In November, Dartmouth celebrated 50 years of coeducation. The College has spent the past decade working tirelessly on, or at least vigorously publicizing, its efforts to promote gender equality. However, the rush process—which concluded its winter iteration this past weekend—remains a defining Dartmouth experience that perpetuates the gender inequalities this institution has been purportedly trying to ameliorate.
People love to malign both the fraternity and sorority rush process, so I will indulge in the age-old tradition ever so briefly:
The sorority rush process is highly impersonal. Girls are effectively shepherded from house to house, told to look pretty, and (typically) asked questions so superficial as to be offensive. Girls’ eardrums are subjected to such ever-appropriate questions as “what liquid would you lactate with?” and such clunkers as “what fictional family would you be a part of?” Many individuals feel the need to present a more fun, funny, and spontaneous version of themselves than feels candid.
Potential new members are then evaluated by sororities on this fabricated and incomplete image. An op-ed writer for The Dartmouth echoes this sentiment, stating, “[t]he truth is, I sought cheap validation from an institution built upon systemic exclusion and hierarchy… For me, rush activated a carnal impulse to be wanted. I pined after the approval of girls I wouldn’t have cared about in high school, wearing inoffensive outfits and an omnipresent smile.” Girls are told they will “end up where they are meant to be” and “it all works out”.
In the event it doesn’t work out, the algorithm is to blame. Oh, the algorithm. “Oh algorithm, where is your victory? Oh algorithm, where is your sting?” All of this clamor is justified under the guise of equality and the egalitarian ethic, yet the process is anything but equal. Girls are supposedly sheltered from emotional harm by the impersonal rush experience, and then are told it is not their fault when things don’t work out for them. Is this what we want to teach women entering the workforce in three years?
I concede that there are nuances, including personal recommendations and more genuine banter. Still, the sorority rush process masquerades under the guise of equity and inclusion, when it is anything but that.
Fraternity rush, on the other hand, is anything but impersonal. Boys are forced to “grab meals” with brothers in solely the houses they desire and are forced to cultivate quasi-genuine relationships with their soon-to-be brothers. Slideshows are made which assess their various merits and quantify their perceived lack of social capital. They are then voted on in a highly socratic process, and, if they fall short, these potential frat-stars are forced to face rejection. Rejection is part of life. So is cultivating relationships beyond superficial small talk. Another op-ed writer for The Dartmouth states, “[a]s the months went by, I had meals with brothers from several different fraternities, and I slowly began to narrow down the list of houses I was excited about until I finally had it down to two.” This process is certainly far easier for members of particular campus subgroups and teams, but at least it is not pretending to be something it is not—fair and equitable.
An even more interesting irony arises when juxtaposing the two rush processes. The far greater problem with Dartmouth Greek Life recruitment lies in its implications for the future. In the “real world,” people are fired because of their work ethic and personality. There is no algorithm to blame when you don’t get promoted, and superficial banter doesn’t get the job done. The real world is not equal, nor does it pretend to be. The real world is personal. The process of becoming a Goldman Sachs analyst—which seems to be all some people can talk about these days—resembles fraternity rush far more than it does sorority rush.
Personal experiences should be validated, but we need to take a bird’s-eye view of the rush process and understand that blaming the algorithm can have real-world implications for the very group of people it, and the rhetoric that envelops it, tries to support.
Many of the gender disparities between women and men in the workforce arise not from unequal numbers at the outset but from unequal promotion and retention rates. Why? Women are often equipped with an inferior toolbox to their male counterparts. Perhaps rush is partly to blame. For much of their lives as young adults, women are propped up on an “egalitarian” pedestal and protected from real-world difficulties. They are told to look pretty and not seem too abrasive. Men, on the other hand, are forced to network, establish relationships, and form personal connections. They are told to climb as high as they can; they are sheltered from the storm of the real world. When time comes for a big promotion, who do you think has the skills and attitude to succeed?
Speaking truth to power 👸