THE FRATERNITY party, a classic college tradition and scene particularly here at the University, soon will be regulated even more tightly by the city of Charlottesville. Working in conjunction with the University, the Charlottesville Fire Department has begun to measure the floor space of fraternity houses to determine the maximum number of people to be allowed in at parties. The city of Charlottesville should let the fraternities control and regulate their own affairs.
The city of Charlottesville has good intentions in trying to control the amount of people that should be let in to fraternity parties. It is attempting to make the Greek social scene safer. However, through its regulations, the city is taking an element of control out of the fraternities' hands.
The fraternity itself ultimately is responsible for what occurs at its social events. Because the fraternities have the definitive liability, it should be in their jurisdiction to specify how many people they wish to have at a party. In any case, until laws such as the ones being proposed are passed, there will be no illegal number of people allowed at a party.
Fraternity parties are non-profit social events. There should be no difference between a fraternity party and a bunch of people getting together at a fraternity house - or any other residence, for that matter - to dance and hang out. There are no such "overcrowding" policies enforced for other private residences. A fraternity house also is a private residence. The only difference is that it is being leased or is owned by an organization instead of a group of individuals. Because of that fact, the city of Charlottesville is exploiting its ability to make law. This is just the latest in a line of regulations imposed by the city, such as the noise ordinance that prohibits fraternity parties from going on past 2 a.m.
A good question is how exactly the city plans to enforce its law. Although there can be penalties for fraternities that violate the overcrowding regulations, as it stands now there is nothing to stop fraternities from going ahead and letting in as many people as they see fit.
|
The exact methods with which the regulations will be implemented have not yet been decided. Theoretically, there are ways to strictly enforce the proposed changes. For instance, there could be a policeman counting the number of people that enter and leave the fraternity house, or there could be random checks where police show up and count party guests. The police could also make fraternity brothers count the number of guests at their parties. With the sheer number of people that potentially can show up to a party, these methods are rather impractical and difficult to execute. Any type of enforcement would most likely entaila police presence at the party, which would be undesirable. Having police at a party would not only destroy the mood of a party, but also would make partygoers uneasy and put them on edge when they are there to enjoy themselves. No one ever would want to have police at a social gathering in their private residences. Fraternities should be no different, as they also are private residences.
Another good question is if this new overcrowding law is necessary at all. The ideas for the new enforcement have originated from a new direction the fire department's leadership has taken in trying to make the city safer. Yet, fraternity parties have existed at the University for decades and there has not been any need for overcrowding control before. If a guest feels that the party is too crowded, he has the free will to leave, or a fraternity can close its doors to ensure that no one else gets in. Most fraternities actually do regulate themselves and stop letting people in when the party gets too crowded. Although there have been instances of overcrowding, they're not necessarily indicative of the norm.
The city of Charlottesville should abstain from its newest regulation of Greek life. The solution that the city proposes may be worse than the problem itself, as a police presence would in effect destroy a party. The city has most importantly ignored the sovereignty of the fraternity brothers. Their organizations own or lease the houses, and they live in them. They should be allowed to do as they wish in their houses.
(Alex Rosemblat's column normally appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at arosemblat@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
BURSTEIN: Federal workforce cuts target Virginia — and Youngkin’s response falls short
By Carly Burstein | 3 days agoForcing employees to choose between uprooting their families or losing their livelihoods is not just callous — it is economically reckless.
HUYNH: Virginia’s proposed ‘whippets’ law is laughable
By Viet Huynh | 4 days agoAs people continue to be harmed by nitrous oxide abuse, Virginians will see this new law as the ineffective, ultimately harmful policy that it is.
EDITORIAL: We can demand more of our university presidents
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoWe hope for greater transparency because for the principles of solidarity in this statement to be enacted and effective, stakeholders must be treated as partners in resistance.
