COLUMN: Late-night walks from parties

From Andrea Ahles's, "Hawaiian Style," Fall '97 From Andrea Ahles's, "Hawaiian Style," Fall '97 It's 1:45 a.m. on a Saturday night. You're at a frat party with some of your hallmates. But there's no beer left at the party. Actually, that's not quite right. The frat has stopped serving alcohol as required by Pennsylvania law. So you and your friends decide to head on back to the Quad. But wait! The party's still going and will keep going until 3:30 a.m. Why not stay? The Undergraduate Assembly's Greek Life committee's proposal of keeping frat parties open until 3:30 a.m. instead of 2 a.m. is absurd. While the issue has not been voted on by the entire student government body, it was recently supported in an InterFraternity Council resolution ("IFC asks permission to end parties later," DP, 11/6/97). Proponents of the idea to keep parties open later say it will increase student safety by encouraging people to leave parties in a slow steady stream between 2 a.m. and 3:30 a.m. But this logic is flawed. One of the large appeals of attending a fraternity party is the alcohol. And once the keg is kicked or the flow of juices stops, party-goers will finish up their last beer and usually head home. The idea also coincides with the UA West Philadelphia committee's proposal to extend Spectaguard patrols from 3 a.m. to 4 a.m. on weekends. While more patrols to make the streets safer for students late at night would be a bonus, the patrols shouldn't be in place only because of an early-morning frat party. IFC Chairperson Matt Baker acknowledged this plan probably won't be approved by University administrators. And for several good reasons. One, it would cost extra money to pay for more cops on duty during that time then there are currently. The University has better uses for that money than to hire more security guards just to keep frat parties open later. But if the University has the funds to extend patrols on the weekends, administrators should have more late-night patrols since students are likely to be returning to campus from other late-night events from downtown or other off-campus locations. It is the patrols that will keep the streets safe and not an extended frat party. Two, this is not a feasible solution to the rash of alcohol-related violent incidents on campus. Alcohol-related violence will happen when students drink heavily regardless if they decide to walk home at 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. And if a student has consumed enough alcohol that could produce a violent outburst, an extra hour at a frat party is not going to provide enough sobering-up time. Although frats would not continue to serve alcohol any later, this might anger some already drunk students when they realize they will no longer be served. A fight might break out at the party or the drunk students might end up on the streets in an irritated mood waiting to hit anyone. It happens in bars, so why couldn't it happen at a frat party? It's good that the student groups are concerned with the rash of alcohol-related violent incidents on campus. But if the UA and the IFC were truly concerned about alcohol abuse by students, the groups wouldn't suggest keeping parties going past 2 a.m. Instead they would work with administrators and other student groups to find ways to curb binge drinking and alcohol-related violence, and quit wasting time on a proposal that is sure to fail. However, with the high percentage of Greeks on the UA, -- 20 of its 25 members, thanks to last year's all-Greek ticket campaign -- the group is looking at the problem with a slant that might help fraternities more than the students. IFC and UA members feel this is a reasonable resolution and that administrators should provide funding for it. But Baker said he doubts it would pass because, "The University traditionally has been stingy in allocating additional funds to student groups, especially when its associated with the Greek system," (DP, 11/6/97). The proposal shouldn't be implemented because of its lack of merit, not simply because Greeks thought of it. And administrators should ignore the proposal because keeping fraternity parties open later may cause more problems instead of bringing about a solution.