Series 2: Ignorance, or Failure?
In Part One of my Three Part series on Rooming Assignments within Fraternities I had discussed how my attempt to implement a Democratic system of assigning rooms, in the absence of a merit-based reward system, was ultimately an example of a democratic failure at the most local of levels. We were unable to use any form of Self-Governance due to man’s inclined nature to act only within his or her own self interests, and thus turned to a form of Representative Democracy in an effort to maintain fairness.
This was our "Deliberation Room" and things got a little too heated!
During deliberation though, we ran into two major issues that have forced me to rethink the feasibility of such a Democratic process in the fair assignment of rooms within a fraternity satellite house, a small scale scenario that may be related to additional democratic failures such as the example of underrepresentation used by Mary Hawkesworth in her article[1] on Congressional Enactments of Race-Gender.
The first major issue we faced was the misrepresentation of our “electoral” body. Of the 21 housemates, excluding myself, 19 of them were satisfied with the floor plan that I had lain out, over a 90% approval rating. While this may seem satisfactory to continue with our plan under a majority rule decision, this type of verdict would significantly alter the lives of my two housemates that were unhappy with their rooms. Unlike written legislation, which may affect constituents either indirectly or directly, this type of plan would impact each and every day spent in our new house.
The two housemates who were very dissatisfied with their rooms both shared a common bond, one that I am unable to relate to. To a non-member of Greek Life, the stereotypical stigma of “brotherhood” surrounding fraternities is very different than what we actually observe. The very nature of the rush, or recruitment, process creates a rift between those who receive their bids in the fall and those who must wait until the winter to become initiated. Ironically enough, my two unhappy housemates, Sam Khym and Paaras Mehta were initiated in the winter, while the remaining 19 housemates received their bids during the fall.
Consequently, my inability to represent this small group of people that I do not identify with was not so much a result of my own ignorance, but rather a democratic failure at the most local of levels. I thought I had been representing a group of people that I could identify with, and thus would be able to cater to their needs, yet this underlying theme was more deeply rooted than I had thought. We had chosen to ignore the stigma of fall versus winter, rather than embrace it, and instead chose one representative in the interest of time. After looking back on the situation, and realizing what had happened, I sat down with Sam and Paaras and asked, Could you tell me how the situation initially made you feel, and if you could propose your own solution, what would it be?
“Honestly I was really infuriated,” said Sam. “I do research early in the mornings, and I am also a manger for the football team here at Michigan. When I was placed on the first floor, which is notoriously the loudest, I was extremely confused. I had tried to explain my situation earlier in our group text but was obviously ignored. As a (Winter), I have always felt somewhat overshadowed by the (Falls) and I think it definitely had some influence in the choosing of the rooms,” continued Sam. “I felt as though when the floor plan was made up, my needs were some of the last to be accounted for. If I could do it again, I would for sure have a winter on the committee with you to help you choose.”
My conversation with Paaras was eerily similar. “My first thought was that it was because I was a (Winter). This was the second year in a row that I had been forced to live in a bad room, and it’s really just frustrating. I understood that it would be difficult to please everyone, but it’s upsetting to see all of the (Falls) excited about their rooms, while I’m forced, again, to take a bad one,” Paaras asserted. “I agree with (Skhym), I think one of us should have helped you choose.”
After hearing both of these stories, and drawing back on what Mary Hawkesworth had asserted in her discussion of underrepresentation in the 104th Congress, I was determined to come up with some sort of solution that could be implemented in future situations, and would be able to please all involved.
Stay tuned for the final edition of the series on proposed solutions from both my friends and I!
[1] Mary Hawkesworth, “Congressional Enactments of Race-Gender”, Page 536
No comments:
Post a Comment