Even in the era of fourth wave feminism, most American children still grow up in a rigid gender binary. They learn to practice gender roles that shape their personalities and their lives. Then, those with a certain amount of privilege find themselves thrown onto American college campuses with unprecedented freedom in their gender identity and expression. How do they navigate this freedom? Do they play into the gender roles they have been taught or learn new ways of existing as a human? A place where these questions are especially relevant is in American Greek life. Fraternities and sororities are the epitome of gendered social organizations and they have been the subject of much controversy over the past 200 years. How does gender manifest itself inside these privileged organizations, and what are the solutions to the woes of Greek life?

In his book “Inside Greek U,” Alan DeSantis (he/him) breaks down gender within America’s fraternities and sororities. His deep dive into Greek life through being a professor and Greek advisor at University of Kentucky (nicknamed GU for Greek University), led to five conclusions about the state of modern fraternities and sororities with a specific focus on gender. After his five specific conclusions, DeSantis summarizes what he has come to believe through his extensive research:

I am saddened to conclude that, for many men and women at GU, [the Greek experience] has further restricted their already narrow comfort zones and reinforced many of the most traditional and dangerous ideas of their childhood. Of all the harmful lessons learned, however, none affects Greek students’ lives more than the limiting conceptions of gender that the system reinforces. More than any other single factor, these conceptions impede students’ intellectual and emotional growth and limit the range of possibilities open to them in their postcollege lives. (DeSantis 221)

Notably, though, DeSantis does not extend this conclusion towards the abolition of Greek life. DeSantis explains how personally, the Greek system has had a positive impact on his life. His fraternity taught him how to be a loyal and caring friend, and gave him the confidence to take big risks and make big mistakes. Instead, DeSantis writes, “​​It is a reasonable goal to aim at rewriting the gender scripts of the Greek system in such a way that they allow for greater possibilities” (222). To make this a possibility, he makes charges to specific “stakeholders” (e.g., professors, “concerned Greek students”, and Greek alumni) with how they can take action to improve the Greek system. He believes that without specific action from invested parties, the Greek system will continue to be a place of intolerance and social ills.

Alan DeSantis is currently a professor at University of Kentucky in the Communication and Information department. He received a masters degree in communication with an emphasis on quantitative methodology from University of Alabama, and a PhD in communication with an emphasis on rhetorical theory and criticism from University of Indiana. His research and teaching center around social constructionism with particular focus on race, class, gender, and culture. DeSantis was a member of a fraternity at Brandywine College and James Madison University, and a fraternity advisor at Indiana and Alabama. Throughout his time in Greek life, he has thought critically about race, gender, and class, and has spent time getting to know the members of a wide range of Greek organizations.

The contents of “Inside Greek U.” are drawn from three distinct but interconnected methodologies. The first is statistical data compiled from the government and universities on a wide variety of topics including alcohol consumption and post-graduate occupations. The second source is the least formal: DeSantis’s involvement in Greek life. As an advisor for twelve different white social Greek organizations, one black social Greek organization, and two white social Greek governing organizations, he has attended countless tailgates, chapter meetings, rush functions, and fundraisers. He took detailed notes on these events, and recorded spontaneous conversations between members. Finally, DeSantis conducted focus group and individual interviews with 217 fraternity and sorority members on the GU campus. He asked these students specific questions about their conceptions of gender and the role of gender in the Greek system. Since so much of DeSantis’s research is qualitative and human, he pays particular attention to social cues. Do these students feel comfortable? Are they talking to me like I have seen them talking to their friends, or are they performing? He reports confidence that due to his meaningful relationships with these students, their interactions were genuine and informative. 

His research coalesced into six main chapters on the following topics: gender construction, sex and relationships, managing emotions, conceptions of body shape and size, beliefs about platonic and romantic relationships, and post-college hopes and dreams. These chapters are given structure by five common threads that unite the findings from each individual chapter. These five findings are the closest thing to a summary of DeSantis’s research. First of all, Greek organizations are not all monolithic, but the more prestigious an organization is the less room there is for adopting non-traditional gender scripts. Secondly, elite Greek organizations demand stricter adherence to limited conceptions of gender than white middle class society does. Third, lived gender was so much more complex and malleable than what Greek students self-described. Fourth, fraternal masculinity and sororal femininity are defined in terms of each other in a gender binary. Finally, despite all of these problems, the people in this study should not be portrayed as villains but rather victims. These men and women have been indoctrinated by a patriarchal system and have sacrificed collegiate enlightenment in order to gain acceptance and popularity.

These above findings led to the conclusion that the Greek system is in serious need of help. DeSantis identifies five groups of stakeholders who need to take interest in reforming the system: university professors, Greek alumni, concerned Greek students, parents, and university administrators. To university professors, DeSantis charges a renewed interest in the lives and wellbeing of students in fraternities and sororities. He urges professors to get involved in social organizations and realize the potential they have to be a positive force on their student’s lives. To Greek students, he recommends seeking out others who understand that there is something wrong with the system and working with them to make changes. Specifically, he says to call out hateful and hurtful jokes, to be a mentor and model for others, to pledge diversity to expand gender scripts, and to integrate into the non-Greek social scene as much as possible. 

“Inside Greek U” has many strengths as a scholarly monograph. First of all, I was blown away by the accessibility of the writing. At no point did DeSantis’s writing come off as esoteric or pompous. Even more importantly, though, he integrates interesting conversation to break up his writing. This makes learning from DeSantis’s research more interesting, and gives vivid, memorable conversations that illustrate many of the problems of the Greek world. Finally, DeSantis takes a deep, humanistic approach to the conversation. It is easy to dismiss and villainize people who are less emotionally intelligent and mature than you. DeSantis truly understands that the subjects of his study are humans who have been taught to act in certain reproachable ways. He searches out moments of kindness and understanding that show that the system can be redeemed through serious work and care from interested parties.

“Inside Greek U” has some weaknesses too, though. DeSantis encourages non-traditional gender scripts, but further enforces the gender binary by only looking at mixes of femininity and masculinity in his participants. He could modernize his book and offer a more interesting analysis by looking at non-binary and agendered characteristics in interviews and conversations. Secondly, DeSantis doesn’t tell the story of people who are nonbinary or transgender and want to be a part of greek life. This may be too recent a development for his book written in 2008, but these stories are prevalent in 2022. This limitation may also be related to his focus on “Greek University,” rather than smaller liberal arts colleges. One more weakness that I identified is very related to one of the strengths I mentioned. DeSantis is very empathetic and closely intertwined with the Greek community. Throughout the paper, this leads to him being overly-protective of the adult students in the study. Inexcusable behavior is inexcusable and some social groups need to be held accountable. Even if reform of the system will come through support and investment, reform on the individual level must involve treating members like normal adult citizens.

Overall, “Inside Greek U” offers both a startling and balanced analysis of gender in southern Greek life. While in pop culture and mainstream academia we hear about the woes of drinking, assault, and racism from Greek institutions, I have never seen an in depth analysis of Greek gender. DeSantis expertly balances the intersectionality of this conversation; he looks at conceptions of bodies, gender construction, and sex and relationships. Noting Desantis’s successes, I still believe that this book stands to undergo a modernization for the 2020’s. For one, have the methods outlined as a solution proven to be successful? If not, is a different approach necessary to create change in the short term? Also, are disbanded social organizations from smaller schools a potential model for the restructuring of southern Greek universities? With these strengths, and questions that remain, I think this book would still prove to be an important read for anyone who falls within DeSantis’s category of “stakeholders.” Specifically, within the university context, concerned students, professors, and advisors should be working to educate themselves about how to treat the Foucauldian problems of their campus at the source (privilege, power, and limited conceptions of gender) and not just the symptoms (as seen through Greek life).

DeSantis, Alan D. Inside Greek U. Fraternities, Sororities, and the Pursuit of Pleasure, Power, and Prestige. University Press of Kentucky, 2007.