PARTY Patrol is perhaps the least popular group on Grounds. Most students don't understand what it does, beyond the fact that it checks up on underage drinking. Party Patrol doesn't deserve students' hatred, but its focus on stamping out underage drinking at IFC parties is unrealistic. Concentrating on regulations that increase safety for everyone, including those over 21, would better serve the community.
Party Patrol is operated jointly by the Inter-Fraternity Council and the Inter-Sorority Council, and generally focuses on alcohol enforcement. According to Party Patrol's Vice President Tom Davison, each week- Thursday through Saturday - four volunteers, two IFC members and two ISC members, go around to fraternity houses and see where parties go on.
At each house where a party is observed, Party Patrol members approach and test compliance by attempting to break the rules. Fraternities are supposed to check for University ID and age, marking students by age. Additionally, these marks should be checked at the alcohol source, and only those with a 21 mark are supposed to be served.
|
If Party Patrol members find violations, they file charges with the IFC Judiciary Committee. Investigations of the complaint follow and then a trial. If a house is found guilty, sanctions can include educational programs, social probation or fines. According to IFC Judiciary Chair Zach Terwilliger, these depend on the nature of the offense and prior offenses.
Davison and his ISC counterpart Shelly Shiflett are under constant scrutiny from both fraternity members, who often complain about the enforcement, and administration members concerned with drinking laws. Davison says that enforcement has tightened and that, from what he sees, fraternities have responded by improving their behavior to the point that fewer underage students can drink.
But whatever Davison observes, underage students still flock to fraternity parties with the expectation of free alcohol. There is a reason this expectation to drink exists. Davison concedes that door policies don't cover everything, such as first year students bringing their own markers, washing "X"s off and making their own marks. And, of course, one legal person in a group can get drinks for others.
Party Patrol also can't control fraternities serving friends, regardless of age, who they know aren't Party Patrol. Party Patrol can't control this and frankly shouldn't have to. As visible as fraternities are, they aren't the only places people drink. House parties proliferate off Grounds. Nobody checks IDs, and the hosts usually aren't trained in alcohol safety either.
To mimic this, satellite houses are becoming common. These are private houses and everyone living there is a brother and holds parties that the fraternity pays for. Satellite houses allow the same party without accountability. Both Davison and Terwilliger are concerned by this lack of accountability. Yet Party Patrol can't find house parties and force their way in, and Terwilliger admits that he doesn't know what the administration would do if they heard of specific satellite houses being used to circumvent social probation.
This is not to say that fraternity parties don't have certain problems. Terwilliger notes that students in danger at fraternities are less likely to be noticed, and that seven kegs are more difficult to manage than one. But these are problems of safety, not age.
First-year students who binge and get sick are the most visible. But every fourth year knows at least one person who drank way too much on his 21st birthday and someone who gets drunk at the Corner every week. Leslie Ann Balz, the student whose 1997 death inspired anti-drinking campaigns and crackdowns, was 21 years old. The fourth-year fifth, though stupid, is perfectly legal.
Despite the fact that safety is a problem for students of all ages, Party Patrol focuses more on age enforcement than safety, and this needs to change. When somebody is hurt, the question needs to be not whether they're 21, but why nobody noticed them sooner.
Fraternity brothers need training to recognize dangerous intoxication and they, not inexperienced pledges, need to run the keg. Terwilliger suggests that brothers at the door should have a copy of signs of intoxication at the door and use it to avoid letting in already intoxicated people, as well as keep items like bottles of ipecac on hand for emergencies. This is a very short list, but ultimately could be developed into a more detailed program for a safe practices checklist.
Safety, not age laws, need to be the focus of regulatory groups like Party Patrol. It is not realistic to expect the administration to ignore alcohol laws entirely. It would be fairer to adopt the same attitude that exists toward private parties, where the administration usually stays away, but if something unsafe happens, then all possible rule-breaking is scrutinized, including underage drinking. Underage drinking, instead of a concern all by itself, needs to be one part of a larger focus on safe practices by everyone, whatever their legal status.
(Elizabeth Managan's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at emanagan@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
ONIBUDO AND SAWAYA: Police, not students, were agents of chaos
By Naima Sawaya and Nathan Onibudo | 2 days agoSaturday, the state, not students nor protesters, brought violence to this campus.
IYER: Sports stadiums should sport more benefit to Virginia residents
By Arjun Iyer | 4 days agoPast stadiums in other states show that Virginia has the potential to succeed at such a construction project, provided that proper measures are undertaken.
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | April 29, 2024The implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
