A study from 2007 shows that women who are regular attendees at frat parties are at higher risk of sexual assault. Besides measures to regulate the drinking scene at frat parties, many students from different colleges have suggested that sororities should be allowed to host parties at which alcohol is served in order to reduce the risk of sexual assaults, which are some of the most under-reported crimes on college campuses. However, the reason that sororities should be allowed to host such parties does not stem solely from sexual assault prevention efforts, but also from the need to reverse an inherent double standard that exists in Greek Life today.
Looking at the differences between sororities and fraternities from an objective standpoint, it seems that similar organizations are arbitrarily divided in the ability to practice activities solely based on gender lines. This is, of course, not acceptable in today's world. If a group of women wants to host a party serving alcohol, they should not be forced to abandon their wishes because of their gender or sex.
But at Tufts and other colleges, sororities may host parties and benefits, but are formally prevented from serving alcohol at chapter gatherings or events. Lifting sororities’ alcohol ban is not as simple as it sounds, and contrary to urban legend, has little to do with fabled “brothel laws,” which supposedly prohibited more than five women to gather in a house with the presence of alcohol.
In fact, the sororities’ alcohol ban complies with the National Panhellenic Conference’s policy that allows the sisters to enjoy healthy living, or substance free, housing with much lower insurance costs than those that fraternity brothers have to pay because they have alcohol on the premises. Tufts policy requires the Third Party Vendor, the fraternity or sorority that hosts the event, to own a liquor license and a certificate of insurance of at least one million dollars. This partially explains why the cost of membership in sororities tends to be lower than that in fraternities.
This is not to say that sororities’ roles and functions on campus must be the parallel to fraternities.’ By not throwing alcohol-centric parties, a sorority is able to open its group to more women who wish to get involved and eliminate the stress of higher membership dues. However, the way the system currently operates, those sororities have their choice made for them. It is clear that the fraternities have a choice here that the sororities do not. While this problem stems from a national level, the fact that whether lettered organizations have the ability to choose if they do or do not serve alcohol is based solely on the gender of their members seems like a policy from 1915 rather than 2015.
This insurance policy is simply sexism masquerading as a way to “protect” sororities from the challenges of allowing alcohol in their houses. This textbook example of a double standard has no place at Tufts. If sorority sisters do not throw parties, it should be because they choose not to, not because they are forced not to so whilst fraternities have the freedom to make that choice.
Since many agree that drinking culture in colleges cannot be curbed completely, providing students with more choice does not only improve campus security but also diversifies party scenes and accommodates more personal preferences. It is up to sororities to make a choice, but to do so they must have the freedom to decide.
