Letter to the Editor: Sigma Chi is guilty only of success

Editor:

I agree with Nick Macey (“A greek house divided will not stand” Feb. 1) that the U greeks are facing a crisis of membership and that students are missing out by simply going to class and then going home each day. I also have my own (not always so nice) thoughts about the “faux greek system” that called LDSSA.

Above all, I feel that greek houses need to cooperate, build healthy viable relationships and maintain a sense of fair play.

However, calling foul on the Sigma Chi fraternity for participating in a non-university sponsored rush is unnecessary and unreasonable.

There are a few facts of the Sigma Chi open rush process that were not accounted for in Macey’s article. The young men who rushed our house the second week of school were aware of our house outside of the Inter-Fraternity Counsel’s aid.

We members did not use a Watergate method of cheating to get a list of names and numbers of prospective members ahead of time. Our chapter actively recruits individuals who we feel would be a good match for our brotherhood.

If at anytime the rushee or the Sigma Chi members felt that there were questions as to that match, then that person was encouraged to participate in the official university-sponsored rush. Doing this allows for those that our house individually recruited to have the more complete picture, and in fact adds to the number of people participating in rush.

If the issue is the size of the greek community, doesn’t the fact that those rushing joined a house, regardless of which one, benefit us all?

Also, many of the people who committed to the Sigma Chi house in our informal rush were “legacies” (i.e., related to members of our fraternity). Anyone who is greek will tell you that someone who has family members or close friends in a specific house are much more likely to also rush and join that house.

Many of the problems Macey addresses are not a product of Sigma Chi’s rush program; rather they are general criticisms of the rush process as a whole. For a potential member to see how each house can benefit him in the kind of unique experience Macey describes it would, on average, take longer than the few days we all are allowed.

My own process of becoming an active Sigma Chi member began with an informal winter rush, and I can honestly say that I didn’t catch a full glimpse of the vision described by Macey until I was in the pledge process. That is the kind of experience that each prospective member cannot have until committed to a house. The simple fact is if any other house on Greek Row could have done what we have with the same kind of success, they would have too. All houses are looking for an edge in what is a relatively competitive Greek Row, but the means we utilized as a house were in no way unfair. Should we alter the rush process? Perhaps. The newly installed IFC and Pan-Hellenic Council are looking at that very issue. Should we punish the Sigma Chi house because it, in no improper way, utilized the informal rush structure? Absolutely not.

Kim Bowman Jr.

Junior, Gender Studies/

Political Science