I know I am a little bit behind in writing about this as it happened on Thursday and other bloggers have already writted about this at length, but I believe I can provide a little bit of a different viewpoint to what happened at the Annual General Meeting.
Many things were said at the meeting from both sides of the issue. I was impressed with the actual arguments from both groups. I also feel that both sides were stating the truth. This may seem to be a wierd thing to say, as the two sides of the issue were saying opposite things, but I feel that in most cases there is no black or white, just the grey middle ground of reality, and this was no exception.
So what was said, and why do I feel it was all true?
First the anti-frats/sors side that won the vote:
The basic claim is that faternites and sororities are, by their nature, exclusionary and hierarchical. Historically they have a negative reputation of brutal hazings and sexualized violence.
I agree with both of these arguments. They have a selective admission process, even if it is only by gender, and fees to join make it so only those who are economically able to join can do so. I have also heard both first hand and from newspapers about the issues of hazings and sexualized violence.
The arguments of the pro-frats/sors group was:
They are groups that are created to build communities, network with other student bodies, and have fun. The group that wanted to organize on campus said that they would include any self identified woman and not implement any hazings. The fraternity also claimed to not practice any discrimination.
Again, I agree with everything said above. I believe fraternities and sororities can be a lot of fun for many of those involved. I believe that members of fraternities and sororities become part a network of people that will last beyond their university careers. I also believe that the girls that wanted to start a sorority had nothing but the best of intentions and wanted to create a cool space to do their thing.
So how do I reconcile these competing arguments?
I believe that while there are some fraternities and sororities that exist that are good community citizens as described by the pro group, I also believe there are fraternities and sororities that are not. I also believe that if we were to allow fraternities and sororities on campus, it would be difficult to differentiate, at least initially, between groups that are problematic, and those who are not.
Therefore, it comes down to a benefit/cost analysis. The benefits of fraternities and sororities are as stated above: They build longterm networks, they can be fun, and they give those involved a sense of belonging to something.
The costs are: A feeling of exclusion by those who don't get admitted. Potential for psychological and physical hazings. Potential for sexualized violence. Perpetuation of unequal relations that exist in our society.
For me, the benefits do not outweigh the costs. One can say that we should give them a chance. Maybe they won't have brutal hazings. Maybe women wouldn't get raped. But how do you quantify when it isn't okay anymore?
How many people have to be excluded?
How many people have to be hazed?
Do we have to wait for an incident of sexualized violence to happen before we don't allow them? What do we say to the victims of these things?
Sorry, we had to let it happen to you before we decided we don't want these groups? I don't think that would be much consolation to these people. That is assuming these things would even be reported. It is well known that incidences like these are vastly underreported for a variety of reasons.
It is for these reasons that I am very happy that the students of UVic came out to not recognize fraternities and sororities. I feel that the atmosphere at UVic is great as it is, and I hope it stays that way.
On a related note. As frustrating as it was when a certain member tried to subvert the voting process everytime he went up to the mic (I can't remember the name, but I know every person who was at the meeting know who I am talking about). In the end I am happy to hear how people reacted to this guy. I talked to people that said they came to the meeting either undecided or in favour of frats and sors, but based on the conduct of this person, they changed their vote to against frats and sors.
This is a great reminder that no matter how well you know the rules and are able to manipulate them, in a forum that involves voting, and is therefore political, you can't go around being a first class jerk and using those rules to shield you. People don't like it very much.
Rob McDonald
New progressive blog! It is called UVic Underground, and it's a cool new progressive blog for UVic students. I have posted this post on there as well. Hopefully everyone can check it out and contribute.
Hi Rob,
ReplyDeleteThanks for acknowledging both sides in this post. I do disagree with your conclusion though, and I think perhaps the main reason for my disagreement is that I don't want to keep UVic the way it is. I don't feel especially welcome here and I don't think there's much community on campus.
When I came to UVic from the Okanagan in September 2008 I was a complete outsider. I checked out a bunch of clubs, attended a bunch of meetings, went to different events, but none of it really connected with me. Soon I got tired of the continual protests and radical rhetoric. I felt increasingly disenchanted and isolated.
Now we have some students who want to create a different type of organization which could offer experiences students like myself are lacking. Maybe the majority of students aren't interested and wouldn't enjoy it, but why should this alternate experience not be available at all? At the AGM I said that I believe it's possible for Greek life to exist here and still allow those who don't want to be involved to ignore it.
Finally, I would note that the UVic chapter of DKE currently has more members than the UBC chapter despite UBC having a student body over twice the size of ours. Seems there is some demand for Greek life at UVic?
I believe that while there are some people named Rob McDonald that exist that are good community citizens, I also believe there are people name Rob McDonald that are not. I also believe that if we were to allow Rob McDonalds on campus, it would be difficult to differentiate, at least initially, between Rob McDonalds that are problematic and those who are not.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, it comes down to a benefit/cost analysis. The benefits of some Rob McDonalds are hard working UVSS board members and studious students who make UVic a better place. The costs are some Rob McDonalds are useless binge drinking students who start fights in Res and pour soap in the fountain while getting by with barely passing grades.
For me, the benefits do not outweigh the costs. One can say that we should give Rob McDonalds a chance. Maybe he won't start fights. Maybe he won't put soap in the fountain. But how do you quantify when it isn't okay anymore?
How many students have to be assaulted?
How low do his grades have to go?
How many times does he have to put soap in the fountain?
Do we have to wait for an incident of drunken assault to happen before we don't allow them?
What do we say to the victims of these things?
Sorry, we had to let you get a black eye before we decided we don't want Rob Macdonalds? I don't think that would be much consolation to these people. That is assuming that the fight even gets reported. It is well known that incidences like these are vastly underreported for a variety of reasons.
It is for these reasons that I would be very happy to see students of UVic come out and ban students named Rob Macdonald. I feel that the atmosphere at UVic is great as it is, and I hope it stays that way.
Does this judgment of you feel fair Rob?
ReplyDeleteShould you be judged by what people with a similarity to you do or be judged on your own merits?
This is how Fraternity and Sorority members surely feel when this logic is applied to them.
David: I found it interesting that you noted not feeling welcome here. That is a sentiment I share. I don't feel welcome either. I think UVic is dominated by conservatives, bigots and their enablers: liberals who feel everything is fine, and moderates who hate everything protesters do ever. It seems like the vast majority of students never acknowledge the concerns radical students have, including the oppressive attitudes students have. (Engineering students who are not sexist or queer-hating, I'd love to meet you. Not even kidding. Prove me wrong.)
ReplyDeleteFrats and Sororities: Clearly fraternities and sororities are shitty organizations. I remember being in little clubs in elementary school whose express purpose was to be exclusive. Then we fucking grew up. However, I think that people are allowed to form shitty organizations. We can't prejudge them. The historical arguments don't matter. To say F&Ss have been like X bad thing doesn't mean F&Ss forming at UVic will be like X bad thing. It's not persuasive. At all. So, we just let them do their grown-up version of grade school exclusion. Then if there's problematic shit, like hazing, sexualized violence, racism, sexism or queer-bashing, they can always be banned later.
Andrew's comment is bang on. You're making frats and sororities guilty until proven innocent, based on a few bad apples. The bad apples are embedded in cultural stereotypes and widely publicized, but don't reflect the reality.
ReplyDeleteDavid,
ReplyDeleteI am well aware that you don't like UVic as it is and don't feel quite a part of the community. I do find that odd however, being that you are such an active member of the UVSS community and you haven't had any barriers to being involved. If I remember correctly you even started your own club.
I wonder what about a fraternity would make you feel more included in the community. As you said, there is already a fraternity on campus, have you joined it?
But back to the larger issue, just because you don't like how UVic is, doesn't mean fraternities and sororites will make it any better. And just because there is demand for something, doesn't make it good. There is a demand for cocaine, that doesn't mean we should start selling it from the Munchie bar (though that could solve all our financial problems).
You didn't address the issues faced by sororities and fraternities whereever they exist. Those being, inequalities, exclusionary practices, hazings and sexualized violence.
But you see Rob, that's just part of the "radical rhetoric" he's tired of.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Allen said:
ReplyDelete"Does this judgment of you feel fair Rob?
Should you be judged by what people with a similarity to you do or be judged on your own merits?
This is how Fraternity and Sorority members surely feel when this logic is applied to them."
Andrew,
While your comment was amusing and gave me a little chuckle. It is irrelevant. A name is not a character trait.
A character trait of fraternities and sororities is that they are by their very nature, exclusionary organizations. This is based on sex at a minimum. Economic ability to pay to join is also another exclusionary practice. This alone is against UVSS policy.
The guilty before proven innocent argument that you and David K. put forth holds no water. Every campus that has frats and sors has problems that arise with them. I have heard that even at the fraternity here uses psychological hazing methods. So by your standard they are already guilty.
As far as the argument that we can just ban them later, we don't have that power. We don't even have the power to ban them now. The frat in Victoria exists no matter what votes we do. All we can do is not recognize them based on what we value as a community. By doing that, we are saying they do not represent our values and will not put our stamp of approval on what they do.
But make no mistake they are still free to do as they wish.
Nick,
ReplyDeleteI am not sure whether you are just being facetious or not, this is the downside of online conversations. So I will address your point as if you are serious, and I apologize if I am going off needlessly.
The feeling of inferiority of not be able to join a group because you don't have enough money isn't radical rhetoric. It negatively affects a persons self worth. It sucks.
Physical and psychological hazings aren't radical rhetoric. They are assault.
and... well, you get the picture.
I find it interesting that the UVSS is against sororities and fraternities (from what I can see so far in these comments) because of their exclusionary nature and tendency to be prejudiced, sexist, racist, homophobic, etc. (or so they say), and yet by not allowing sororities and fraternities on campus, this is exactly what the UVSS is perpetuating. UVic has become an exclusive community in the sense that sororities and fraternities are not allowed to be here because of things that have happened in the past with OTHER groups. Personally, I have done things in my past that I would NEVER do again and would hate to be judged for because it is no longer who I am. People change and, thus, so do the groups that people are a part of. Sororities and Fraternities now are no more like those of the past than University is like Elementary School.
ReplyDeleteGood post Rob. I commend you for sticking up for what you believe to be the good of the student body.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I think the approach that you are advocating for, and the approach adopted at the AGM has one major flaw: fraternities and sororities will continue to exist. The DKE frat is already established and the sorority is going to start a chapter with an organization that doesn't require university approval. As you said, votes in the UVSS won't change that.
While I do not necessarily believe this is true, you argued that Greek Life Organizations will have a predominantly negative effect on our university life, that the good will outweigh the bad. So let's say this is true. Wouldn't then the worst possible course of action for such a problem be a policy of non-recognition? To me, this fails to actually address any of the alleged potential risks associated with GLOs.
We could have said, hey, good initiative, it's nice to see you trying to do something positive on our campus, we won't get in your way, (because we really have no power to anyways). However, here are our concerns... Additionally, here's a list of resources such as the AVP, NSU, SOCC, PRIDE, and Women's Centre that you, as a group of undergraduate students, have access to that will help you foster tolerance and safety. Unfortunately we can't recognize you officially since your gender-specific policy conflicts with our discrimination policies. However, since no matter what we do, you're still going to form here's how we're prepared to help ensure your group has a positive effect on campus.
Instead, we called them elitist alcoholics, with a potential for sex offence, saying that there's no place for their group on our campus.
To me, it just seems like all the "no" side has accomplished, is to provoke the GLOs try harder to form, now without any form of positive reinforcement, support or accountability from the UVic admin or from the UVSS. If one was truly concerned about the potentially harmful side-effects of such groups, then one would be striving to raise awareness about such issues among the members and working pragmatically to reduce the potential for harm.
Saying bad sorority, bad fraternity, really only worsens the situation. It just marginalizes the groups into a position where unfortunate events are most likely to take place.
I am genuinely interested to hear what you think about all this.
-Lewis
I think Nick is definitely being sarcastic in his second comment. But his first comment makes a very good point that reinforces what I said at the AGM: we aren't going to get a consensus at UVic about what kind of campus culture we should have, because different people want different things. I got a response to that saying everyone wants an environment where they feel safe–well, the conditions that make a person feel safe vary from one individual to another. I might feel unsafe in surroundings that would make everyone else on this thread feel safe, and vice versa.
ReplyDeleteI sympathize with Nick's experience of not feeling welcome even though we have very different priorities. As a result, Nick and I come to the same conclusion, which is that we shouldn't shut down a group that students are trying to organize on the basis of whether we find value in it, or whether it fits in with what we want UVic to be like.
Why did I not address the problems associated with fraternities and sororities historically and in other places? Because the motion we were voting on was specifically about UVic. The people involved in these groups are UVic students and they will be here, behaving the way they behave, whether or not we allow them to form "exclusive" organizations. If they are the kind of people who get into fights, cause trouble and bully other students, they will do so, and whether they have a fraternity or sorority or not won't change that. However, the fraternity and sorority members I've met so far are decent, polite, responsible people. Why should we judge them on the basis of what other people with the same badge did somewhere else? I think that is similar to Andrew's hypothetical situation.
I think Lewis makes a good point. By creating a UVSS policy surrounding GLOs the UVSS opens a dialogue with them and gives them a semblance of control over how the GLOs conduct themselves. Putting our heads in the sand and ignoring GLOs isn't going to solve any of the problems addressed by the 'no' side, especially on the topic of sexual violence.
ReplyDeleteWithout some sort of accountability to the Students of UVic, GLOs in Victoria could very easily become the nightmare they're being made out to be.