The subject of the American university sorority has become a sensationalized phenomenon within the public eye. This unique type of community group has become the focus of books, TV shows, HBO documentaries and TikTok trends as people of all ages have become engrossed in the curious nature of the niche lives of these women. Spring semester is now here at the University of Connecticut, and with it an uptick of sorority activity on campus as they attempt to recruit the next class of hopeful young women through aesthetic Instagram posts and Pinterest-inspired social events. At the beginning of last semester, I wrote an article entitled “Dear UConn, do not join a frat,” wherein I argued that fraternities as a social institution are an overall net negative in our society and people shouldn’t join them. Yet, in the interest of being an equal opportunity hater, it’s hard to ignore the other half of Greek life and all its problems. So, this letter goes out to all those considering the spring rush this year: you can do better, so please don’t join a sorority.
It’s important to start with a couple of clarifying points. First, the reasons to not join a fraternity versus a sorority are not equal, and I am in no way equating the negative parts of each of these organizations. Still, that’s no reason not to criticize sororities. Second, as I said in the last article, this is a systems-level argument. Sororities are a social institution of high influence to the college ecosystem, and there’s no claims here about a sorority specifically but rather sororities generally. However, there’s still no room for saying that “mine doesn’t do that stuff” because buying into an institution like this one requires legitimizing the harm it does overall.
So, what is the problem with these groups?
Well, it begins with their interconnectedness with fraternities. Although sororities were originally created with the intent to carve out a space for women in universities during the late 1800s, it’s clear that today these groups cannot exist without their male counterparts. The most major way is through the parties, simply because the National Panhellenic Council, which governs the most major sororities, literally bans them from having substances at their houses. Since people in these organizations want to party, it forces strong connections with frats who can host these events. The “top” frats choose which sororities they want to tie themselves to, and so, they have an outstretched influence on the ranking systems of sororities. These ranking systems are essential to the social lives of sisters and the recruitment of new members, and, since they’re based on what frat guys want, they just so happen to be focused on how attractive these girls are and how much they ingratiate themselves to the brothers.
This heavily unequal power dynamic creates quite the odd result in many sororities, wherein they become active participants in the very misogynistic rape culture which harms their members. For example, according to the Washington Post, one sorority at Georgia State University created quotas for the minimum number of brothers their sisters spoke to at parties, even fining sisters $25 each time they didn’t attend a fraternity event. These policies, which extend far past Georgia State, show where the real priorities lie for these groups when they override a sister’s decisions and safety concerns. There have also been cases across the country of sororities helping cover up cases of reported sexual assault for fear of disrupting relationships with other Greek organizations or worsening their own image.
Now, it’s unfair to say that they don’t do anything to combat rampant sexual assault, but it’s how they address it that falls short. One national study from Northwestern University found that sororities were more likely to focus on individual-level policies instead of broad change for fear of disrupting their party scene. Examples include implementing protective policies like sober monitors or excluding specifically creepy men rather than disassociating themselves from certain frats. These policies attempt to reduce campus sexual assault to just a thing some bad guys do, without addressing how the fraternities they are connected to systemically breed this behavior.
Aside from problems of sexual assault, there are more weird consequences of the frat-based ranking systems. Since societal conceptions of beauty have always been defined by socioeconomic and racial factors, it’s not surprising that the exclusion of poor and minority students has been a problem baked into the history of sororities. This is also because the first sororities were secret societies built to be racist and classist in the wake of black students being allowed into universities, but I digress. Sororities have yet to make a space truly meant for all women, instead focusing on buying into selectiveness to increase their own social standing.
Which, frankly, gets to the heart of the weirdness around sororities entirely. Why is there even a ranking system in the first place? If sororities were really just about making lifelong friends, why does your friend group need to be the “best” as compared to other random groups of normal women? Many women today view sororities as a means of empowerment and being around other strong women, but empowerment for some while putting down others is just called privilege.
The reasons why many women choose to join sororities may not involve all the sociopolitical factors that I’ve described above. The reasons, in truth, are very simple and understandable: people want to party, make friends and have a fun time in college. As far as these organizations are a pretty guaranteed way of doing that, it’s a fair solution. Still, choosing to buy in regardless of all the negative factors communicates that these things are clearly not that important. Don’t be complicit, don’t join a sorority.