Open Parties — Accountability Kept Out

Having been to two Inter-Fraternity Council meetings thus far in the fall semester, I find myself shocked at the ways in which the IFC takes action, conducts meetings and — most importantly — at how little expressed dissent there is to the current state of this very powerful council.

Upon entry to an IFC meeting, which occurs at Willard Straight Hall in a very large room that resembles the dining hall at Hogwarts, one would be hard pressed not to notice the small group of people seated at the back of the hall, otherwise known as the Executive Board. Although I only know one of these individuals myself, my first impression was that these fraternity members took the governing of Greek life seriously and work very hard to make sure the job is done well. Both of those statements are true, which reassures even the most skeptical Greek that the resources given to the IFC are in the responsible hands of people who want to better the community.

However, paying tribute to the IFC will do nothing to advance the call for accountable and responsible leadership at our University. At the meeting on Sep. 9, a weeklong moratorium was placed on all fraternity social events in order to take a quick and decisive measure against the spread of swine flu. The moratorium was intended to spread awareness around campus as well as bring the number of reported cases down.

Since that meeting, the Greek community has experienced a tragedy as it has lost one of its own. Undoubtedly, action taken by the IFC had this fact in mind because there is no greater fear than a repeat of such a horrible event, and I personally offer my condolences on behalf of myself and my fraternity to the family, friends and fraternity of Warren Schor ’11. Nonetheless, I fear that this tragedy may mark the manipulation of proceedings by members of the IFC, which is nothing short of disgraceful to Warren’s memory. I did not know Warren personally, but I do believe it is safe to assume that he was a successful person, much like the rest of the Cornell community. The IFC passed a resolution this week, with substantial support from fraternities that were present, to put a moratorium on non-catered invite events at fraternities until the IFC sees the need to take a different position on the issue of swine flu on campus.

Having voted against both moratoriums, I want to share why I did so.

I did not believe that a moratorium on all social events would be as effective as we hoped it would be because of the busy social scene in Collegetown that would only become more crowded with a lack of on campus events. I also did not believe that a moratorium was an appropriate action for a council such as the IFC to take. In our desperation to keep our community safe, we have forgotten to also be mindful of where swine flu may travel if we cancel fraternity events, as well as how we should govern ourselves as members of fraternities. It is understood that not everyone has access to the same information regarding swine flu. Do you think members of governing councils in the past took action with the attitude that they were smarter than the rest of the community? I do not think this has ever been the case, until now.

When asked for the numbers of reported swine flu in the past week at the meeting, the Executive Board offered the statement that the number of reported cases decreased over the weekend, but increased to normal rates on Monday and Tuesday. Such a statistic, paired with the information that we learned suggesting a two day incubation period of swine flu, leads me to believe that my instinct in saying the moratorium was not effective was correct. If the IFC wants to take action to prevent any further spread of swine flu by continuing the moratorium in the same fashion, I may even agree, despite having voted the other way originally, in the hope that over time cases will decrease. However, the resolution passed was a clear example of the agenda set by the Executive Board, and in particular, its president. Before the original moratorium was passed, Sigma Alpha Epsilon had planned a date night for the little sisters of the fraternity. The new resolution passed this week only bans non-catered invite-only parties, or as they are commonly called, open parties. I find it hard to believe that it is a coincidence that SAE’s biggest party of the year happened to fall only days before the original moratorium passed, as well as that its date night falls under the category of now acceptable social events. If the president of IFC wishes to take proper action on the issue — an issue that I assume he did not learn about on the Monday following his fraternity’s rather large open party — then he should have considered the consequences of a very large open party. Furthermore, it should be kept in mind that members of the IFC have the responsibility to pass resolutions and take actions that puts the Greek community above individual fraternities.

I believe greatly in the IFC and its potential to improve Greek life in all areas, but I do not believe Greek life is truly being improved by the IFC’s recent actions. If the members of IFC believe they are wiser than the rest of the community, then they should take a look around and realize that this University is made up of adults who do not need an overarching organization enforcing heavy restrictions. I believe the cause here is just, but perhaps the motives are not. I hope to see honest accountability and prudence from the IFC during the rest of my time at Cornell, and I wholeheartedly believe that the current membership is capable of such leadership.

Steven Wald is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He may be reached at smw255@cornell.edu [7]. Guest Room appears periodically.