On Jan. 29, Dartmouth President Philip J. Hanon addressed the students, faculty and alumni at Dartmouth College with a speech which was intended to be on the topic of "Moving Dartmouth Forward."
After announcing some of his reforms to improve life on the Dartmouth campus, Hanon dropped the news that "hard alcohol will not be served at events open to the public, whether the event is sponsored by the college or by student organizations." Those student organizations include fraternities and sororities.
In addition, Hanon said the penalties for those who were found to be in possession of hard alcohol and those who were caught providing alcohol to minors would be increased substantially. In the speech, Hanon also maintained that Dartmouth's previously enacted ban on "pledge terms" would remain in place.
It is clear that there are issues at Dartmouth and pretty much every other college in America. The recent false rape accusations at The University of Virginia have brought a negative spotlight to fraternities yet again. Dartmouth has also been stricken with a wave of sexual assault and hazing allegations in the past few years.
I don't think that banning "hard liquor" or "pledge terms" will lead to the dissipation of these ills and that it is a completely unnecessary step for the Dartmouth administration to take. For one, simply banning pledge terms will do nothing to curb the dangerous hazing that some of the Dartmouth fraternities have been accused of. It will only serve to force that hazing deeper into secrecy, which will only make it worse.
In addition, Hanon's view of a pledge term is negatively skewed. Although often mischaracterized by the media, having a "pledgeship" is a mutually beneficial process for both active members and pledges. This period allows both sides to see how good of a fit they are for each other and to help both sides get to know one another more closely. It also allows "pledges" to earn their way into the fraternity through hard work and determination, traits which will assist them the rest of their lives.
Having a "pledge term" is what separates fraternities from regular social organizations. By allowing new members to become initiated as soon as they sign a bid, it will cheapen the ritualistic experience that makes fraternities and sororities so worthwhile.
Next, the topic of banning "hard liquor." There is no doubt that alcohol abuse is a serious problem in this country, particularly among college-aged students. According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 1,825 college students between the ages of 18 and 24 die each year from alcohol-related unintentional injuries. It is no secret that some fraternity and sorority members consume a lot of alcohol, as do a lot of non-Greeks.
I believe that Dartmouth would be better off trying to attack some of the root social and biological causes of why this is the case instead of attacking the symptom. By doing this, Dartmouth could solve the problem permanently. Determining the risk factors for alcohol abuse in students at Dartmouth and helping those students overcome them would be much more productive than simply banning "hard alcohol."
From my experiences, events in which alcohol is limited or not served at all can actually be detrimental to the health of some drinkers. Many students resort to drinking heavily before the event starts in order to maintain a buzz. I've seen many students chug five hours worth of alcohol into two because they know they won't be able to drink for those last three hours.
Dartmouth's attempt to better the Greek community is admirable, but I believe that focusing on the root of the problems instead of just attacking the symptoms will result in better outcomes for both students and administrators.
