Dominic Baez & Claire Oliver. Last week, Kelley Hungerford, assistant editor, wrote an opinion describing her frustration with the actions of a group of
drunken girls who ruined her comedian-going experience.
Judging by the response via Facebook posts, word-of-mouth and letters to the editor, her words struck a nerve with many. For one thing, her piece used, shall we say, aggressive language. For another, it vaguely mentioned the ever-touchy subject of Greek Life on
campus.
Even so, it is wrong to say that her thoughts were better left unsaid.
First of all, we’d like to thank those who submitted written responses; there were many who took a more passive-aggressive route.
We have to disagree, however, with the claim that Kelley’s opinion was an abuse of her editorial position.
In mentioning the culprits’ participation in Greek Life, she may as well have been referring to several members of our own editorial staff. And while our personal opinions on the matter itself may differ, we stand behind her all the same.
However, her piece was just that: an opinion. It was printed along with her own name and picture on the opinions page.
In fact, Review staff member or not, anyone can do the same. That’s the purpose of a letter to the editor. The Review does not censor those submitted words, so the views of its editors deserve the same regard.
True, some people may infer that Kelley’s words imply wider responsibility for the incident to the Greek community, but even if her view came off as stereotypical, in the end it still speaks some truth: In a sorority or fraternity, the actions of a few reflect on the reputation of the group as a whole.
Moreover, sticking gum in someone’s hair is a sign of immaturity, no matter the provocation. Kelley had every right to be perturbed and would have felt the same even if the girls weren’t affiliated.
The suggestion that Kelley join a sorority to learn social graces is similarly unfounded. Greek affiliation is by no means a necessity for friendship or a positive college experience, and membership should be a unifying, not alienating, factor.
What is perhaps most dangerous about the implications of both Kelley’s opinion and the letters of response is the notion that Greeks and non-Greeks can’t act amiably toward one another.
As the idea of “bridging the gap between Greeks and non-Greeks” has been a part of every ASLC platform in recent memory, we can say with certainty that perpetuating this stereotype is against the best interest of the student body.
As for messages for freshmen to take away, we at the Review want to emphasize that the idea of Greek-non-Greek separation is absolutely false.
Here’s another important one that we’ll stress yet again: Speak up. The Review is here to communicate any complaints, responses, criticisms or ideas. Use it as an outlet and a resource. No contribution is an abuse.