | ||
Favorites
The danger in writing about sororities is
that of being tagged with the despised label of
male chauvinism, an epithet that anyone
would do well to avoid. Nonetheless, we feel
that there are some things that must be said
about them before they become entrenched.
Sororities, like fraternities, are in many ways
anachronistic and detrimental to the best
interests of the University; and they are here
now.
We base this opinion, of course, not on
observation of the lone sorority here, but on
the record that sororities have achieved at
other institutions, particularly Southern
schools. Quite often they are petty, snobbishly
exclusive, academically unproductive
marriage bureaus. They are effective in things
like Greek Week sack races, Homecoming
Queen competitions and forcing the members
to conform to the particular house ethos.
They make a big thing of sisterhood but will
callously turn on a girl who dates an
unacceptable man, wears unacceptable
clothes, or otherwise "damages the image of
the sorority." They are a relic from another
time, and, obviously, we feel that the
University would be better off without them.
But as long as there are fraternities on the
Grounds, it would be unfair and unreasonable
for the University to deny sororities to
students who wish to join them or start new
chapters. The chances are that there will be
such women, girls who have come from high
school sororities, who feel socially insecure
upon entering the University and to whom
joining a sorority becomes an appealing idea.
So, if national sororities are willing to loan the
money and the students are willing to
organize the chapters, we should be seeing our
first Pan-Hellenic car wash within a few years.
This is not what coeducation is supposed
to bring to the University. The idea, as we see
it, (apart from granting women their right to
attend a public institution) is to provide an
environment wherein the sexes may mingle
naturally in social and academic pursuits; a
system of fraternities and sororities would
simply make for shorter road trips. But the
exclusion of sororities is not a feasible option
so long as there are fraternities; and
fraternities are likely to be around until their
houses cave in or they die of irrelevance.
We think that the natural idea, if not the
traditional one, would be the entrance of
women into the fraternity system. At first
blush, the idea may seem scandalous and
impractical. Some minds will immediately
envision harems and concubines. Others will
wonder if women will be willing to have their
derrieres painted in the house colors along
with the rest of the pledges during Hell Week.
But the hope is that with the inclusion of
women fraternities will move beyond dreams
of harems and painting pledges.
Women would, we think, tend to modify
some of the less civilized aspects of fraternity
life in a way that would be beneficial to the
houses. No longer would broken windows go
unreplaced for weeks on end; fraternity men
might see the disadvantages of drinking
themselves unconscious more clearly; and the
pledging system would have to be
substantially modified. All of these things
would benefit the fraternities, even though
some might grumble at the passing of the old
ways. Even the grumblers, however, would
hardly complain at the financial windfall that
coeducation could provide for the houses.
Women could obviously not live in most of
the houses. They would, however, take their
meals there, pay dues, and contribute to the
support of house functions instead of coming
along for free as they do now. A few houses
might have trouble with their nationals about
making such a radical change in the
membership standards, but few of the
University's fraternities have ever let the
wishes of national headquarters deter them
from something they really wished to do.
Would the women, however, be willing to
join the fraternities? This may well be a
dubious proposition. Certainly no woman in
her right mind would join most of the houses
as they are now constituted. And the parents
of first-year women would most likely have
their doubts about the propriety of such an
arrangement. The fraternities would, however,
provide a prospective female member with a
ready circle of friends of both sexes.
Moreover, the men would more often be
friends rather than dates, and this would be to
the advantage of both groups. The women
would be joining an established concern
without the problems of organization and
housing procurement; although they would
not live in houses initially, the fraternities
could replace their present quarters as they
wore down with buildings designed with
coeducational living in mind.
Other universities have tried experiments
such as these with varying results. At many
schools, the fraternity structure has proven
too inflexible to adjust to coed living, and the
students have opted for less formal communal
arrangements. In whichever way eventually
evolves, however, the trend seems to be
toward small-group coeducational living. This
trend, sooner or later, will make itself felt at
the University. Its response may take the form
of residential colleges, coed dorms, or
something else; but whatever happens, it's
time that the mutually exclusive sorority or
fraternity be laid to rest.
The Cavalier daily Tuesday, February 17, 1970 | ||