Letters and Emails

Representation of sororities, fraternities lacks validity

I write to The Santa Clara with concern over the commentary offered by Mr. Blair Thedinger in last week's issue. While Mr. Thedinger's criticisms of the Greek community are undoubtedly written out of passion for his vision of charitable action, they are plagued by illogic. Ultimately, Mr. Thedinger relies on incendiary character attacks, misinformation, and tired moralizing to demolish the perennial strawman of Greek elitism and apathy. A curious spectrum of personality and action is condensed into a simple unsavory characterization because, after all, human complexity is a hard target for the broadsides of Mr. Thedinger.

Mr. Thedinger leads us to believe that the sororities and fraternities of Santa Clara are self-proclaimed champions of philanthropy rather than social organizations that engage in select philanthropic activity. While many Greek organizations were founded with philanthropy as a primary purpose, they have evolved towards participation in a great range of activities. Philanthropy, whether within the organization (scholarships, grants) or outside of it (charities, volunteerism), still remains as one of the core values of most Greek organizations. This does not mean that they wish to be characterized as "philanthropic organizations." The main focus is and always has been friendship - and by extension the qualities of leadership and selflessness within its membership.

While Greeks have tried to highlight their philanthropic efforts, I cannot recall any Santa Clara Greek claiming that their organization's primary concern or purpose was philanthropy. Ashley Ritchie certainly does not do that in her column. Mr. Thedinger's entire argument is predicated upon a constructed reality, that of Greek organizations proclaiming they are, above all or at least largely, philanthropic. Without this manufacturing effort and the apparent Greek hypocrisy that it creates, the nature of his attacks lies naked to the world. They are little more than moral judgments on consumer choice that could be leveled at anybody that does not behave or think according to his principles. He submits exaggeration ("exorbitant amounts"), speculation ("expected ... expensive outfits"), and outright falsehood ("all money goes to parties and sweatshirts") as fact. He defines the debatable term "philanthropy" to his own advantage. His question about the "trade-off" between expensive clothing and frozen bodies is especially ridiculous - it is here that he reveals that he has no real argument against the Greeks, just an opinion on how people in our society should spend their money and live their lives. But "everybody" is not a very fun enemy. Enter Mr. Thedinger's decadent, fabricated version of the Greeks: hard philanthropist shell outside, creamy frivolous lifestyle inside. He paints the dullest of portraits. Elitist automatons spoiled by privilege and consumerist sheep come together to blow wads of cash on a bunch of meaninglessness. Yawn.

Mr. Thedinger seems more interested in spending time denouncing fashion choices and backyard parties than researching the impact of philanthropy by Greeks at Santa Clara. A cursory investigation would have yielded the information he begs. Alpha Phi donates to the Alpha Phi Foundation which pours money into various cardiac care initiatives. Delta Gamma raises money for Service for Sight and other blindness-related programs. Sigma Pi raises money for the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. These major Santa Clara programs will probably generate over $60,000 for charity this year alone. The extensive service of Sigma Lambda Beta is to be envied. Economy prevents me from listing more, and we have not even explored the many circumstances in which Greeks donate their time and money to programs outside the context of their organization's philanthropy effort. There is room for improvement, but the immense value of these contributions cannot be ignored.

On principle, the Greek community need not defend their actions to the school or Mr. Thedinger at all. We are not subsidized by them so our largesse or lack thereof is not their concern. We donate our time by choice and interest, not by mandate. Our individual and organizational spending is our own business, and as we earn those dollars through our own labor we can claim morality and justice in the methods in which they are spent. At the end, Mr. Thedinger takes an important pause in his flurry of opprobrium, scorn, and contempt to praise some of his Greek friends for their character - and therein lies the seed of a greater realization. Greeks are ordinary people with ordinary hopes and concerns. There exist within our ranks philanthropists, scholars, athletes, socialites, engineers, artists, talkers, doers and even people who don't drink alcohol or buy expensive clothes. We want diversity of ideas and diversity of strengths and weaknesses, but these desires bind us to imperfect action. We don't have it figured out, but apparently Mr. Thedinger does. He sees a greedy elite masking their frivolous concerns with a facade of philanthropy. In four years I saw a great deal - from laughable superficiality to sublime humanity. If he could gaze upon the motley crew that I did he would begin to appreciate the splendid individuality before him. While not perfect, they are much more human and complex than the stereotypes he belittles them with. I know I am.

Sam Ritchey,

history/economics, '01

Student's opinion of Greeks misconstrued

AFTER READING BLAIR Thedinger's accusatory letter in the Feb. 7 issue of The Santa Clara, my first thought was to go and talk to him personally about what I thought was an unfair and inaccurate portrayal of the Greek system. I am not writing a defense of the 'anonymous' fraternities and sororities to which Thedinger referred to in his editorial. I am writing this response as a direct criticism of Thedinger's editorial to make a point about the extreme detachment and smugness in which he dealt with individuals in the Greek system and the skewed logic behind his flawed 'assertions.'

If Thedinger actually wanted to give his claims some basis, perhaps he should go beyond his shallow knowledge of Greek life and Greek philanthropy, or Greek service experience for that matter. He refers to his friends in the Greek system with "true ideals and dedication" as simply exceptions to his generalizations. I wonder how they feel about an organization in which they put a good deal of their time and effort into being "shallow, self-absorbed, elitist, social clubs"? Perhaps Mr. Thedinger should reconsider his generalizations.

As for his criticisms of the Greek system, I say, go ahead, hop on the P.C. bandwagon. Can't he think of any other things to get mad about than what the media and the administration have been shoveling down the student body's throat? Not a single accusation showed any sort of ingenuity, just the cacophony that the administration has been whistling into the collective ears of the University since they embarked on an all-encompassing plan to change Santa Clara into a sort of West Coast Georgetown.

The Greek system was simply too easy of a target for Mr. Thedinger to resist, especially with Ashley Ritchie's advertisement disguised as a puffy article to fuel blind anger. In reference to forthcoming rebuttals of his editorial Thedinger, wrongly assuming that the Greeks would have nothing but drivel with which to defend his accusations, wrote, "Please don't twist my language and accuse me of not caring about people with heart disease." Please Blair - don't insult my intelligence.

More than just a few members of my fraternity pay their own way through school, as well as fraternity fees on top of that; and they don't appreciate it when you accuse them of spitting at the homeless with their credit cards. More than just a few members of all the Greek houses at Santa Clara perform service acts in addition to what is required by their houses. Maybe you should talk to them and find out more before you accuse them of preferring to throw away their boundless dollars than to get their pretty hands dirty working with the 'less blessed.' Please, give your editorial some basis next time you write. And when you want to vent your frustrations on a feted world and a space-filler article, take a minute, step off your soapbox, and remember that this is a small campus.

Just as a person who wears homemade clothing, doesn't wear shoes or even has a dreaded head could be stereotyped into being a drugged-out, unmotivated 'hippie'; I don't appreciate being reduced from a person to a number (or a letter for that matter) and being told I am just a selfish, superficial head in a selfish, shallow group. What it boils down to is this: don't marginalize me or any member of the Greek system in your zeal.

All Thedinger accomplished, besides spitting out the same old criticisms at Greeks, was to perpetrate his alienation from a (surprisingly) connected and concentric community that plays a definitive role in the Santa Clara community. If his goal was to educate, inform or influence individuals or the Greek system as a whole, his editorial was one step short of falling into complete failure. So Blair, next time you see something wrong and want it changed, talk to me in the chemistry lab, or to other Greeks when you're eating in Benson, or working in the SCCAP office - don't get pissed-off and hot-headed and scream at me with your fingers.

Conor Lee,

political science/biology, '04

Article inaccurate in depiction

I AM VERY displeased with Cara Quackenbush's article, "Experts debate pacifism, Just War" in the Feb. 7 issue of The Santa Clara. Contrary to what one might think after reading the article, this dialogue actually presented an extremely well-constructed, rational and convincing pacifist argument.

From Quackenbush's article, I get the impression that Bishop Gumbleton urges Americans to do as Jesus did, which is to "lay down [your] life." However, Bishop Gumbleton stressed that pacifism does not mean being passive, and he suggested working on forgiveness and justice instead of violence. It takes courage to be a pacifist and to have hope for a peaceful world. For the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world, the easy way to deal with a conflict is to do exactly what the U.S. did and what Cook supports: take out the enemy by completely bombing an entire nation to pieces. For U.S. citizens, the passive thing to do is to blindly support the government while we continue to pursue luxurious lifestyles. Bishop Gumbleton is a pacifist, but not a "passive-ist."

If we desire a better world, then we need to act accordingly. Until we, as individuals, are willing to make sacrifices (which, by the way, do not include sacrificing our lives as Jesus did), we are simply supporting a world in which "peace" means "U.S. dominates." If we truly have the will to create peace, we simply cannot continue enjoying our indulgent lifestyles while 800 million people in the world go to bed hungry every night. Moreover, if we want to protect our lives, we simply cannot do so by destroying others' lives, spreading more terror, and thereby inevitably creating more enemies.

Quackenbush also presented Cook's argument that "advanced technology" allows the U.S. military to wage a "just war." Bishop Gumbleton asked why, if we have the ability to bomb targets within three to four feet, are we using daisy-cutter bombs? Why are children dying daily from unexploded cluster bombs? Why are entire villages destroyed? Why are 5000 civilians dead? Either the Pentagon is not using its "advanced technology," or did it deliberately target those 5000 innocent men, women and children? A member of the audience later asked the question: "If we are so advanced that we can bomb a target within three to four feet, why can't we make technology that delivers food within three to four feet of a target?"

Last, I would like to comment on the remark made by Cook, in which he called his argument "policy" while calling Gumbleton's speech "exhortation" and "homily." Had he been in a dialogue with Jesus, or Martin Luther King, Jr., or Gandhi, he would have had to make the same remark. Working towards social justice and cooperation in this global society is also policy. Perhaps what Cook meant with his policy/homily remark was that the pacifist Gumbleton spoke from the head and the heart, thereby winning the support of the majority of audience members, while he, as a just war theorist, spoke from the head alone, leaving compassion and conscience behind. That is the difference.

Charlotte Vallaeys,

religious studies/psychology/German, '02