Our view: Fraternities must follow rules, keep partygoers safe

Underage drinking and partying are not a new phenomenon on college campuses. And, let's be honest, students will go to the parties — mainly fraternity parties — that offer free booze. The days of getting trashed on someone else's tab, though, might be over.

Truman fraternity presidents made an informal decision last Wednesday to start requiring partygoers, specifically sorority women at mixers, to provide their own alcohol (see story, page 2). The reasoning behind this decision deals with money — fraternities are tired of being obligated to pay for women's alcohol — and liability. Fraternities do not want someone 21 years of age or younger to get caught by the police for leaving a party drunk or being drunk in the residence halls after a party and blame the fraternity for providing the alcohol.

Whether this applies only to sorority women at mixers or to anyone at any fraternity event, requiring guests to bring their own alcohol — while it will save money  — does not keep the best interest of anyone, except maybe the fraternity, in mind.

The Interfraternity Council rules, and presumably all the national rules for individual fraternities, prohibit allowing minors to drink and supplying common-source alcohol at parties. So, this new rule isn't really new. They are simply finding a new way to continue violating the rule already in place because minors will still be able to drink at a fraternity sponsored event with the new BYOB agreement.

While we don't condone fraternities providing minors with alcohol, we do not think this new rule will solve the liability issues because we are not so naïve to think minors cannot find any other means of acquiring alcohol. It will just be a little riskier to go to parties now with alcohol in tow.

Requiring women, or anyone for that matter, to bring their own alcohol to a party means they will have to carry it with them. And whether the containers are open or not, walking around with beer or a bottle of liquor can only increase the risk of being caught by the police for underage drinking or being drunk in public. While this could leave the fraternity off the hook because they did not provide the alcohol, it can't possibly be good for the organization to have its guests get caught leaving a fraternity venue that allowed them to drink underage or drink excessively and then leave. Fraternities must consider a risk management strategy that is best overall for all partygoers instead of focusing solely on their standing with the IFC and the University.

The best way to do this would be to follow the already in place, although not enforced, IFC and national fraternity rules. We get that there is no way for a fraternity to card everyone who has a beer in their hand, but fraternities must do something to ensure their guests are safe and legal. And this new, under-the-table agreement doesn't fix the liability issue — it really just drew unneeded attention to the fact that fraternities continually have been breaking the rules and both supplying communal alcohol to everyone, including minors.

Not all campus fraternities are agreeing to abide by this new BYOB agreement. This is a smart move to an extent. They still should not be serving minors, but at least they will be aware of what and how much a person is drinking and the guests won't have to worry about being caught transporting their own booze.

Underage drinking will always occur — we don't expect that to end. However, fraternities must begin abiding by the IFC and national fraternity guidelines because whether they supply the alcohol, they are responsible for the events that occur at a fraternity sponsored event.