COMING back, one can't help but notice the abundance of anti-Greek and anti-rush signs up around grounds. While they claim to point out the prejudice and shallowness of members of the Greek system, they are hypocritical and intolerant in themselves.
First of all, it is worth pointing out that the people responsible for the fliers, placed on dorm bulletin boards and walls, did not get a chance to explain their intent. They conveniently failed to identify themselves on their fliers.
One of the fliers pictures a child in some third-world country, shriveled from starvation, with the lines:
"Every 3.6 seconds, someone dies of hunger. 75 percent are children. ...And you want to spend $500/semester getting drunk?"
Besides the fact that this flier is emotionally manipulative, it is also incredibly hypocritical.
If these people were so concerned with the starving children in third-world countries, perhaps they could have spent their time, money and energy more effectively. Instead of immaturely mocking a group of college students, they could have raised funds to help these starving children. Of course, that is assuming that the goal of these people is to aid these children, which I dare presume it is not.
Maybe if we knew who these people were, we could see what noble people they are. After all, they obviously don't spend money on luxuries, and all of their money should go to help these underprivileged children. They probably volunteer all of their time to helping them out. If they don't, and they feel the need to criticize others for spending a measly $500, I'd be likely to call that person a hypocrite.
Besides, some people spend money on things they don't need. People spend more than $500 a semester on gas and car bills, even though we have a good mass transit system here at the University that makes cars virtually unnecessary. People buy designer clothes, junk food, and other things that aren't "the bare necessities." If you're going to criticize people for spending money on luxuries, then you better have more people on your list than just fraternities and sororities.
Another flier shows fraternity brothers standing in front of a Confederate flag, accompanied by a sarcastic tagline about joining a "tolerant" and "accepting" group.
To agree with this flier, you must make a few assumptions. First, that a Confederate flag automatically means that these people are racist. Not to condone this, but it also is a symbol of traditional Southern heritage as well. Don't jump to conclusions.
Even if the caption does apply to those individuals pictured, are we supposed to think that they represent every single person involved in the Greek system? The fliers seem to be taking the actions of a few extreme members and implying that everyone behaves this way. That sounds a lot like stereotyping to me.
Yet another flier presents a "sorority rush checklist," which details things stereotypically associated with girls who rush, like a black pea coat, Kate Spade purse, etc. And then, at the end, unchecked, is the phrase "Friends that don't judge me on the way I look."
But wait, isn't judging someone because they wear certain labels just as bad as judging them if they don't wear them? In my book, this makes the people who made these fliers just as low as those they criticize.
One flier proclaims "Bruce Lee wasn't in a frat." Neither was Hitler. What's your point?
At first, I had the same reaction to them as most of my non-rushing friends: I thought they were funny. They seemed, for the most part, to be true.
But stereotypes are dangerous things, as any tolerant person will tell you. Sure, gender jokes, racial or ethnic jokes and gay jokes may seem funny. And calling all sorority girls pea-coat-wearing, shallow sluts may seem funny too, even accurate to some people. But by arbitrarily grouping everyone in the Greek system together and representing them through a stereotype of homogeneity, aren't these people doing the exact thing they criticize fraternities and sororities for doing?
There may be issues that should be addressed dealing with fraternities, such as intolerance and conformity. But there are mature ways in which this can be addressed without the bitter or mocking tone.
I don't intend on rushing, for my own personal reasons. But I think it would be incredibly intolerant and shallow to criticize someone else just because they want to spend their college life differently than I do.
(Brian Cook's column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily.)
Read More
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 20 hours agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInstead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | April 18, 2024Our independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
