Opinion: The IFC should adopt better rules to regulate parties

Alcohol can be dangerous, and any space where large numbers of young adults gather to consume it in copious amounts is never going to be entirely safe.

Still, there is a gap between how safe parties at UNC’s fraternities could be and how safe they are in practice. The problem ironically stems in part from overly-stringent Interfraternity Council rules that turn enforcement into a joke.

To address this issue, the IFC should adopt rules that are less rigid and pair that change with more effective enforcement.

A Feb. 26 article published in The Daily Tar Heel described a scene where Ion Outterbridge, assistant director of the Office of Fraternity & Sorority Life and Community Involvement, was literally laughed at by fraternity presidents and risk managers for describing one such rule: that fraternity money may not be used to pay for alcohol.

Other rules abound that seem ridiculous to anyone who has ever attended a fraternity-hosted party: All must be BYOB; bulk sources of alcohol like kegs and party juice are not allowed; and IDs should be checked at the doors of parties and wherever alcohol is served inside them.

Perhaps most laughably, beer pong and other drinking games are banned.

IFC President Peter Diaz described the idea of a “party patrol” to enforce IFC rules as one possible solution to safety issues at parties. But Diaz also said the idea was unpopular.

“No one wants to go around and be busting parties, especially not me,” he said.

A party patrol would be a better idea if the intent were to enforce safe practices, not break up parties over common and mundane party fixtures.

Some fraternities already employ sensible safety measures, but greater consistency and IFC oversight could go a long way toward addressing grave security issues.

The IFC is not a law enforcement agency, and accordingly, its standards do not have to mirror law. Police should be the primary enforcers of the law, and the IFC does itself no favors if, by attempting half-heartedly to enforce law, it undermines its own unique role as a potentially benevolent and knowledgeable overseer.

The IFC’s greater responsibility is to make sure parties hosted by its member institutions are as safe as is practical.

That does not mean the IFC would be encouraging lawbreaking by lightening its standards. Instead, it would merely mean the IFC would be more realistically assessing its own role in promoting safety.

There is certainly room for conversation about what form new, more realistic rules could take. Some current rules, particularly the ban on party juice, seem sensible. But others seem ridiculous.

The current state of affairs is unacceptable, and it would be in the best interest of all parties involved if the IFC were taken seriously.

From sexual assault to alcohol poisoning, the consequences of unsafe parties can be grim. The group that can most unobtrusively ensure safety cannot continue to be the butt of jokes.