The battle between the administration and the fraternity system rages on. The two sides are natural enemies. One is bound by law to enforce underage drinking regulations, and the other has adopted drinking of all sorts as its raison d’être.
It seems that the administration has the upper hand and is gaining ground, using probation, suspension and house occupancy policies as its weapons of choice to force fraternities off campus. But do they really want to destroy the institutionalized system of drinking embodied by the frats in favor of an insurgency of individual drinking cells?
It is in the school’s best interest for the majority of drinking and partying to be located in a single place, preferably remote, where the inevitable noise and destruction can be self-contained.
The current frat row serves this purpose well. Far away from residents, its cinderblock walls, sparse furniture and utter lack of beauty render it immune to most damage. An even better location would be the Botetourt Complex, which is farther removed from civilization and even less attractive on the inside. Who knows, keeping more frats on campus might even lead to an improvement of student-resident relations, as the number of off-campus parties would decrease since more could take place on campus.
A large fraternity complex would also create a safer environment for students and Williamsburg residents. Less driving to off-campus parties would mean less drunk driving back from off-campus parties.
Furthermore, as the police would know where a majority of alcohol was being consumed, they could be on the lookout for drunk drivers leaving this location and have a greater chance of stopping them before anyone got hurt. A single location would also be easily serviced by bus transportation or Steer Clear, providing an easy alternative to the temptation to drive home.
A new fraternity system would also allow the administration a measure of control over the College of William and Mary’s social life. Negotiations could more easily occur between institutions with existing relationships — such as the one between chartered fraternities and the administration — than between the College and all of its students individually or through the Student Assembly.
The administration can impose incentives and punishments on organizations that it cannot enforce on individuals or the student body as a whole. For instance frats could be rewarded for letting the school know when events would be held, practicing responsible self-policing, or even holding a high GPA average.
Conversely, they could be punished — with the proceeds going to other frats that are rewarded — for members drinking and driving, or for damages to their buildings. Through these measures, the administration could exercise limited control of student social activities that would not be possible without the institutions with which they are now at war.
These are some clear benefits of having the fraternities in a concentrated location on campus. However, it all comes down to the administration’s actions.
If they continue to ferociously attack institutionalized drinking on campus through the inflexible housing regulations explained in another article, “Fraternities fight ResLife changes,” there are two possible results. Either most students will stop drinking and partying, or social life will move off campus, where it will annoy the townies, endanger students, and move the College’s social life completely outside of the administration’s control.
As it is naive for the administration to believe that the disappearance of fraternities will cause the underage drinking problem to vanish as well, let us hope that they will reconsider their course, look at the big picture, and begin to accept that perhaps fraternities can be used to everyone’s advantage.
Ed Innace is a sophomore at the College.
