Johns Hopkins University recently banned all open fraternity parties for the remainder of the semester in response to a report from a 16-year-old girl that she was raped by two men at a fraternity party at the university last week. This kind of collective punishment — applying restrictions to all fraternities rather than only the ones that committed infractions — has been used at other colleges this year. Fraternity social gatherings were universally restricted at Emory last month, as well as at MIT in September, when a female guest fell out of a fraternity house window.
One argument in favor of collective punishment might claim it is not actually a punishment at all. Rather, it is an action meant to eliminate as many unsafe situations as possible. If attempting to target the issue of sexual assault, one might consider not just anecdotal evidence, but also the statistic that fraternity men are more likely to commit sexual assaults than non-fraternity men, and 55 percent of college sexual assaults occur at parties. So it may seem as though disallowing fraternity parties would reduce the number of sexual assaults, but this approach only attacks the venues, rather than the roots of the problem. Such a ban would do nothing to address assaults which do not occur in fraternity houses and are not perpetrated by brothers.
Disallowing fraternities from having parties also could just push the events to off-campus satellite houses, where there could be just as much danger, but less accountability. It would be difficult or impossible for inter-fraternity councils to monitor activities at houses which are not officially affiliated with the fraternity’s letters, in addition to keeping track of what goes on at all the official Greek houses. The same behavior would likely continue, but it would be less detectable. And fraternities might more easily evade taking responsibilities for their actions if misconduct occurs in a location not officially associated with their chapter.
Another argument for collective punishment is that it may discourage reckless, irresponsible and malicious behavior, because brothers would know the consequences for these actions will extend beyond their own chapters. This may also encourage fraternities to police each other, and to encourage better conduct in Greek culture overall.
While this outcome could occur in an ideal world, collective punishment also has the potential to sour relations between Greek organizations and university officials, eliminating any incentive to work with universities to improve the culture and environment. Though a ban on parties which extends across all fraternities may not be intended as a punishment, it can be received that way by organizations who resent the revocation of their privileges. Punishing all fraternities for the action of one is unfair, and unfair punishments would make fraternities more likely to distrust higher-ups, and perhaps less motivated to change their behavior in order to gain back the respect and trust of the administration.
Though it is essential for administrations to punish unacceptable conduct, it can also be valuable to cooperate with exemplary fraternities to solve the problems which plague Greek life. And fraternities who are looking to improve their conduct can also turn to their Greek peers to help them accomplish that goal. Collective punishment would impede these potential solutions by lumping all fraternities into one category. The reality is that some do not commit any infractions, and some serious problems at universities run rampant even outside of Greek life.
Read More
KAVITHA: U.Va. must strengthen efforts to combat opioid overdose in the community
By Gayathri Kavitha | 2 days agoAddiction crises should be understood as communal, rather than individual.
EDITORIAL: Signing off from the 135th term
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoAt the end of our term, we thought it fitting to share with you which of our 28 editorials have been our favorites.
WILLIAMS: From deepfakes to ChatGPT, AI can ruin us
By Ryan Williams | December 16, 2024It is crucial for us to reevaluate our personal reliance on AI and begin understanding how it acts as a problematic shortcut.
