Opinion: The history of Greek Life promotes a discriminative ranking system for sororities at the University of Oregon.
———-
If there’s one thing Greek Life is good at, it’s classifying sororities into a hierarchy. One might be thinking, “They must be ranked on academics or community service, right?” Not quite. A sorority chapter’s value is often determined by their appearance and social life.
The first sorority was established in 1851 to offer women a space for excellence, although the term “sorority” was not coined until 1882. In this time period, higher education excluded women. Sorority chapters intended onenhancing the social, scholastic and professional interests of members, according to APP State.
Today, we can acknowledge the foundation of sororities was built on discrimination and exclusion. Most of the early organizations consisted of women privileged enough to attend college — wealthy and white. As Greek Life has served primarily white communities throughout history, whiteness became the stereotypical “standard” for sororities.
Modern chapters are placed into a tier system: top, middle and bottom. There’s no official ranking system that groups sororities into a tier. However, stereotypes and the dynamic of the panhellenic community determine how a chapter is perceived.
Greek Rank operates as the biggest platform for enforcing these tiers. The website is completely anonymous, meaning anyone can rank a chapter at any institution. A typical review includes a description, tier level and ranking of six characteristics: friendliness, popularity, classiness, involvement, social life and sisterhood/brotherhood.
I scrolled through the website to gather a general overview of each chapter at the University of Oregon.
For the top tier chapters, their reviews predominantly centered around appearance. Comments like, “Hottest girls on campus,” and “Pretty and sociable girls,” were recurrent.
Like everything online, there’s going to be a negative side. However, even the unfavorable reviews focused on looks. Comments saying that the top chapters have “the personality of a stale Triscuit,” was a common theme. One anonymous user commented, “If you’re not blonde and 2 pounds, they hate you just like how they all hate each other.”
The crude reviews only progressed when I reached the bottom tier chapters. One chapter had a “reputation of being the home to a bunch of crazies (which is accurate).” Users described the sorority as, “Rude, insecure and desperate.”
All UO chapters receive their fair share of animosity online. However, I must comment on the demographics. Chapters in the top tier are predominantly white, illustrating the beauty standard. Chapters in the bottom tier are more diverse, both in terms of body types and racial backgrounds.
This contrast was most evident in a middle tier chapter. The positive reviews talked about the diversity amongst the members and their accepting atmosphere. On the other side, users said they weren’t “the hottest or most popular.” One review said, “Not a huge fan. They aren’t super attractive.”
Stereotypes end up being the determining factor for how a chapter is perceived by other sororities and fraternities. One girl gains likeability for being in a top tier, while another feels embarrassed to rep a bottom tier in fear of judgment.
The hierarchy of sororities expands further than just the panhellenic community. Women going through the recruitment process often take Greek Rank into consideration.
“There’s this phenomenon that people are choosing sororities based off prestige rather than where they want to be and who they want to be with,” Dylan Toler, a third-year student and member of UO Greek Life, said.
Toler was a former president of her chapter. Throughout her term, Toler grew strong connections with each chapter in the UO community. Each sorority brings something unique to campus. Instead of chasing social status, “new members should choose a chapter where they can be themselves,” she said.
Toler acknowledges that “there’s not a whole lot of diversity at UO, or other universities, and that’s deeply rooted within America.” Nationwide, Greek Life stays discriminative toward minority groups.
Like the rest of the country, the UO panhellenic community carries discriminative standards with them today. One might argue that Greek Rank is just a bunch of anonymous losers. Yet their unofficial hierarchy continues to govern relationships in the Greek Life community.
“Greek life in general needs to evolve. We’re slowly but surely getting there. It’s moving a little bit slower than usual, but I think it’s doing pretty decently so far,” Toler said.
