COLUMN: Rushing to bestow judgement

From Mike Silver's, "Master of My Domain," Fall '98 From Mike Silver's, "Master of My Domain," Fall '98 For the last two weeks, the Greek system has captivated campus as fraternities and sororities fired their annual salvos to attract potential pledges. Guys were wined and dined, treated to pig roasts and even trips to strip clubs. Girls, on the other hand, engaged in a preordained system of registration and multiple rounds, one requiring them to visit all eight Panhellenic sorority houses during the process. Why is this issue pertinent to me? The whole gamut of emotions and perspectives has marked my relationship with the Greek system at Penn. Initial disappointment marked my freshman year as I rushed but did not receive a bid. Though perfectly content with my social life last year, I made the conscious decision to rush again and felt jubilation upon finally receiving a bid this past fall. Previously as an outsider, I wondered how the decision-making process worked and why I was rejected. Now as a current member of my fraternity's rush committee, it's almost eerie to be an insider. Critics will state that IFC rush is a Darwinian battle of the fittest: whoever has the best reputation and presents the most attractive rush events often emerges as the winner. Students indeed have free will in choosing where to rush, but remember that only a week exists for rushes to visit possibly over 30 houses. In that time, it's hard to get a full view of the system, and rushees may, therefore, settle on the houses with renown reputations and expensive rush events. On a positive note, however, IFC rush is extremely casual and honest. Unlike their female counterparts, guys don't have to make a concrete decision before spring semester begins that they are going to rush -- and thus can just test the waters without having to go through a whole formal process. And the fact that fraternities are allowed to interact with rushes outside the limits of the house allows brothers to get to know rushes' personalities on a deeper level than Panhel rush. As a result, brothers have a broader perspective from which to judge people. Panhel rush, on the other hand, seems fairer to all parties involved. Friends of mine in sororities make a convincing argument that sorority rush stands as far more democratic than fraternity rush and serves as the best way of insuring continuity in house membership. Mandated to visit all eight houses, rushes are forced to confront stereotypes and are given the opportunity to quell preconceived notions about particular houses. Allowing both rushes and houses make official cuts gives each party a significant say in the process. And by placing all houses on an initially equal footing, Panhel sororities are guaranteed a stable number of pledges year after year. But the drawbacks to the Panhel system remain in its rigidity, overly stringent rules and somewhat superficial nature. Panhel rules prohibit any sister from having verbal contact with rushes outside of the domain of the houses during the rush period, and rules on what sisters can give rushes go so far as to prohibit rushes from leaving houses with tissues. Girls who could reap the innumerable benefits of sorority membership at the University often refuse to rush because of the inherent formality of the process, which turns rush itself into a huge time commitment. And it stands virtually impossible for every sorority sister to intimately get to know over 500 rushes. While members of the Greek system can intelligently debate the merits of both rush processes, outside observers only see the outwardly superficial elements on display. Lacking knowledge of the complexity of the rush process, these people laugh at the parades of girls wearing black pants and hordes of guys drooling over the prospects of meeting Hooters girls. As a result, many people figure that what goes on during rush is indicative of everything that fraternities and sororities stand for. Previously biased with stereotypes about Greeks derived from popular culture (Animal House, for example) and pointing to isolated incidents of hazing and alcohol abuse gone awry (like those at Louisiana State University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology), many thus label the entire Greek system as a joke. Ignoring the positives and accentuating the negatives thus inhibits Greeks from working rationally to improve flaws in the rush process. Undue criticism only serves to ridicule honorable members of the Greek system whose reputations are sullied when the system as a whole is lambasted. More importantly, this trend further diminishes the myriad positive contributions the Greek system makes on our campus and to individuals. Both IFC and Panhel allow for countless leadership and community service opportunities. IFC pledge education includes compulsory study hours, house renovation projects and alcohol abuse seminars. Panhel sponsors valuable programs like Take Back the Night and rape awareness seminars, and it maintains a deeply ingrained support system of women. Finally, both systems heavily contribute to the social scene at the University. How could we refute the notion that the Greek system is a joke? Without a doubt, fraternities and sororities are not meant for everyone. I would thus encourage all those with preconceived notions of fraternities and sororities -- stereotypes perpetuated by an outside view of rush activities -- to either rush themselves or talk intimately with friends in the Greek system. In doing so, they could at least gain enough information about the rush process and the Greek system as a whole to make an informed judgement, thus inhibiting them from presumptuously labeling the system. And how could the Panhel and IFC rush processes be reformed in order to dispel the idea that rush is either a process of honesty and bribery or one of democracy and superficiality? For Panhel rush, more gradual changes like those made this year would be welcome. I applaud the new less stringent rules which made some events more casual, allowed open houses during Greek Week last fall and gave rushes more autonomy in narrowing down their choice of chapters. As for IFC rush, the easy solution would entail lengthening the rush period an extra week in order to allow rushes to attend a greater variety of open events. Rushes could then sample more houses and not feel pressured into attending only functions at the one or two houses with the best reputations or craziest events. This would introduce an element of fairness into the process which seemingly is more prevalent in the Panhel system. Nobody argues that the Greek system is perfect. But students shouldn't be discouraged from rush because of negative perceptions about Greek life at Penn or in general. They should be allowed to make a rational and conscious decision about whether fraternities or sororities can truly add to their overall college experience.