Dry fraternities. Have you ever heard such an oxymoron? Do national leaders really believe that going dry is in the best interest of the current houses and their members?
I just don't understand how they can be so naive. Everyone and his or her mother knows what goes on at college, even if you're not a part of the greek system. For some big shot sitting on a board of directors somewhere to say, "I'm sure that the fraternity will still thrive even when they're dry. All they'll have to do is work a little harder at recruiting, and sell the good points of the house to the rushes," is outrageous. News flash, buddy: To whom are they going to sell a house when nobody comes to it?
How many of you when you were freshmen can honestly say that the reason you first went to a fraternity was NOT because of alcohol? There's nothing wrong with that. I did the same thing. I didn't pledge because of alcohol, but it got me there.
On a campus that prides itself on partying and contains one of the largest greek systems in the country, there are too many other options for potential rushes. The handful of dry houses will face an uphill battle in recruiting, going up against a ton of remaining wet houses.
The "suits" that are making these decisions would be revolting if they were in school facing this. Now that none of the pressure is on their backs, they seem overconfident that dry houses will find an abundance of "quality people striving to make a difference."
Apparently, dry houses are for those who strive for excellence in academics, character and leadership, while wet houses are for simians like myself who enjoy playing beer pong in their fraternity houses. I've heard all the mumbo-jumbo about insurance companies and how they don't want to cover wet fraternities anymore.
I can just imagine the little meeting between all the agencies when this was decided. Everyone sits around discussing information that is probably gathered through a movie marathon including classics such as National Lampoon's Animal House, Revenge of the Nerds and PCU. These same agencies, which have been insuring fraternities for years, came away brainwashed and decided that now it's too much of a risk after all these years.
I wasn't around when fraternities first started in America, but I'm pretty sure I can guess what was going on. I highly doubt that joining a fraternity was completely about studying and becoming a better person.
Then there are those who say, "Look what happened here recently at Penn State, with a fraternity getting shut down. If there were no alcohol, then nothing like this would ever happen." Situations like this are the exception, not the rule.
If our current greek system is so bad, then why has it not only survived but thrived for all these years?
For dry fraternities to even keep their head above water at Penn State they would need better odds. The only way would be for everyone to go dry together. Then, no fraternity would have an advantage because it was still able to throw wild parties and attract swarms of people.
Deciding where to pledge would be solely based on who you like the most and where you feel you fit in the best.
It's funny, isn't it? This kind of sounds like the existing fraternity system, believe it or not.
Some people might see this next statement as a stretch, but I've always considered myself optimistic at heart. If anything, fraternities that serve beer entice more people to think about rushing and therefore, more people end up pledging.
The greek system, love it or hate it, is involved on this campus in almost every aspect. Someone like myself, who never even thought about joining a fraternity, and just went to one for the sole purpose of partying, might never have gotten to experience all the things that I've done, and met all the people I have.
I can't even imagine not being a member of a fraternity, and I'm just grateful that I went along to what I thought was just going to be a random fraternity party that first weekend freshman year.
