Stanford's War on Social Life
palladiummag.com
palladiummag.com
Is the Greek system really a natural form of social expression? I can't speak to Stanford, but many universities provide lots of official support to fraternity and sorority chapters as well, including governance and valuable real estate. Additionally, national chapters and wealthy alumni provide political power, liability insurance and capital contributions.
Maybe the university is taking a hard look at the pros and cons of continuing to support that system, and pulling back.
If normal students were getting into juvenile, weird shit, the frat houses and sororities were turning those activities up to 11 and sprinkling in group coercion dynamics.
As I mentioned in my other comment, the author of the article didn't really stop to consider whether any of this stuff that was squeezed out by the bureaucracy was actually beneficial. Do most students even prefer a campus where frat boys set their houses on fire? What about the person living next door?
When I was in school, Greek life seemed weird and excessive. I bet a lot of students on campus feel that way.
This article yearns for the days of the casual alcoholism of playing "beer die" at all hours of the day, but to me it fails to answer the question of "Why?" Why are all these activities considered to be an integral part of developing creativity?
It's equating creativity and free thought to a bunch of really juvenile activities, but because it's Stanford that means it was actually really classy and intellectual, unlike those state schools where setting a couch on fire is just what you do after a football win.
The other vibe I get from this article is that it's written by a former frat boy upset that the next generation of frat boys can't get girls to hang around naked by slapping a "co-op community" label on a frat house.
If you think I am "in a rage," you are mistaken.