Sororities should be able to rage like frats

According to urban legend and The Washington Post, sororities can’t host their own parties because if a certain number of women live in a house with alcohol inside, the law dictates that it’s a brothel. While the reasoning behind this policy is just a legend, sororities still aren’t allowed to host their own parties, unlike their fraternity counterparts.

As an advocate for survivors of sexual assault on campus, I am personally not a fan of Greek life and think that USC would be better off without it. That being said, I don’t think it’s possible anytime soon, so in the meantime we should focus on making Greek life safer for the multitude of survivors who participate in it — and that starts with sororities having the right to host their own parties.

Sororities and fraternities answer to different national leadership and therefore follow different guidelines — guidelines that are much stricter for sororities. The 26 sororities that are members of the National Panhellenic Conference, including nine out of the ten members of Panhellenic at USC, are subject to the rules of the conference that dictate alcohol is not allowed in sorority houses and therefore they are not allowed to host their own parties. The reasoning that NPC gives for this rule is that it cuts down on insurance costs for members — but at whose expense?

In an interview with The Washington Post, Cindy Stellhorn — the executive vice president of MJ Insurance’s Sorority Division — said that for sorority members, insurance policies cost from $25 to $50 a year, while fraternity members pay up to $180. Sorority members already pay an exorbitant amount of money to join and continue membership in their sorority, with USC Panhellenic’s website stating that new member fees range from $2,588 to $3,775 per semester. While the difference between insurance costs is significant, money should never be a factor when determining who receives protection and who doesn’t.

Studies consistently show that merely being in a sorority increases risk for sexual assault exponentially, with one study reporting that 48% of sorority members experienced nonconsensual sexual contact in their time on campus. Compared to the rest of campus, sorority members are 74% more likely to be assaulted — a significant figure on a campus like USC’s that already has a higher than average rate of 1 in 3 female undergraduate students experiencing sexual assault before graduation. If merely joining an organization jeopardizes your safety, that organization should be responsible for the insurance costs of keeping you safe.

NPC claims that this policy maintains its founding goals of “scholarship, leadership, and engagement on campus — all of which are principles that lead them to prioritize substance-free living environments.” While I don’t necessarily think this is a bad idea, it does force members who wish to use substances like alcohol into unsafe environments. The only way for a sorority to host a party with alcohol is to co-host with a fraternity or to use a third-party vendor (like a bar or party venue), both of which take members out of the safety of their homes.

While alcohol is not necessary for a good party, the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism reports that more than 80% of college students drink alcohol to some degree. Banning sororities from having alcohol just pushes members to find it elsewhere. Underage and binge drinking is a prevalent issue all campuses need to work against, but if sororities have the choice to host parties, the possibilities for safer conditions could significantly reduce one aspect of the danger that comes with drinking — especially with the prevalence of sexual assault in Greek life.

Multiple studies have shown that people in fraternities are three times more likely to commit rape than their non-Greek counterparts. At parties, they have all the power. The party is in their house, where dozens of their brothers live and they get to decide who gets in. But if sororities had control of the physical space of the party, they could bar anyone they are uncomfortable around or whom they know have a history of sexual assault with one of their peers from even entering. They could also stop people from going upstairs to a secluded area where people may be left alone with a perpetrator.

In an interview with The Washington Post, a George Washington University student explained that at parties run by girls, the group can be much more protective and keep an eye on each other. 

“At frat parties, it’s more of a hunting ground,” they said. “Not all guys are like this, of course, but sometimes it feels like the lions standing in the background and looking at the deer. And then they go in for the kill.”

There are downsides to having hundreds of people drinking and partying in your house every few weeks, and I can understand not wanting to live with that while trying to succeed in school. But no one has to live in their sorority or fraternity house, and somehow I think sororities at USC would manage to find money for a cleaning service in their massive budgets. 

At the end of the day, are a few budget cuts worth putting sorority members in harm’s way? Personally, I think sororities have the responsibility to ensure that their members are safe at a party, even if it means a higher overhead cost for them. But it seems as though economics has trumped the value of safety once again.