Drinking culture is firmly ingrained in American society, but alcohol consumption comes with risk. Time and time again, we see the same mistakes being made as administrations try to minimize those risks by attempting to curb drinking as a whole instead of promoting safe drinking practices. I am afraid that Indiana University and IFC are putting students at a far greater risk than necessary by creating a restrictive, rather than realistic, drinking environment. Some applicable historical context to the dangers of restrictive drinking environments include Prohibition and the raising of the drinking age from 18 to 21. The Prohibition era dating from 1920-1933 made alcohol in many ways illegal. Simultaneously, it created an environment where bootleggers provided homemade, unregulated alcohol to the huge number of people who still demanded it. The well-being of citizens dropped as they consumed subpar liquor and risked punishment for what they considered to be normal behavior. 
A crucial point we can extract is that people will continue to do what they consider normal, despite restrictions. More recently, the raising of the drinking age from 18 to 21 has had some similar adverse effects. Adults under the age of twenty-one can no longer drink in most establishments. With no bartender to cut off a novice drinker and fellow underage companions sometimes too scared of consequences to call for help at the signs of alcohol poisoning, avoidable disasters happen. What do these two examples have in common? 
The demand people have to drink is not deterred and restrictions can facilitate unnecessary danger.

Indiana University and IFC are currently combating student drinking with a string of restrictions on Greek chapters in the place of education and strategy. IFC changed social functions as we know them by regulating how late and how much hard alcohol can be served. Instead of students having the opportunity to drink at their own pace, they are now inclined to take the same number of shots they always did but in a shorter period of time. 
It's not uncommon for students to drink in excess quickly and privately before the party to make up for lost time. IFC’s good-intentioned agenda effectively promotes dangerous drinking cultures. It’s no surprise to me that with these new rules in place there have already been more ambulances and 9-1-1 calls due to alcohol poisoning coming from fraternities this semester then all of last semester combined. 
As of late, Fridays are now “hard alcohol free” for all Greek chapters. I predict across campus fraternities will largely ignore this rule and/or stock live outs with hard alcohol, pre-game, then drive back to their houses. Just as we saw during Prohibition most people will continue to do what they consider normal.

The most recent and ill-advised regulation is painfully near-sighted. It states that if any house calls for an ambulance, all Greek houses will have a mandatory day of social probation the following day and the houses specifically involved will have to go to IFC standards board and face a minimum fine of $10 per member. Why would anyone create a rule that clearly discourages people in danger from getting needed help? The stigma that will come to the house for calling an ambulance and wrecking the weekend for the other houses could be the difference between life and death.

We need to take a step back and find a better way to protect each other than discouraging something as basic as ambulance use. Little changes as unassuming as accountability buddies designed to ensure that everyone is looking out for one another or sororities utilizing a more effective sober monitoring system than sending four girls with Polar Pops who sit together texting their boyfriends would be a simple but powerful change. Empowering people at social functions to act more responsibly is easier said than done, but at least it doesn’t promote dangerous environments. 
It’s time to take our handles back, drink them at a reasonable rate and each chapter internally set up systems to keep an eye out for one another because these regulations don't promote a realistic social environment.