Pledged

by Alexandra Robbins

  CONCLUSION

  Young women today still are looking for a place to belong.

  —The Trident, Delta Delta Delta’s magazine, Summer 2001

  There is a beauty queen house on every campus . . . Beauty, bathing suit measurements, and wardrobe go a long way.

  —Ready for Rush, 1999

  IN MAY, AFTER VICKI, Sabrina, Amy, and Caitlin went home for the summer, I returned to my hometown, where I happened to pass a nearby Greek boutique. This time, as I gazed at the lettered jewelry, bottle openers, and baby tees, their meanings were no longer foreign to me, from the pre-gaming equipment of Pi Phi shot glasses and Kappa water bottles, to the wooden paddles pledges would decorate for their Big Sisters, to the ∆ on a blue stuffed Delta Phi Epsilon lion, representing justice, sisterhood, and love. It was strange to be well versed in the lingo of a world that I barely knew existed one year before. But it was stranger still to have to step back and analyze it as an outsider turned insider turned outsider again. This book was largely intended to spark discussion of women’s treatment of women; I did not write it to argue either a pro-Greek or anti-Greek point of view. As the academic year ended, however, I found I had deeply mixed feelings about sororities.

  On the one hand, Vicki and Caitlin had overall positive experiences, as sorority membership gave them what many members told me were the biggest benefits of joining: girlfriends and confidence (though validation from boys played a large role in their confidence boost, which makes an interesting statement about the effect of sororities’ emphasis on males). According to a National Panhellenic Conference brochure, recent studies have concluded that Greeks are more likely to graduate from college than unaffiliated students. Furthermore, a two-year survey conducted by the Center for Advanced Social Research at the University of Missouri found that Greek graduates are more likely to participate in community activities and religious and civic organizations and to “show stronger inclinations to give financial support to non-profit agencies.” (This study was commissioned by the National Panhellenic Conference and the National Interfraternity Conference.) Some sorority chapters do make a point of emphasizing community service or raising money for good causes.

  On the other hand, for every girl who emerges from a sorority with improved self-esteem, there are numerous others whose confidence has been crushed—like Amy, for whom the pressure to find dates so crumbled her self-image that out of unhappiness and desperation, she slept with the boy who had date-raped her. In addition, sisters’ intolerant, conformist attitudes left Sabrina feeling helpless and alienated from the group. Within the sorority, the girls found a competitive environment in which they were constantly being judged by their sisters; this is what Amy and Sabrina referred to when they discussed Sabrina’s Formal dress. (“It’s not the boys I’m worried about,” Sabrina said. Amy responded, “Oh, yes, and the photos.”) My observations and interviews also supported several studies revealing the darker side of sorority life. Research has linked Greeks to higher occurrences of binge drinking and academic cheating and weaker levels of “principled moral reasoning.” Further, a 2003 Penn State survey disclosed that students who belong to social fraternities and sororities are more likely to encounter “problem behaviors,” including being assaulted or humiliated, engaging in a serious argument or quarrel, or experiencing unwanted sexual advances.

  Moreover, the National Panhellenic Conference, which has an Academic Excellence Committee that distributes a seasonal newsletter, holds up scholarship as a reason to join sororities. “All NPC groups . . . encourage high scholarship as a priority,” the NPC assures parents in its pamphlet, Women’s Fraternity Membership: A Perspective for Parents. But the multitude of mandatory nonacademic sorority obligations can leave little time for studying (and more incentive to use house “class files” to cheat). Lisa Handler, the Temple University professor who studied sororities in the mid-1990s, said that as a professor she can tell which of her students are Greek. “When they’re pledging, for instance, solid students suddenly aren’t doing so well—the young women more than men. They start being irregular: skipping classes, falling asleep in classes. It’s strange. You notice the ones who are slacking off,” she said. “Sororities can’t claim to be about the academics and then ruin them.”

  The NPC also emphasizes leadership, another one of the “four pillars,” as a central benefit of sororities. But the leadership opportunities available in a sorority don’t necessarily translate to a vast career network; sororities often encourage the sisters who show initiative to seek out a career in sorority administration. While some girls may get job opportunities from employers who play sorority favorites, none of my alumnae interviewees suggested that historically white sorority membership provides access to a wider, better-connected network than that which is available to unaffiliated students. Sororities promote the organizations as groups that enrich life experiences and further the development of women, yet at the same time they enforce regressive standards and strip sisters of their sense of self-empowerment. This conflict breeds an attitude that I call “fake feminism.” Under the guise of propelling women forward, sororities also tug them backward—with dress codes, male-centered activities, ideas of proper comportment, and a subjugation of self to the group—so that the constant contradictory pulls lead to a stagnancy that is slow to accept any change at all.

  In 1994, a study in the Journal of College Student Development found that Greeks, compared to unaffiliated students, “had significantly less independence, liberalism, social conscientiousness, and cultural sophistication than the independent students, and tended to be higher in sociability, hedonism, self-confidence, and social conformity.” That research echoed the results of a study of the values of four sororities at the University of Colorado in the 1960s, which found that sorority sisters valued independence less and loyalty to the group more than non-Greek women. They also scored lower when rated on the value of kindness.

  Not only does it appear that sororities haven’t changed much over the last forty years, but it has also become evident that they remain unwilling to change with the times. This revulsion to change, euphemized as a devotion to tradition, is what keeps the sororities ignorant and intolerant—it’s what allows University of Alabama Greeks to blame their mortifying race statistics on the stubbornness of alumni. If there is a single reason that sororities must change in order to survive it is that their unwillingness to prioritize diversity as a value comes across as racism. “We aren’t diverse,” a national sorority’s traveling consultant wrote in an official report to and about a southwestern chapter. “Our ritual makes us the same.” That is a superficial rationalization. Sororities must rework their recruitment policies so that their membership becomes more diverse, which does not mean “blond girls, red-haired girls, and a lot of brown-haired girls.” Instead of referring to themselves as “historically white,” these sororities should be proud to call themselves “multiculturals.”

  Experts have offered several reasons why it has been so difficult to force Greek organizations to evolve. Author Hank Nuwer pointed out that college administrators who belonged to Greek groups might be less willing to make demands on chapters and more willing to condone behaviors by looking the other way. Some administrators also “protect their institution’s reputation by blocking the disclosure of particulars to the press when members of student organizations commit offenses such as criminal hazing.” Another obstacle has been the power of university Greek alumni. G. Armour Craig was acting president of Amherst in 1984, the year the school abolished its Greek system. “The reason fraternities don’t get abolished in smaller schools is that the trustees are generally terrified of offending the alumni and cutting off large, essential contributions,” Craig told The Nation. But for university administrations to let alumni control the reins of these groups simply because they don’t want to lose the coffers seems like bribery.

  Greeks tap into resources for a couple of reasons, said Daryl Conte, Alfred University’s associate d
ean of students and the administrator in charge of Greek life until the university shut down the system in 2002. “Greek organizations present a higher liability to the institution, so they have to be monitored. And they give more. In terms of giving in groups, they blow away the average Joe Shmo student. So you can get a higher return on your investment if it’s handled correctly,” Conte said. “In our case, the liability imposed was no longer equal to the return on the investment. No money was worth having to pick up a phone and tell a parent that, for example, your daughter fell off a roof and won’t walk again. Alumni like to say that universities don’t do anything for Greeks, but that’s crap.”

  In order to begin to reform sororities, one should look at these groups for what they truly are. The twenty-six historically white sororities are not service groups, they are not organizations based on intellectual development, and they are not vehicles of women’s empowerment. They are, purely and simply, social groups. Girls join sororities to make friends. They join them to meet guys. They join them to have parties. They join them to belong. It is easy to see the initial allure of sororities to lonely or bewildered freshmen floundering in a large student population. Among my interviewees, the most common catalyst for rushing was to belong to a smaller community within the campus. For girls who don’t have the skills or interest to play on an athletic team, the drive to run for student office, or the voice to join a singing group, sororities offer a niche—a smaller segment of the community that purportedly helps to make college life more manageable. But within the hierarchical structure of sororities, even once a girl is in the group, she still does not necessarily belong. As noted in the previous chapter, at the end of the year, Vicki told me, relieved, “I definitely feel so much better now that I have a group,” referring to her tight clique of friends. This sentiment defeated the purpose of joining a sorority in the first place, because Vicki was uncomfortable in the sorority’s smaller community until she could assemble an even smaller group-within-a-group.

  “There [is] a significant need at the undergraduate level for affiliation,” the National Panhellenic Conference asserts. Unlike the early days of sororities, however, colleges are now doing more to help freshmen fit in. The residential college system and the wealth of orientation programs help funnel students into ready-made affiliations to use or not use at their discretion. At their core, sororities insist that the special bonds of sisterhood transcend those of ordinary friendships. But in fact what is sisterhood beyond friendship? Temple’s Lisa Handler calls sisterhood a “fictive kinship,” a “vowed allegiance to a collectivity” utilizing a language that institutionalizes friendships. Sisterhood is an institution supposedly bound by secrets, which we now know in many cases come down to nothing more than backward-spelled passwords or trite expressions. One must consider the extent to which this fictive kinship did anything for Brooke at the time in her life when she needed her sisters the most.

  On the surface, sororities are labels. In some areas of the country, they are considered the most important life-defining tags a girl can have. In Mississippi, for example, girls who are determined to get into a particular sorority at Greek powerhouse University of Mississippi are known to matriculate at Millsaps College in Jackson, Mississippi, where sorority rush is not as competitive. Once the girls accept their bids, they then transfer to Ole Miss, where the Ole Miss chapter of their sorority must accept them as sisters. In Texas, some die-hard sorority mothers send their girls to an out-of-state school to pledge a particular sorority and then have them transferred to a Texas school after initiation.

  Why should sorority membership still mean so much even in twenty-first-century America—so much that girls throw themselves fully clothed and blindfolded into fatally dangerous riptides merely for the privilege? “Fraternities and sororities are the best thing on a college campus, without a doubt,” the opening speaker at the Northeast Greek Leadership Association Conference said to his audience. Currently, that’s not true. There are too many negative features of sorority life that outweigh the positives. But the point that struck me as I finished out the year was that sororities have the potential to be something more. Today, the National Panhellenic Conference includes at least 3.5 million initiated women in nearly three thousand collegiate chapters, with numbers generally holding steady and increasing in Texas and the Southwest. In 2001, the NPC added eighty thousand sisters, a 9 percent increase from 1999. The potential power of these groups as collective social units is phenomenal. What if these groups snubbed the fraternities that condoned the behavior of rapist brothers? What if sororities fought for political or cultural change on issues they cared about? What if, as a young Kappa Kappa Gamma alumna suggested to me, sororities boycotted companies using ads that demean women? (The Kappa was incensed in particular by an ad featuring young girls in bathing suits or sportswear with the caption “Don’t just take the scenic route. Be the scenic route.”) What if sororities focused their energies on something more than mixers and Greek Week floats?

  Sororities shouldn’t have to wield political power in order to defend their existence, of course. But if they are primarily social groups, then they do not deserve preferential treatment on university and college campuses. They do not deserve their own university-funded Greek adviser, Office of Greek Life, portions of student activity fees, and other resources that are not equally allotted to any student club. In fact, if they are to continue to receive any university assistance at all, then they must be willing to make some compromises. They must be willing to change.

  What Nationals and Sorority Sisters Can Do

  • Reform rush

  Most important, sororities need to change their rush policies because the sorority recruitment system is in desperate need of an overhaul. National offices have a range of possible options. One is to model the rush system after the historically black sororities’ Membership Intake Program. Instead of condensing rush into a short series of superficial events during which a recruit must visit every white chapter, chapters could hold recruitment periods at different times throughout the year. Recruits could spend time getting to know the sisters and the sororities they are most interested in before they decide to make a commitment. Because sororities wouldn’t compete for the same recruits at the same time, there would be less pressure on both parties. Another option is to have continuous open bidding for all sororities throughout the year instead of rush—a practice that a few sororities already encourage as a supplement to the rush period. As girls get to know each other naturally rather than through forced three-minute conversations, they could introduce potential new members to the rest of the group at any time during the year, invite the candidates to spend time with them, and choose at a less hurried pace whether to offer a bid. Interested candidates could observe and participate in sorority events and meet sorority sisters in something other than a cattle-market setting.

  The recommendation process also needs to be reformed, if not eliminated outright. Alabama’s associate vice president Kathleen Cramer has rightly called for a de-emphasis of some sororities’ recommendation processes, which help to ensure that sorority demographics remain virtually the same year after year—something that Nationals may appreciate but students, university officials, and concerned members of the public should not. In addition, Nationals should repudiate the current volumes of rush rules putting girls “on silence” and separating recruits from sisters outside of proscribed rush events so they can’t be “influenced” in their decisions. Refusing to allow girls to get to know each other outside of the choreographed rush parties doesn’t allow them to meet friends in a more casual way.

  All of these options would create simpler and fairer ways to widen a sorority circle rather than choosing new members on shallow grounds at a hectic pace and then praying after Bid Day that the girls turn out to be decent people.

  In any event, there is no doubt that rush—both informal and formal—should be postponed at least until after the first semester of freshman year. Representatives
at the Leadership Conference said they preferred fall recruitment so sororities could “get ’em early.” The earlier they lure the girls, the sooner they get their money. But expecting already overwhelmed first-semester freshmen to choose an affiliation before they even settle into a college routine makes little sense. Seventeen- and eighteen-year-olds just entering college—vulnerable, impressionable, away from friends and parents for perhaps the first time—often know virtually nothing about sorority life yet are expected to navigate the complex and intimidating rush process and decide within days which girls they most want as “sisters.” In general, they are too young to know what they will be pledged to. How can sisterhoods transcend friendships if potential sisters don’t know any more about each other than their favorite purse designers?

  Another necessary reform is that every girl who rushes must get into a sorority. College literary and debate societies began by assigning every interested student an affiliation; sororities should as well. There is no reason that a girl who wants to be in a sorority shouldn’t have the opportunity to join one, whether it’s her first or fourth choice. Nationals complain about low numbers yet are unwilling to accept girls who don’t fit a certain “type.” Assigning every rushee to a chapter would improve both numbers and diversity. Once the sisters get to know—and accept as a fellow sister—a girl whom they otherwise might have dismissed, their understanding of and tolerance for girls who don’t fit the previously prescribed sorority mold would improve. Further, if sorority demographics were to shift enough so that sisters did not look the same—with different races and different body types—then perhaps there would be less pressure to conform to one image, and therefore fewer peer-pressure problems (such as eating disorders). Speakers at the Leadership Conference emphasized the point of being Greek (to such an extent that they exhibited an air of superiority over non-Greeks). As one moderator said, “We all wear different letters but we’re all the same. We’re Greek.” If that’s true, it shouldn’t matter which girls receive which labels. The kinds of girls who would no longer rush sororities because they would no longer feel an elite superiority are not the kinds of girls who would keep sororities honorable and with noble purpose anyway.