While Oppenheim's generalizations may be oversimplifications, his facts are substantially accurate. Probably 80 to 85 percent of Key members were legacies, athletes, final club members--or, in the case of women, regular club "guests." The remaining members felt the social marginalization inherent during Key functions and, necessarily, when a Key event adjourned to the Fox or the Fly, as it so often did.

There would be nothing inherently wrong with the Key's lack of diversity if it were not the only University-sanctioned student tour group. But, as Oppenheim observes, there are plenty of good storytellers in the student body who don't wear khakis, don't enjoy the mindless drinking rituals, and won't reduce themselves to mindless, sycophantic club members. I saw personally how the Key's comp systematically excludes people outside the elitist, insular circle in which so many members travel.

I saw the pettiness and prejudice rampant in each annual new member selection meeting. I remember being pressured to give good evaluations to the sister of one Key executive and the best friend of another. Finally, I recall the pillorying of fellow members who were talented yet somehow different and, therefore, weird.

I joined the Crimson Key Society so I could give campus tours, and I stayed despite discovering its shallowness. Unless the Key chooses to reach out to this larger community, it should not remain the University's exclusive student tour group. Mend it or end it.

Christopher R. McFadden '97

Chicago, Ill., Sept. 20, 1999

The writer was an executive editor of The Crimson in 1996.