University Fraternities: Concerns Over Safety and Exclusivity

Recent allegations involving fraternities at Cornell University and the University of Arizona highlight a critical issue that American universities face: the recognition and support of organizations that often raise concerns about student safety, accountability, and exclusivity.

At Cornell, a former student filed a lawsuit alleging that seven Chi Phi fraternity members sexually assaulted her in 2024. In response, Cornell banned the chapter from campus. The case’s criminal investigation reopened in 2026, with New York Attorney General Letitia James appointed special prosecutor.

Meanwhile, at the University of Arizona, police are investigating a student’s report of sexual assault by two individuals at a Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity house on August 26. The university suspended the chapter’s activities on October 21, citing a substantial risk to community safety. The investigation is ongoing and has not yet led to legal proceedings.

These incidents prompt questions about whether universities should continue to support Greek-letter organizations. While universities oversee such organizations, they need to evaluate the risks versus benefits they bring to the campus community.

In the 1990s, during my time at Nassau Community College and Baruch College, I chose not to join a fraternity, questioning their appeal. Fraternities are often criticized for hazing, excessive drinking, and other misconduct. Research from StopHazing and the University of Maine indicates that over half of college students involved in campus groups report hazing experiences, with fraternities and sororities frequently implicated.

Although not all fraternities engage in these behaviors, universities must consider if the benefits fraternities offer outweigh the risks. Could more inclusive alternatives meet these needs?

“Fraternities select members via recruitment, emphasizing social compatibility and connections. This may exclude talented students who do not fit the group’s preferences.”

Exclusive fraternities often promote their alumni networks, offering mentorship and professional opportunities. This networking can impact students beyond college, as access to these valuable networks may rely on fraternity membership, leaving non-members at a disadvantage despite similar qualifications.

Defenders cite the charitable work, leadership development, and friendships fostered by fraternities. Yet, these outcomes do not require fraternity membership. Colleges support various organizations that provide student leadership, friendship, and community service opportunities. Encouraging these activities without prioritizing selective membership aligns better with educational goals.

Students have the right to form private organizations and friendships. However, universities have no obligation to formally recognize or support every student organization. Recognition should serve an educational purpose, bringing accountability and reinforcing campus standards.

Universities should apply clear standards for recognized groups, enforce them consistently, and revoke recognition for serious violations. Students’ safety and a fair, inclusive environment must be a priority. Institutions must regularly review procedures and maintain oversight on Greek life to prevent future issues.

Tradition alone doesn’t justify supporting fraternities. Establishing relevant standards should be a priority for universities committed to fostering a safe, inclusive educational environment.

Universities must ensure their support for fraternities aligns with their educational mission, opening doors and not perpetuating exclusivity.

Robert G. Stanco, a writer based in New York, expresses these views in his work.