A female student reported being “sexually assaulted by an unknown white male at an off-campus fraternity party,” according to a crime warning the NC State University Police issued Jan. 19.
Cases of sexual assaults such as this have been more common in the past couple of years. The connections between these Greek organizations’ parties and these crimes can quickly trigger one’s suspicion as to how much hard alcohol is involved at those parties. It begs the question as to how likely drinking liquor contribute to sexual assaults.
The federal Clery Act mandates colleges and universities to release the numbers of reported sexual assaults, drug and liquor law violations, and other specific crimes within certain campus boundaries. Last year’s numbers showed that those crimes on campus have increased dramatically from 2013 to 2014, especially with regard to cases of sexual assaults.
Frustrated by complaints that colleges mishandle sexual assaults cases, officials in some colleges have moved forward to issue new rules and regulations about hard alcohol in fear of ruining their reputation.
Last month, elite colleges join other schools to ban booze on campus once and for all. Dartmouth College’s president Philip J. Hanlon delivered a speech to faculty members and students Thursday to lay out his plan dealing with the rising tide of complaints associated with sexual assaults. The Ivy League college has banned hard alcohol on campus for all students. The University of Virginia made a similar move to restrict booze and Greek organization parties, following the discredited Rolling Stone article about a gang rape at a fraternity party.
Numerous statistics show strong positive relationships between sexual assaults and overconsumption of alcohol at a party. But the question is whether banning hard alcohol—or any alcohol—would be really effective to prevent sexual crime.
Many colleges and universities in the United States launched a campaign, “Yes Means Yes,” in solidarity with one another, and some adopted part of the policy to handle sexual assault cases. But does a “yes” in a party involving large amount of alcohol truly reflect a person’s willingness, given that he or she is at a state of unconsciousness? If a woman said “yes” to a man at a party when she was drunk, she might regret that decision after she became sober and report the incident to police. It is difficult to implement the policy because the evidence is hard to present unless words are recorded. Perhaps students who attend parties have no intentions to have intimacy but they might lose control with hard alcohol. It is a well-known argument that drunken consent does not count as legitimate consent, so banning alcohol for this reason makes sense.
With that said, banning booze on campus for everyone might be less effective when it comes to actual enforcement. State law already bans drinking alcohol for those under the age of 21, with federal law reinforcing this policy. There is no reason to restrict drinking for those who are over 21, though. It is true that colleges have absolute sovereignty for on-campus residential places, and it is within reason and the universities’ rights to ban any drinking on residential sites. But parties usually take place in private houses off campus. For example, many Greek letter organizations own their own houses and land, therefore campus policy is out of reach to them.
A ban is not a law. Even if the ban on hard alcohol were to be violated and that led to a sexual assault, college officials still have to be responsible for investigating it, inevitably causing legal affairs and a possibly damaged reputation.
Efforts to reduce sexual assaults associated with hard alcohol should be invested more in educational programs that teach students about the risks and consequences of heading off to a fraternity party. Without breaking the underage drinking law, students are free to drink, but the flip side of this freedom should be personal responsibility and awareness of the risk of becoming a victim or a suspect.
