Ryan Benjamin | Deliberating on the deliberations

Rush just ended, which, though a relief (or disappointment) for many, also means for the time being we won't be judging people as much, at least formally.

Throughout history, in admitting people to various clubs, we often judged them on their origins - race, gender, religion, wealth: largely superficial ideals about who we wanted to belong.

For the most part, we've come a long way, and now, to select people for various groups, we often engage in intense deliberation processes to judge them on character, or at least perceived character. Though better, the current general system used by many student groups has flaws.

Take Greek life, for example. During open rush, hundreds of freshmen, scrounging for free food arrive at multiple fraternities. By no means do they speak with every member of every fraternity. Therefore, when brothers have to choose whom to "cut" that night, it's difficult to judge appropriately.

Johnny, a freshman from the Quad, didn't talk to everyone in the fraternity, so the rest of the brothers must rely on the one or two who spoke with him. "Good guy," one says.

First, what does that mean, exactly? And second, if that brother isn't well liked within the fraternity, forget it, Johnny. When it's time to vote, you're guilty by association, and you're done.

The same process, or variations of it, typically beginning with short and empty conversations and ending with a simple yes or no, also occurs in sororities and countless other campus groups.

Though fraternities have their own ways of choosing bids with "no real guidelines" from either OFSA or the University, the process is democratic, according to Wharton junior Shawn Woodhull, president of the Interfraternity Council. "Overall, the system is very well run and provides a fantastic program for freshmen," he said.

To trace the origins of this fairly arbitrary process that occurs most frequently in college, we can go back to the direct democracy of ancient Athens, where "everyone" (aka adult male citizens) was allowed to vote on just about everything. Direct democracy turned out to be fairly complicated, so in most cases it doesn't exist in modern politics.

Deliberative democracy, a modern manifestation of the Athenian version and researched by our own Amy Gutmann, encourages public deliberation to solve problems rather than simply voting.

But when it's human beings that are being debated, this quickly turns imperfect. It's hard to know people well enough to know if they'll be a good fit.

In political campaigns our decision-making process lies in "I like that guy" or "She seems honest." Yet the truth is we don't really know, and we never will, because we base our opinions largely on the media- and self-constructed images of the candidates.

If we're lucky enough to meet a candidate, it probably means taking a picture with him and nothing more. The chosen few who "intimately" know the candidates are perhaps the only ones who can legitimately say, "I like that guy." Yet we still make these assumptions.

In rushing and selection for other groups, we at least get to meet the contenders. And though this system is indubitably better than any form of lottery or fashion show, we must make it fairer.

On the Student Committee on Undergraduate Education, in which I just ended my term as secretary, we used to interview candidates (sometimes more than 70) in eight-minute blocks, hoping to bring out the best in our applicants. Unfortunately, it didn't always work.

This semester, in an effort to better get to know our contenders, we switched to a two-round system. The effects of it remain to be seen, but I imagine we will make more informed decisions as a result.

The Philomathean Society has its prospectives present on a topic of their choice, showcasing their communication skills. Perhaps another improvement could be a point-counterpoint debate between two interviewers, one for and one against the same candidate. If we're going to judge, we might as well do it right.

Or, if we're out of luck, perhaps we can return to Amy Gutmann - who I'm sure was not thinking of frat life in her extensive research on deliberative democracy. It might be wise for her to reconsider these glitches in the life of her own University when writing her next book.

Ryan Benjamin is a College senior from New Haven, Conn. A Connecticut Yankee appears on Fridays. His email address is benjamin@dailypennsylvanian.com.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.