THIS WEEK an embarrassing incident at the University created yet another negative publicity situation for a Greek system that continues to strive for a positive image on Grounds. A large glass work of art was vandalized overnight outside the University of Virginia Art Museum. When interviewed about the incident, the Irish artist mentioned that while he didn't hold the entire University accountable, he was not entirely surprised the incident occurred, given its location, and suspected drunkenness as a factor in the vandalism. Without a pointed accusation, it is clear that the site on Rugby Road -- the region most commonly synonymous with the fraternity system -- was reason enough for the artist to suspect misconduct by intoxicated students. Without endorsing this tacit allegation, it is clear that the alcohol culture most clearly identified with fraternity life at the University must undergo dramatic reevaluation if a positive image of the antique University institution is to be preserved and rejuvenated.
When compared to many colleges and universities that have retained thriving Greek communities, the University administration's hands-off treatment of issues related to alcohol is somewhat of an anomaly. Within the Ivy League, a traditional stronghold of fraternity life, many fraternity systems were shut down or weakened as they grew less valuable and more of a liability to the colleges. However, thanks to an institutional value placed on student self-governance, the University's fraternal system has endured largely unaffected by rapidly occurring change nationwide. This is clearly visible in the effort by many fraternity national headquarters to impose increasingly stringent alcohol restrictions. Fiji, Phi Delt and Phi Kap are three University chapters with national headquarters that banned alcohol in their chapter houses. As alcohol abuse and liability concerns grow more abundant, the case is quickly building for the University administration to take action to limit the liability brought by the alcohol-centered culture of the Greek system.
Rather than allow this oversight to become imposed on the system, fraternities should take steps to reevaluate the way alcohol is made available to brothers and party-goers altogether. The University is old-fashioned in the manner in which houses buy alcohol with fraternity dues, then hand it out gratuitously to guests during parties. The Inter-Fraternity Council recently took progressive steps toward strengthening regulations of how guests must now be admitted to parties, but this does not move to solve the fraternity system's systemic problem of alcohol abuse and legal liability.
Currently, any time alcohol is served, should a guest leave, and then become the victim of any sort of accident (such as drunk driving or falling down the stairs), the house where they received the alcohol is legally accountable. When there is a common source of alcohol at a fraternity party, be it from kegs or cans, the house is liable via civil suit should a guest become injured. However, if the guest were to bring their own alcohol, or be sold the alcohol through a third party intermediary, the house is relieved of all liability.
At Greek-dominated Clemson, for example, parties held at fraternity-owned lake houses are BYOB. Fraternities go to the parties of other fraternities together, and each house has their own well-marked case of beer available for consumption by the brotherhood. Brothers of the host fraternity have a private source of alcohol available for brotherhood-only consumption. This has several effects on the Greek culture.
First, parties are more frequent and more affordable because social dues are not soaked up by alcohol purchases and related expenses. Second, there is no free-riding by "independents" or those who are not a part of the Greek system. At the University, brothers of one house may throw a party when a group of friends, all brothers of another house, come to enjoy themselves. The next weekend, the other house may reciprocate, reversing the scenario. In a time when a distinct majority of men were in a fraternity, this system of quid pro quo would have sufficed. However, because only 35 percent of the University is now a member of a house, free riding is prevalent.
There are a number of concerns that should be addressed in such a change. First, while an ostensible goal of free booze is attracting female party-goers, a BYOB policy would eliminate this draw. As a result of Resolution 2000, sorority members would not be able to buy their own alcohol. The fact is, the greatest liability comes not with giving alcohol to women, but to men. As such, houses might continue to serve female guests, but require BYOB for all male party-goers. A second drawback would be an increase in dirty-rush, as fraternities might be persuaded to serve first-year men they wish to recruit. However, this would be best dealt with by moving rush forward to the fall.
By instating a BYOB policy, the IFC would accomplish a great deal of desirable reform. Namely, fraternity liabilities would be reduced dramatically. Alcohol abuse due to drinking beer one did not pay for would likely drop precipitously. In addition, social dues would be stretched further, as houses would no longer have to subsidize independents. Also, the Greek community would no longer be seen as an oasis of free and abundant alcohol to first-year students, but instead a more controlled environment worth examining. While some may argue that this makes the Greek system appear more exclusive, it is more likely that rush numbers would increase among men.
This is not a cure-all step to solving the problems of perception for the fraternity community. However, as alcohol is controlled in a way that is directed by students and not administers, the system loses nothing yet gains much. During this time of dramatic trial and transition for the Greek system, one can hope that progressive changes can be made before they are forced upon us from above.
(Preston Lloyd's columns appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at plloyd@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | YesterdayInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 2 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
SHRAUGER: McIntire’s three-year model limits opportunities for first-year students
By Alex Shrauger | 4 days agoBy pigeonholing students into commerce so early, the University violates its own mission of providing a holistic education that produces students capable of succeeding in a variety of fields.
