FORUM Reform can’t fix an institution designed to exclude

SAISH SATYAL CONTRIBUTING WRITER

The institution of Greek Life, undeniably, has been built on the systematic exclusion of those who do not fit the mold of society’s “normal” and “desirable” classes, including Black and brown people, disabled people, people from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds, and members of the LGBTQ+ communities.

In fact, that’s the whole point of the rushing process. Those that have been accepted into the institution select others who they deem worthy of entrance and community. Mirroring the slow progression of our society, more and more of those previously mentioned classes have been accepted into Greek communities (though the majority of

Greek Life remains disproportionately rich and white and notoriously cisgender and straight).

Advocates for reforming Greek life point to such progress as evidence for their cause, framing the Abolish Greek Life movement as a collection of radicals that are seeking to tear down an inherently good institution.

While progress is certainly nothing to be scoffed at, proponents of reforming Greek Life ignore the fact that our society will always have people who do not fit the mold of “normal” and “desirable” and that the very idea of Greek Life is to only accept those who fit that mold. We must examine the rush process, in which prospective brothers and sisters must prove to various fraternities and sororities that they are likable, relatable, and desirable enough to be offered a bid.

Though I understand that each fraternity and sorority may have their own specific criteria when judging the members worthy of accepting a bid, the core of Greek Life is social. It is not academic or professional, so it does not need to strive for any semblance of objectivity. Greek organizations are not basing their selections upon merit or effort, but more upon a variety of factors, mostly subjective qualities revolving around snap judgements of character.

So, what is the logical end of a selection process in which members are looking for people that they think will fit a certain kind of “vibe”? What happens when members are essentially choosing new people to recruit based on who they click with and who they think would be the “right fit” for the organization? In other words, who do we think that Chad from Sarasota will like more: Brad from Miami or Rajesh from rural Illinois?

Social psychology (or basic common sense, take your pick) tells that these members will end up choosing recruits that are most like themselves in terms of personality, background, and shared interests. As my social psychology professor (shoutout Professor Calvin Lai) would always say, birds of a feather flock together.

Given that this social subjectivity seems to be at the core of Greek Life and its claims of “creating a community,” is it any wonder that members of the abolition movement are skeptical of reformist efforts? Fraternities today are undeniably more inclusive, allowing for people of different races and sexual orientations to join. One only has to hear stories about WashU in the ‘80s and ‘90s or even just ten years ago to understand that fact. But I argue that they will never truly be diverse.

As an inherently exclusive social organization, Greek Life’s commitment to inclusivity rings incredibly hollow. The existence of people of color in an organization is not proof that the organization is accepting of their background and identity. It seems like the structural equivalent of saying, “I can’t be racist, I have a Black friend, and I voted for Barack Obama.”

At the end of the day, Greek life fosters a home and community in which people from low socioeconomic backgrounds or people who want to express identities that are not seen as mainstream are not going to be fully welcome.

To the credit of some of those in Greek Life, particularly some sororities at WashU, this is not for lack of trying. Often, the individuals participating in these organizations turn out to be incredibly kind and understanding. However, the nature of facilitated social interactions, the kind that Greek organizations are built on, make this exclusion inevitable. How can an organization built upon the idea of social exclusion, that some people deserve material benefits because they fit the vibe, ever be inclusive enough to include those of us that don’t fit their mold?

Are porn stars the new celebrities?

AMELIA RADEN STAFF WRITER

Over winter break, I was rewatching season two of “Euphoria” with my mother. Why, I’m not entirely sure, as anyone who has seen the show knows that watching it with one’s parents is a terrible, horrendous, even nightmarish scenario. When Faye strutted onto the screen and introduced herself to Zendaya, my mom’s eyes widened and jaw dropped. “Look at her mouth! She looks like a porn star!” To which I responded, “Well…she is.” as both a high-profile actress and porn star. And she might be right. Despite being incredibly famous (Chloe has over 1.3 million followers on Instagram), Chloe Cherry has yet to secure another role that’s achieved the cultural stardom of “Euphoria,” though she has been cast in two in-production films. On the other hand, she has been overwhelmed with brand deals and sponsorships since her “Euphoria” fame and has been the face of campaigns for Versace, Urban Decay, and Steve Madden.

ILLUSTRATION

SOPHIE LEONG

Last year, model and writing sensation Emily Ratajkowski launched “High Low” with EmRata, a feminist podcast that has developed a focus on sex and relationships.

In the last four months, Ratajkowski has hosted two former sex workers, Chloe Cherry and Mia Khalifa, on the podcast to share their experience in the pornography industry, forcing her listeners to ask: Are porn stars the new celebrities?

BY RYAN DAVIS

During her porn career, Chloe Cherry was scouted on Instagram by Sam Levinson, creator of “Euphoria,” for season two. The season was a huge success and Chloe’s character, Faye, was a crowd favorite. The show launched Chloe to exponential fame, and she decided to devote her time to being a full-time actress. According to her interview on “High Low,” she quit pornography because of the incomparable money she was making as an actress, and she thinks that the world just may not be ready for a powerful woman actively working

Before Chloe Cherry’s appearance on “High Low,” Emily Ratajkowski hosted Mia Khalifa, another former porn star with much to say about the industry. Mia is even more famous than Chloe, boasting 27.5 million followers on Instagram and an audience that is entirely global. She spoke on “High Low” about her followers, expressing that for the first time in her career, her demographic is over 40 percent women. This is largely due to her comedic presence on TikTok, where she humorously discusses crazy exes, holds McDonald’s mukbangs, and contrasts her glamorous photoshoots with a less glamorous reality. Stella Barey is another sex worker with a huge social media presence, and not because of her work in the sex industry. Her TikTok has over 627,000 followers, and it serves as a platform for her reviews of philosophy books, frank discussions about OnlyFans, and relationship tips. On her

TikTok, Stella opens up about her experience as a pre-med student at UCLA, planning to go to NYU for medical school before choosing to pursue a career on OnlyFans. According to her, she is in the top .01 percent of creators on the platform, raking in over $200,000 per month.

These women’s entry into the celebrity sphere normalizes sex work as an industry in the larger scope of media. Chloe Cherry says in her “High Low” episode that she shares her experience to ensure that the next girl who decides to follow her path does not face the same extreme level of backlash that she did, and it is working.

Stella Barey especially works to combat the idea that women in sex work are unintelligent, and all three of these women are building respect for women everywhere, regardless of their occupations or industries.

All three of these women are incredibly successful, whether they still participate in sex work or not, and their followings are growing. Modern women are, for the first time, able to shamelessly admire and revere sex workers and former sex workers as strong and powerful women in the eyes of society. Their opinions and experiences are not only being shared widely on large platforms, but are actually being heard and understood by wide audiences, regardless of gender.