Home-field advantage


_________________________

It’s 9 p.m. on a Saturday night.

The anxious giggles of sorority girls bounce off the bathroom walls.

Queen B is playing on the speakers in the background, and there is a fight for wall plugs because they’re full of ?straighteners and curling irons. Once everyone is primped and prepped, you head off into a sober ride to the mystical world that is the ?fraternity house.

Booze is being poured from strange containers, and mixed drinks are being stirred for a little too long. There’s smoke coming from a room upstairs, and around midnight, everyone’s eyes start to become hazy.

Things become blurred, and four shots turn into 12. The dance floor empties out, and upstairs the rooms are abuzz with activities too indecent to write out. You can picture how the night will end. But what if the night didn’t have to end in some random bedroom with a stranger?

Recently, the New York Times ?published an article that spoke of plans for sororities to start drinking on their own turf.

Maybe in a world full of rainbows and butterflies this would be a perfect plan. But at the Editorial Board, we realize we live in a world full of foul smelling bus exhaust and squirrels too friendly for their own good. There are a few major complications with sororities throwing weekly bangers to avoid drug and rape ?problems.

The first women’s sorority was established in 1851. The mid-19th century wasn’t too big on binge drinking, therefore the policies that surround sororities don’t even address drinking, drugs or rape.

Nowadays, every sorority has a similar code of standards and ethics regarding not drinking in the house, “man hours,” drugs and misconduct. These modern-day rules strictly apply to each organization’s founding ideals.

By allowing fraternity men to come into a sorority house for a party, it would create an entire shift that would digress from the old-age principles that sorority rules were built off of. If this were to be put in front of a national chapter, there would be ?resistance because partying isn’t what any organization wants to stand for, ?nonetheless host.

IU would probably be more ?accepting of new proposals, but the fact of the matter is these changes would require a tremendous amount of time, effort and money.

Beside the historic complications, there are the commonplace concerns that arise from the construction of a sorority house itself. The bottom line is they are not built with basement party rooms or elevated surfaces.

If the money was invested and nationals somehow came to an agreement and all of these things were to change, the sorority house would ?essentially become a frat.

Drinking would consume social lives, illegal substances would be found in almost everyone’s rooms and the vibrations coming from the ?speakers would be never-ending.

Strictly addressing IU, there are three sober monitors from each organization that should be present at all drinking events.

These monitors look to stop reckless behavior and encourage safety for all members. So it’s hard to tell how much change would occur if the partying were to happen at a sorority instead of a ?fraternity. Maybe there would be less rape, maybe not. There’s no way to tell.

But rapes don’t occur because of the environment — they occur because of who is in the situation. This proposal addresses the ?symptom of partying, not the true ?problem: sexual assault.

If there’s going to be any changes made to “prevent” assault, it will have to be made by the people responsible for these rapes.

Otherwise, you’re just swapping Greek houses.

source: http://www.idsnews.com/article/2015/02/home-field-advantage


_________________________

Leave a Reply