YOU CAN’T SIT WITH US! AN ANALYSIS OF SYSTEMIC EXCLUSION IN GREEK ORGANIZATIONS

An opinion piece that questions the ethics of Greek recruitment and the implications of participating in systems such as sororities and fraternities.

Written by Anita Silva 

Photo courtesy of Hiking in Heels

The benefits and consequences of Greek life and participation in such organizations have been questioned many times. These institutions are often accused of being racist and sexist, promoting drug and alcohol abuse, tolerating sexual assault, the list goes on. Although many of these claims are valid and generally truthful, they can’t all be contained in this article. Instead, it will focus on the ethical implications of supporting and/or participating in an exclusionary system such as Greek life. In particular, this article will analyze the Greek recruitment process, its origins and functionality today, and the ways in which this system upholds systemic inequality in American Universities. 

One of the many characteristic elements of sororities and fraternities is the vetting system of recruitment. Prospective members must be personally selected and approved by the organization's board over three elimination rounds to be extended the opportunity to join. The board, usually composed of five members, eliminates prospects based on personal preference and feedback from other members. Selection criteria is unclear due to the secretive nature of these organizations, which unfortunately for them, leaves a lot of room for speculation. For decades, prospects and members of these organizations have shared personal experiences of being segregated, judged, neglected, and shamed by these groups. James Waters, former Ethics professor at Florida State University, says he has overheard girls saying things like “They won’t accept me, they already accepted an Indian girl this year” or how they wouldn’t be offered membership because their bodies didn’t meet the standards of “X sorority”.

Although the selection criteria are generally ambiguous, when a prospective member receives a bid from a sorority or fraternity, there is a sense of being chosen. Being selected amongst a large crowd can make someone feel special, in turn strengthening the connection between them and the group. Once offered a spot in said group, they are placed on a probationary period, during which they prove to other members their capacity to obey the rules and participate in activities. This includes rituals, ceremonies, and hazing. These initiations also contributed to bonding group members to each other through shared experiences, sometimes traumatic ones. At most universities, fraternity members openly express how much their initiation process brought them closer together, and often this would be followed by a traumatic “initiation” story of eating something disgusting, defecating somewhere inappropriate, or abusing animals.

What makes these organizations particularly bad is that they hide behind the facade of sisterhood/brotherhood, while preying upon vulnerable and impressionable young adults. This tale has been told many times before; it’s a classic cult story where someone loses something or someone in their life, leaving them emotionally vulnerable. Lost and looking for connection, they stumble upon a happy community that invites them in. Next thing they know, they find themselves trapped, being monitored and controlled by people they thought they could trust.

Photo courtesy of Phi Kappa Tau

The transition between high school and college is a particularly vulnerable time in the life of an American. Many young adults out of high school move to a new city, leave their families and friends behind and start a new. Typically aged 18 to 23, formative years for developing self-identity, university students are often searching for a sense of belonging. Certainly, this can be accomplished through group participation, but for these memberships to be fruitful, the dynamics within them must be balanced, ethical, and inclusive.

What is powerful about societies such as these, is the structure of self-governance. Current members of the organization take on leadership roles and ensure the functioning of the group. Those who don’t join the leadership team, get to actively vote during group meetings on smaller matters such as event themes, meal preferences, etc. Perhaps that counters the feeling of being taken advantage of, offering an illusionary sense of control and authority over the choices made within the group.

Beyond objectively taking advantage of impressionable young adults, Greek life recruitment perpetuates classism and socioeconomic inequality. By prioritizing prospects with family members in the organization, excluding certain physical or ethnic profiles, and objectively maximizing benefits to ingroups through the exclusion of outgroups, these organizations actively perpetuate harmful elitist and classist values. Additionally, membership is contingent on payment, and as a result, minority groups are historically less likely to participate in Greek organizations. As a Princeton study found, 95% of sorority and fraternity members are from the wealthiest quarter of America. 

Sororities and fraternities are obviously not the only exclusionary systems in our society. Universities themselves are exclusionary, offering high financial barriers of entry and meritocracy-based admissions systems that further existing social and financial inequalities. 89% of children from “well-off” families attend college in contrast to 51% of children from low-income families. Politics is also a historically exclusionary system, so you won’t be surprised to find that nearly 40% of U.S. presidents, 76% of Congress members, and 85% of Fortune500 executives were once part of Greek organizations.

Much like the rituals within these secret societies, elitism, nepotism, and segregation have the power to withstand the test of time. From the very beginning, fraternities recruited members through personal invitations, and as competition grew for participation, they were forced to develop a structured selection process. To this day there are Black sororities, Jewish sororities, and infamously white sororities. In most universities, sororities and fraternities also remain segregated by gender. Still, there are “an estimated 750,000 fraternity and sorority members in college and over nine million alumni across the United States.”

Granted, this is not for no reason. Students who participate in Greek organizations are more likely to rate their college experience as a positive one and recommend their university to others. Additionally, a large majority of alumni still highly regard their organizations and have generally positive memories of their time as active members. But it is important to consider that most systems that are bad for society, still have a group of beneficiaries. In every hierarchic system there must be a winner for there to be a loser, so that begs the question: Is the satisfaction of the ingroup the best measure of the group's sustainability? Or, perhaps, must we turn to the outgroup to truly determine where the flaws in the system might lie?