In spring 2002, University President Dave Frohnmayer, along with key members of the administration, finalized a resolution to force fraternities at the University to implement substance-free housing. With news of this mandate came a flurry of student frustration and public dismay over what seemed a grotesque abuse of power.
What bothered me, however, wasn’t the administration’s blatant infringement of civil liberties. Nor was it the surprising discrimination against the Greek community, a population whose alumni contribute roughly 60 percent of the University’s financial donations. What really struck me about Frohnmayer’s decision was the inherent blindness with which it addressed the issues of student conduct, safety and alcohol abuse. Under pressure to react to a nationally growing problem of student misbehavior on college campuses, Frohnmayer’s position on “dry” fraternities has paradoxically fueled the fire he was trying to put out.
Anyone who went to college or goes to college, or has even the vaguest concept of life in a university setting, can agree that students are going to party occasionally. To pretend that student nightlife, drinking, and experimentation are problems that need to desist is to deny the very essence of a young adult coming of age. Further, to force fraternities to be substance-free in an effort to enhance student safety and health is the veritable equivalent of sticking one’s head into a bag so as not to face the real world.
In a fraternity, there exists a great amount of personal liability on the part of its residents. If something goes wrong, if an accident happens, if fun turns into trouble — then members of the fraternity will find themselves in court. This accountability forces these men to take personal responsibility for both themselves and all those in their house. A tightly controlled hierarchy of officials, including a president and risk management officer, take charge within fraternities to ensure the security of all attendees. In turn, gatherings at these houses are always closely monitored and relatively safe.
This is not the case when students are pushed into neighborhoods surrounding the campus. In this environment, substance abuse, violence and pandemonium spring up on busy nights. Overcrowded house parties become beacons for police activity, fights, rapes, DUIs, riots, and there was even a shooting last year. There is little control and almost no personal liability. Frohnmayer undeniably knew this and yet persisted in making fraternities go “dry,” essentially forcing even more students to find their good time in quiet residential neighborhoods.
The result of this decision was easily predictable, and as they say, the proof is in the pudding. I was wondering how long it would take for disorder and property damage to begin occurring in the streets around the University. It ended up only taking two days. Friday’s riot and ensuing police action is just the beginning of what this year will bring.
As a student, I suppose I will just sit back and watch. But if you’re a local resident, a parent or Eugene police officer, I will say this: In your moment of frustration, be sure to call Frohnmayer and thank him for his ignorant disregard for student safety and community civility.
Dan Occhipinti is a sophomore philosophy
and political science major.