A lawsuit alleging that seven members of Cornell University’s Chi Phi fraternity drugged and gang-raped a student in 2024 has intensified national scrutiny of Greek life. The case drew widespread attention after it emerged that only two of the accused men were expelled, prompting criticism of both the university and local law enforcement for their handling of the incident. In response, Cornell President Michael Kotlikoff announced on Saturday that the institution would conduct a thorough review of the role fraternities and sororities play on campus, alongside other measures aimed at improving safety.
Protests erupted on Monday at the Ithaca campus, with demonstrators chanting slogans calling for the elimination of fraternities. In an interview with TIME, Nick Syrett, a professor of gender and women’s studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and author of “The Company He Keeps: A History of White College Fraternities,” addressed the structural issues within these organizations and the challenges of regulating them.
Syrett noted that incidents of sexual violence in fraternities are not new, citing a history of such events dating back to the 1970s and 1980s. However, he argued that the unique structure of fraternities contributes to the problem. As one of the few single-sex organizations on campus besides sports teams, fraternities allow members to perform masculinity in specific ways. Syrett explained that these groups often emphasize drinking, partying, and sexual conquest as markers of status, creating an environment where harmful behaviors are reinforced by older members.
A key factor enabling these dynamics is autonomy. Most fraternities own their own houses, which limits university oversight. Syrett pointed out that even when universities ban recognized chapters, the national organizations may still permit them to operate if they remain in good standing with the parent group. He cited a recent example at his own institution, where police busted a fraternity for illegal hazing despite the chapter lacking university recognition for a decade.
When asked whether banning fraternities would solve the issue, Syrett suggested that while such organizations exacerbate sexual assault, binge drinking, and hazing, they do not create these behaviors from scratch. He predicted that eliminating fraternities would reduce organized group assaults and peer pressure but noted that some negative behaviors would persist in other forms.
Syrett also addressed the culture of silence that often surrounds misconduct in these groups. He attributed this partly to the historical secrecy of fraternities, which were illegal on many campuses during their early years. Additionally, the pledging process itself—often involving hazing and humiliation—forges strong bonds of loyalty among members, making them reluctant to report one another.
Despite decades of scandals, fraternity membership remains resilient. Syrett identified two main reasons: alumni support and social appeal. Fraternity alumni tend to be more engaged and generous donors, giving universities incentive to avoid alienating them. Furthermore, for incoming students—particularly those far from home—fraternities offer an immediate social network and a sense of belonging, promising popularity and access to social events.
As debates over regulation continue, the Cornell case has reignited calls for universities to reevaluate how they oversee Greek life, balancing the desire for student community against the need for campus safety.
Has anyone considered that sports teams might have similar toxic masculinity cultures but face less scrutiny?
Alumni donations are clearly prioritized over student safety. That incentive structure needs to change immediately.
I wonder if banning them would just push this behavior underground instead of eliminating it entirely?
The autonomy of house ownership is the real problem. Universities can’t oversee what they don’t own.