Pledging a sorority on Hamilton College’s campus becomes a spectacle of the worst utilization of power. Within these groups, there is an established and acknowledged hierarchy, which in itself is dangerous already. As we sit back and watch further, we are able to see the effects of this level of social capital, manipulation, and power on the campus and specifically on those going through the process of pledging. It is my understanding that between the hours of 7 PM and 2:30 AM, girls that are pledging sororities can be seen running errands (and I do mean running) for their older members. Furthermore, they are rumored to be made to drive downtown and back repeatedly as some sort of Uber service for their inebriated sisters-to-be.
Some must be accompanied by another member of their pledge class at all times, and others have even had to endure yelling and verbal abuse. They must constantly put their love for their future sisters above everything else, even if “everything else” simply consists of basic needs like sleep, time for schoolwork, and self respect. It is rare during this period to see any new members giving back to the campus or the community; instead they are often being bossed around and spend their time following the whims of their superiors.
The control and monopoly on social capital held by sororities is interesting at Hamilton specifically, because of its deviance from the norm. The earliest sorority at Hamilton, Kappa Delta Omega, was founded on campus in 1982. This is four years after Hamilton became co-ed in 1978. Out of seven sororities on campus, only Sigma Lambda Upsilon is nationally recognized. Six out of seven do not offer the appeal of an extensive alumni network and simultaneously do not have the same accountability to explicit rules set out by their national sorority. This results in a decrease in benefits gained from being a part of these groups, and also allows for more secrecy and line-blurring.
I often hear many people speak about sororities on campus using phrases like, “They are the only ones who think that they are important.” If this statement is true for a decent population of Hamilton’s campus who are not involved in Greek life, then how is this social capital gained and why do people continue to return despite the level of time and suffering required? These groups hold many parties on campus, thus having a sizeable impact on the social scene of going out. They host nights at the Breakaway Lounge and have control over some of the houses downtown. They are able to remain relevant because of the limited spaces available and the priority given to those who are a part of the group.
One night, as I attended Breakaway, I was denied entrance along with two of my friends because of their involvement in the rushing process of another sorority. This became clear as we were “not on the list” and then were only allowed to go inside after a friend of both the hosting sorority and my two friends convinced the hosts to do so. It is this control that defines these groups and makes them desirable. Their control and ability for exclusivity gives them power, but most important is how we as a campus allow this power to be utilized.
Coming to a new place, fear of isolation and desire to be a part of something are two extremely valid feelings that exist for most everyone. There is a comfort in having “your people” and an excitement in having events and parties to consistently attend. But just because these desires and perks exist, does not mean that they should be exploited. To be admitted to these groups, those in charge are able to decide who is good enough or not good enough based on the subjective notion of who fits in best with their already established group. A person’s way of dressing and composing themselves, and oftentimes a person’s appearance dictate their worth to a sorority.
To take another person’s self esteem or sense of self into your hands, and to let them know that it is not enough by passive aggressive acts, such as removing them from a group text, crosses a line. To tell some rushes they are good enough, which is evident through them being allowed to remain, and then to put them through six weeks of forced activities and emotional distress for the benefit of the their superiors crosses it even further. The fact that the experience of rushing and pledging is so painful and stressful gives the experience an appearance of importance and convinces those on the outside that must be worth it.
Through the entire process, the most intriguing part, to me, is the constant use of words like “love” and “care” for justification. The idea that these people love and care for you, and that is why they put you through hell, is not only manipulative, but is also extremely unhealthy. It only guarantees relationships built upon painful bonding, distrust, ridicule, and hierarchy. And it simultaneously guarantees its own cyclic nature, which can be seen in the continuing use of these traditions year after year. Those who went through this torture will then be the ones who inflict the same onto others when they become upperclassmen.
The underclassmen become the propagandists and inflictors of this abuse within their sorority in later years, which guarantees buy-in. Just as Hamilton tour guides’ views are often informed by constantly promoting the positivity of their own experience, those within the sorority reinforce their reasons for membership by taking up leadership positions and being a part of the initiation process. This also guarantees the secrecy that is required for these groups to remain intact. No one wants to expose a group they are seen part of and is part of their identity, and the manipulative communication by the leaders convinces these girls that they mean no harm and simply want what is best for them.
The comparison between sororities and sports teams on campus is often used as a justification for the time and experiences that they require. Though being accepted into a sports team or even some type of publication on campus is subjective in many ways, the basis for acceptance is quite different. In these previously mentioned activities, acceptance is based on the evaluation of the skill required; whether it be a sport or the ability to write a well-constructed article. Acceptance into a sorority, both at Hamilton and in general, is ostensibly based on an individual’s status, quality of self, sociability, appearance, and, quite frankly, the “worth” of an individual. This is why being dropped can be so painful. One’s social capital being the basis for acceptance as well as the power dynamic already in place, makes the motivations for acceptance and the relationships between those that choose and those are chosen extremely distorted and often nontransparent.
Another distinction between Hamilton’s sororities and sports teams is the level of accountability. NCAA rules protect against hazing; recently, the Colgate men’s rowing team was suspended for the fall season and from their first spring competition for hazing, and were required to attend mandatory education seminars about hazing and high-risk drinking for violating hazing policy in Sept. 2017. Athletic teams are accountable to the NCAA, like chartered sororities which are accountable to their national sorority and face similar consequences if they violate the rules. This, of course, does not guarantee perfection. However, the requirement to check in with this larger organization requires regular work to stay in accordance with rules and also establishes a more specific set of guidelines to follow and consequences to face than those that each college or university sets out.
The code of confidentiality among sororities around their conduct allows these groups to remain in control of the flow of information given to the College. Their mode of relationship-building ensures a level of secrecy among members, leaving many uncomfortable and immoral incidents to go unreported. This code of secrecy also benefits the College because investigations are allowed to be conducted internally and the reputation of the College is able to remain intact. We are allowing the sharing of the truth to be done by those who wish to hide it, and the checking of this truth by the institution that is only hurt by the real truth being exposed.
It requires a party who is truly impartial and who does not have a vested interest in the consequences to ensure that the truth is told. The way that we as a campus and the administration as a whole responds to the actions of these groups and any allegations of misconduct that might arise will show what we value more: truth or convenience. Only time will tell whether we really know ourselves or not.
