Let Greek-letter life grow
Your recent editorial “Greek growth needs limit” (Sept. 21, p. 4) decrying the expansion of GW’s Greek-letter life demonstrates little understanding and fails to consider that GW is a constantly evolving institution. Until recently, GW was largely a commuter school. Now, it attracts students from all regions, many of whom matriculate knowing no one else. Joining a fraternity or sorority provides friendships that define one’s college experience, and imparts a value set by which a person can grow as a leader on campus and after graduation. Greeks lead on campus at a higher rate than non-Greeks, graduate at a higher rate and, on the whole, have greater financial success after graduation. Cases-in-point: The Hatchet’s own editor in chief is Greek, as are the current SA president, executive vice preesident, and the majority of the SA Senate. Greek-letter life may not be for everyone, but limiting opportunities to join these organizations on the grounds that we are a “city-based school” and other outdated perceptions is a truly unfortunate editorial stance.
Stephen Molldrem, the Vice President of Beta Theta Pi, is a Junior majoring in political communication.
Put quality over quantity
As a former president of a small fraternity, the editorial on the expansion of Greek-letter life was dead on. GW will never realistically support a Greek community that is more than about 25 percent of campus and never really should. People don’t come here to go Greek. For the most part people come here for what D.C. can offer that other places simply cannot. But GW has become almost obsessed in the last four years with expanding its Greek-letter life, as four fraternities and one sorority have come to campus in the last three years. But this comes with a price. If the pool of people who want to join an organization doesn’t increase, but the number of organizations does increase, there is a problem. Moving forward, what GW Greek-letter life needs to do is focus inward by improving the quality as opposed to increasing the quantity of its organizations.
Micah Lubens is a Senior majoring in history.
A student’s responsibility
A student who had been recently medically diagnosed with the flu corresponded with me by e-mail expressing concern about missing the upcoming in-class quiz. I wrote back that, consistent with course policy, I would exclude that student’s quiz from the final grade computation, and that the student needed to stay home and (1) recover and (2) not expose the student’s peers to the flu. In addition, the lecture was recorded (and available via Blackboard) and the lecture transparencies were available on Blackboard immediately following the class session, so the student would not be disadvantaged pedagogically by staying home. Despite my pleas, the student decided to come to class in order to take the quiz (after which the student returned home), asserting that a nurse had verbally suggested to the student that taking the quiz might be okay (despite the fact that the student still felt – and looked – miserable). In retrospect, I should have either barred the student from the classroom or isolated the student in a separate room for the purpose of taking the quiz, and then sent the student home; if the situation were to recur, I would do this in the future. But at some point, students have an ethical and moral responsibility not to expose their peers to the flu, and in my view this student abrogated that responsibility. When the instructor does everything possible to make sure that students who have contracted the flu will not be academically penalized by staying home and recovering, it seems to me that students need to exercise their moral and ethical responsibility by staying home, getting well, and not exposing their peers to their highly contagious condition.
Philip W. Wirtz is a professor of decision sciences and of psychology.
