On Monday, Rutgers University announced that it is banning all fraternity and sorority parties for the rest of the spring semester as a result of several alcohol-related incidents that occurred in the past year. This bold move is not a unique case. There has recently been a crackdown on Greek life on campuses across the country — after a member of a fraternity at Clemson University died after falling off a bridge, the University suspended all fraternity activities, and Johns Hopkins University prohibited all social events held at fraternities last year after an alleged sexual assault of a minor at a party.
The high-risk behavior prevalent amongst college students is a pressing issue that must be addressed immediately. An outright ban on fraternity and sorority parties altogether, however, is pointless. Although most of the Rutgers sorority and fraternity leaders were reported to have accepted the ban, I believe that this decision is excessive and ultimately ineffective.
The ban does not address the problem of high-risk behavior — rather, it attempts to conceal it. As University of Texas at Arlington economics professor Jeffrey DeSimone wrote in a 2011 New York Times opinion column, “targeting alcohol awareness and education programs at fraternities and punishing them for violating alcohol-related laws and school policies” are a more justified and effective ways for a university to intervene in these situations. Rather than simply shutting these houses as social spaces and prohibiting them from hosting events, Rutgers administrators should focus on implementing widespread educational programs that inform students of the dangers of alcohol and provide them with ways to remain safe when drinking or being around those who do.
Again this complete social prohibition approach fails by adopting the idea that everyone should be punished for the actions of a few. In many of these situations, a small group of students exhibited poor self-control and chose to engage in dangerous behavior. It does not make sense to extrapolate from these rare instances and punish the student body as a whole, including those who did not engage in the high-risk activities. Rutgers has an undergraduate student body of roughly 47,000 students — is it fair and just to punish all of these students because a select few of them exhibited negative behavior? The student body should not be thought of as a mob, but as individuals.
Not only will the ban likely be ineffective in diminishing high-risk behavior, it may also have the opposite effect. It seems unlikely that fraternities and sororities will stop hosting parties entirely. Rather, it seems likely the parties will simply become more discrete, subterranean and exclusive. With covert events, there will be less supervision and the University runs the risk of students becoming more hesitant to seek medical help for their friends for fear of disciplinary consequences. This creates a toxic and dangerous environment in which students’ lives and well-beings are put in serious risk.
Finally, the biggest concern that I have with the ban is the concept that college students are not intelligent or responsible enough to make their own decisions, as discussed in various columns in this newspaper since the “Moving Dartmouth Forward” plan was announced on Jan. 29. In college and beyond, self-control and accepting responsibility for one’s actions are crucial skills if one wishes to excel. Simply stripping away the rights of students does not teach them to take responsibility for themselves. Rather, it treats them like children who are unable to make their own decisions. In the real world, no one will hold your hand and tell you what to do. Thus the notion behind the ban is completely unacceptable.
Although I can understand and empathize with the reasons behind the outright of banning fraternity and sorority parties at Rutgers — especially considering the tragic alcohol-related incidents that have occurred — I firmly believe that the ban will not produce the desired effects of decreasing high-risk behavior. Not only will it most likely be ineffective, but it could also create a more dangerous environment. Hence the Rutgers administration should find alternative methods of addressing the root of the problem, rather than attempting to suppress it.
