In a plaid-laden auditorium, University admins are met with interrogation, hisses, boos, bros, and even a Keystone reference as Greek members battle new Prohibition Policy.
In response to the University’s recent crackdown on Greek social life, Cornell fraternity members held a forum this evening to voice their concerns against the campus-wide movement to minimize alcohol abuse. With a single unanimous mission, a Greek Phalanx of speakers soon assembled against Cornell administrators Travis Apgar, Dean Kent Hubbel ’67 and Susan Murphy ’73.
The scene in Uris G01 was certainly a fratty one, with the entire auditorium filled by Greek members and lines of angry bros waiting behind police for seats to become available. What gavel-tapping IFC President Allen Miller ’11 planned as a calm, collected meeting quickly morphed into a mild hazing of the three administrators and what was labeled as their ill-conceived plan.
The proposal, spearheaded by Apgar, is designed to “amend [fraternity] recognition policies in a few simple ways,” by requiring alcohol-free rushing and pledging, as well as disallowing freshman from attending fraternity parties involving alcohol. Each objective is planned in such a way as to slowly wean the frats off of alcohol, and all changes will be fully implemented by Spring 2012. However, Apgar made it clear that the University doesn’t want to “control [the Greek system],” and that they “still need to work out details.”
While fraternity speakers were complemented with vehement applause and finger-snapping, the sometimes roundabout responses from Cornell’s administrators were often met with grumbling and hissing. The group of disgruntled Cornellians became especially lively when Dean of Students Kent Hubbell prefaced a circumventing answer by reminding the crowd of his membership in the Alpha Delta Phi fraternity.
A red-faced Hubbell laughed off the hisses and boos, and went on to remind the students that this is a “national problem,” and that the University is “faced with a set of rising expectations with regard to abuse of alcohol on campus, and we are obligated to do something. We’re not here to advocate for a dry campus or a dry Greek system.” In a stern voice, he advised fraternities that “if you want to see success of the Greek system, you should join with us.”
Regardless of the administrators’ claims, IFC members continued to demand explanations for how the number of Greek recruits would be maintained, how safety would be improved, and why fraternities were being targeted in the first place. One student asked why co-ops were ignored, claiming “an attack on the Greek system,” while Ryan Lett ’12, president of Phi Gamma Delta ‘Fiji’ asked if the university was merely trying “to move liability away from Cornell.”
Alpha Sigma Phi’s Doug Durant ’11 said that drinking “was not a keystone part of my recruitment. I see an affront on Greek traditions. I can see no other result from this besides shrinking of the Greek system.”
Murphy attempted to reassure fraternity presidents, saying “This will not result in a shrinking of the system. It’s not up to me to decide your social life on a Friday or Saturday night. All we’re doing is changing policy – not practices or habits. I take issue with the claim that frats provide the only safe place to drink.”
Although the initiative aims to maximize safety, spokesmen from the fraternities echoed sentiments that abolition of recruitment boozing would lead to more dangerous drinking environments in dorms and in Collegetown. Rohan Siddhanti ’12, president of Sigma Pi, bluntly told the panel “fraternities and sororities will adapt. We will find ways to take these kids. To Collegetown, to Turningstone… they’ll be drinking in their dorms. It’s not changing the culture – it’s not changing the roots.”
While Murphy quickly reminded Siddhanti of his own chapter’s rocky past, the latter half of the forum was a rather raucous tag-team assault on the amendments proposed to redefine the University Recognition Policy. At one point forum leader Allen Miller reminded guests to “keep this professional… to a point.” With the Fraternities’ extensive laundry list of complaints and a single unanimous voice against the new policy, one almost expected an administrator to beg, “don’t haze me, bro!”
Going to weigh in on this one, Ferenc?
A thunderstorm’s rolled in…Zeus and the Frat gods are grumbling. Oh wait, that’s just God telling campus how pissed he is at the Greeks’ immense hubris. Nothing like a room of post-teenagers trying to prove that they’ve got more wisdom than venerated University administrators.
Luke I know we’ve been over this before, but the biggest sticking point of this whole proposal in my mind is barring freshman from open frat parties. Where’s the wisdom to this part of the proposal?
and who regards Hubble with “veneration”???
Since I don’t claim to have the wisdom of an old person, half of my gig is simply respect for the institution and its administrators who know a hell of a lot more about maintaining Cornell’s stature and reputation than we do. The other half is that I want my school to avoid blatantly violating federal and state laws, since that reflects poorly on my diploma and reason for being here. The other half is that I’m pre-med and I care deeply that uninitiated [myopic] freshmen don’t destroy their livers. There, 150% of good reasons.
It seems silly for the aim to be “to change policy – not practices”. In other words, “Go! Drink! But we won’t take responsibility for it.” I hate frat parties, but I would rather kids get drunk at frats where there is at least some regulation than in some non-regulated place elsewhere, which they’ll be even more unsafe.
and by which I meant where
So, Luke, freshman are less likely to destroy their livers at collegetown closed parties with hard liquor? As opposed to open, regulated and monitored open frat parties where you won’t find anything above 5% abv?
Dennis that comment sounds as if you’re saying that by letting freshman drink underage and illegally at frat parties is better than letting them drink underage and illegally in collegetown. We all know that the chance of many freshman being invited to closed collegetown parties in their first semester is far from high and come spring semester one would hope that if they are invited, that they have learned their tolerance. Frats may state that by involving freshman in their parties allows them to consider possibly joining the frat, but parties and enticement with alcohol should not be the way to find prospective pledges. There are plenty of day time events that can be held during the year that can help a freshman consider if they wish to pledge a frat. The fact of the matter is that frats have continually thrown parties, participated in events and pledge processed while allowing underage drinking is occuring on their watch. That is illegal and these are the consequences.
“We all know that the chance of many freshman being invited to closed collegetown parties in their first semester is far from high…”
Completely disagree. Walk into Ctown during orientation week and you’ll find 6 annex parties and 2 dozen house parties that you can get into with no problem. If anything, it’s easier to get into these parties as a freshman as opposed to an upperclassman “rando.”
Everyone is formuating arguments based on a sequence of hypotheticals – “they WILL/WON’T go to collegetown; they WILL be in more/less danger.” This doesn’t constitute a basis for reinterpreting the law. Cornell is not in judicial isolation; in fact it is partially a New York public school. College is a recognized underage environment, therefore since drinking laws exist, they ought to be enforced here more than anywhere – this is why the law was created. No hypothetical excuse is compelling enough to expressly PERMIT a thousand scofflaws (our nation’s most promising scofflaws at that) to get emergency-room drunk.
Legal issues aside, this is a conservative blog, therefore some of us care about American institutions. IMHO, Cornell is critical to our future prosperity, so it should attempt to enforce the laws which enhance students’ academic growth and maturity.
Any lawyers in the house?
Luke, the law sucks, and you’re ignoring the realities of what goes on in college with your position. Yes, drinking under the age of 21 is against the law, but everyone in college drinks. So you can choose to either take the moral high-ground and ignore this fact, or you can have alcohol consumed in a way that is least damaging to the community of students.
Of course everyone drinks. Reality does not nullify the law. This is a simple issue being contorted by students who feel dependent on alcohol and the Greek system. The fact is that drinking happens due to lack of enforcement, so we should start enforcing. It is not necessary to accept a certain baseline of medical emergencies because “they happen.” That is cruel.
I don’t think the 6000 freshman parents desire a “least damaging” ‘solution.’ Nor will you when your child is here.
Cornell cannot award 4.0 GPAs unless it is capable of earning one itself. Explicitly doing harm to the public health does not earn us an A. Implicitly doing it, what I potentially advocate, is bad too- but we have yet to TRY it! If it’s bad, scrap it.
If you are an honest conservative, admit that you are pressing for a purposeful ignorance of established law. No law designates Cornell as a “safe” place to break the law, even though it is a haven.
“If you are an honest conservative, admit that you are pressing for a purposeful ignorance of established law.”
Well yeah, that’s exactly what I’m doing.
You’re still ignoring the reality of the situation, Luke, by saying “The fact is that drinking happens due to lack of enforcement, so we should start enforcing.” Drinking happens because there is a demand for drinking, a demand that is as old as the existence of fermented beverages themselves. We can either deal with this reality or take the moral high ground and endanger students.
Interesting point of views-however, drinking on campus, off campus or at frat/sorority houses hasn’t changed in 50 YEARS!!! Wheverever drinking is tolerated…there it shall be!!!
MJB
You said it, grandma!
My final comment.
supposition 1: 50 years of frat binging
supp. 2: half of that was drinking age 18; half was 21.
result: There is nothing strange about evaluating the status quo every 25 years; we are due. And so it happened, right on time. This comes down to you wanting to maintain it, and me wanting to update it. You call it moral; I call it American duty. Here, have a beer.
I’m not sure I understand your last comment, Luke?
wow i just got the joke now