Despite publicly announcing their intention to vote last night on a proposal that would effectively ban open distribution of alcohol at fraternity events, every member of the Interfraternity Council refused to comment on the outcome of the scheduled vote.
Following a meeting that took place behind closed doors and lasted more than an hour, members of the organization, including Trinity senior Tom Sowers, president of IFC, left the room and each offered one statement: "No comment."
It remains unclear, in fact, whether or not IFC even voted on the measure last night.
Although members of the executive council of IFC had openly discussed the proposal prior to last night, they maintained their silence following their meeting, and, as a result, will keep much of the campus population uncertain about the future of open distribution at least for the duration of the weekend.
Members of IFC also declined to provide an explanation for their silence on the matter. Trinity junior and treasurer of IFC Eric Weisman, however, told The Chronicle three days ago that Sowers feared the University community would view the policy "as a press policy, and not a real policy."
In the days before the meeting, many members of IFC had publicly predicted that they would approve the new policy; some had even gone so far as to forecast that it would pass unanimously.
The proposal on the table could enact severe punishments for fraternities caught openly distributing alcohol at social functions. The ultimate goal of the policy, IFC members had told The Chronicle, is to make the penalties so severe that fraternity members would be afraid to distribute.
A fraternity's first violation would lead to the loss of its spring pledge class-a punishment that could lead to the group losing its housing privileges if membership numbers fell too low to fill the University-required 80 percent of its section.Violating the policy a second time would mean losing IFC and, consequently, University recognition.
IFC had offered several motives for proposing the severe penalties, including the expressed need to control individual fraternity members more efficiently and the desire to destroy the perception of fraternities as open bars.
The proposal had prompted mixed sentiments from the student body during the course of the past three days. Some feared that one of the campus' most popular social outlets would fall by the wayside, while others maintained that West Campus and the fraternity parties would continue to dominate the social scene regardless of IFC's decision.
Still others seemed confident that the majority of students and fraternities would move off campus to find social options more appealing than dry parties on West.
Members of IFC, however, had expressed the desire for students to enjoy fraternity parties simply because they can continue to provide a fun social option without the open distribution of alcohol. Trinity senior and IFC co-vice president of rush Ted Post had earlier told The Chronicle that students and fraternities are coming to the realization that alcohol should not be the center of the social life on campus.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.