In the past month, greek students on campus have been widely stereotyped and insulted.  I’m not attempting to turn the victimhood around, but the amount of hate and sarcasm toward the greek community is obviously apparent.

The greek community has been characterized as old-fashioned, racist and intolerant and their early attempts to change that stereotype have been mocked and written off as insufficient. I am not saying these criticisms are untrue; take any look at the racial make-up of an old row fraternity or sorority and it will be impossible to argue otherwise.

Similarly, Austin Gaddis’ column, “Why all the hate for the greek community?” helped to highlight many of the positive aspects of greek life, while admitting there is great room for improvement in the inclusivity of the greek system.

Unfortunately, many criticisms relating to greek inclusiveness, race relations and campus unity may be true, but they are an incredibly ineffective way of promoting change on campus.  Though we should in no way deny or alter the truth (doing so has never turned out well in the course of history), it is useless and harmful to the cause of campus unity to insult the greek community and their efforts to change, no matter how elementary.

If the greek system is truly going to change, that change will come largely from inside itself because that is where the money and the power lie.  Thus, it continues to amaze me that students believe they can harass greeks into changing.

In Michael Patrick’s column, “Intolerance a problem in the greek system,” he self-admittedly suggests he has no solution for change, yet he concludes with “[we] must demand that fraternities and sororities stop promoting racism by joining the 21st century and finally desegregating.” Michael Patrick’s criticisms may be spot-on, but his sarcastic criticisms do the cause severe injustice.

In Alex Hollinghead’s column, “Incident creates a black mark on campus,” he brashly asks the Delta Tau Delta students involved in the racial incident if any one of them “possesses the guts or the moral fiber to speak up. Which is it?” He asks, “Was everyone else in the room a bigot or just a coward?”  Again, I agree with Hollinghead’s criticisms, but his delivery is poisonous to the cause.

Since the incident, greek students have formed Greeks for T.I.D.E., an organization designed to promote inclusiveness in the greek community, yet even Greeks for T.I.D.E. has been subject to harsh criticism. In Turney Foshee’s column “Get real about change,” he describes Greeks for T.I.D.E. as “nothing but an empty gesture with no hope of unifying or affecting any real change on campus whatsoever.” Foshee even goes as far as to describe President Witt’s e-mail as “faux outrage.”

When you want people to enact positive change, and they take the first steps towards what might resemble change, the absolute last thing you should do is discredit their actions and motives.  This is not a complicated political strategy; it’s a basic principle of human interaction.

Though only time will tell whether the efforts of Greeks for T.I.D.E., the greek community as a whole or even President Witt himself will be effective, it is certainly not our place to judge their motives.

James Fowler, our greek SGA president, has taken gigantic strides towards unifying campus and promoting inclusiveness.  Our entire constitution has even been rewritten.

Why, then, is it the case that many independent students’ rhetoric suggests they believe one unelected fraternity member’s harmful actions are a better representative of the greek community than one elected fraternity member’s helpful actions? Even if they are correct in their accusations, they are shooting themselves in the foot by erasing a vital opportunity for consensus and emphasizing only the negative.

In Dale Carnegie’s classic book, “How to Win Friends and Influence People,” he describes “How to Change People Without Giving Offense.” Three of his nine points are “begin with honest appreciation, ask questions instead of giving direct orders, and praise every improvement.” If independents want to be effective in enacting change, they would be well-served to take these principles to heart.

Martin Luther King Jr. understood these basic principles of human interaction. In his “Letter From a Birmingham Jail,” he was quick to forge camaraderie with those he knew had real power to enact change.  He is quick to describe his audience as “men of genuine good will.”  He commends Catholic state leaders and others (who he mentions by name) who had taken the first steps to integrate their churches.

As a result, when Dr. King explicitly mentioned the unjust actions of white segregationists, his audience was undoubtedly more willing to listen to his calls for change.

We cannot realize our common goal of inclusiveness until the most vocal independent students alter their abrasive rhetoric.

Ben Friedman is a sophomore majoring in social entrepreneurship. His column runs on Fridays.