Every time a fraternity makes national headlines for something horrifying, the same demand follows: Abolish Greek life.

I understand the anger and the frustration. After years of sexual assault allegations, hazing deaths, and institutional failures, I understand why people have lost faith in fraternities’ ability to police themselves.

But abolishing Greek life is not necessarily the solution people think it is. In fact, depending on how universities approach it, we could make the problem worse.

I spent years working for and with an international fraternity, establishing chapters, recruiting members, advising students, and helping enforce disciplinary standards. In a previous column, I argued that fraternity accountability cannot end when an organization expels its members.

Now, as the allegations involving seven men associated with Cornell University’s Chi Phi fraternity renew calls for abolishing Greek life altogether, I think we need to confront another uncomfortable question.

What happens when the fraternities disappear from campus, but the students and their behavior do not?

Taking Away the Letters Doesn’t End the Organization

Here is something I learned working in fraternity life: Losing university recognition does not necessarily mean a fraternity ceases to exist.

When a university revokes recognition, a chapter can lose the ability to participate in official recruitment, register social events, use campus facilities, or operate as a recognized student organization.

But its members can still gather. They can recruit through word of mouth, collect dues, and organize parties away from university property.

And when those organizations operate independently, the university may lose an important layer of oversight.

I saw this firsthand while advising a fraternity chapter at Santa Clara University. The fraternities had national affiliations but were not recognized by the university.

The school could investigate and discipline individual students, but it did not have the same organizational relationship it would have had with recognized chapters.

There is a significant difference between holding a student accountable and having enforceable oversight of an entire organization.

And this isn’t exclusive to Santa Clara.

Duke University lists numerous fraternities that disaffiliated from the university beginning in 2021. Those organizations could continue operating independently despite having no formal relationship with the university.

So, what exactly would abolishing Greek life accomplish if students simply continued operating outside the system?

Students Will Find Somewhere Else to Belong

The history of Greek-letter organizations makes this debate even more interesting.

Phi Beta Kappa, founded in 1776 at the College of William & Mary, began as a secret debating society where students could discuss ideas outside the restrictions of their academic environment.

It was about intellectual freedom and shared interests, not who could throw the biggest party.

Greek-letter organizations evolved considerably over the centuries, but the underlying desire to belong to something has never disappeared.

And it won’t disappear with a university ban.

Some organizations might eventually die out without the resources, recruitment opportunities, or recognition that sustain them. Others could become independent local fraternities, adopt new names, or continue operating unofficially.

Students could also establish other social clubs, including co-ed organizations, where some of the same problems could emerge.

That doesn’t mean every new organization would become dangerous. It means the behaviors we’re trying to prevent aren’t exclusive to Greek letters.

If students are primarily joining organizations for alcohol, parties, popularity, and social status, changing the name on the door does little to address those motivations.

We cannot abolish the human desire for community. We can, however, decide how seriously we regulate the organizations built around it.

Closing Chapters and Abolishing Greek Life Are Different

Look at what happened at the University of Arizona this month.

The university suspended fraternity activities amid investigations involving nearly half of its Interfraternity Council chapters. Officials cited allegations involving hazing, assaults, alcohol, and drugs.

I support universities taking decisive action when student safety is threatened. Some chapters absolutely deserve to be shut down, particularly when misconduct becomes so entrenched that reform is no longer credible.

But closing individual chapters and abolishing an entire system are two different decisions.

Critics have a legitimate argument. Fraternities have had decades to reform, yet serious incidents continue. At some point, promises of change become difficult to believe.

Some institutions have chosen another path. Maine’s Bowdoin College phased out fraternities in 1997 and developed an inclusive residential College House system.

That is an example worth examining. But replacing Greek life with a developed alternative is different from merely banning organizations and hoping their problems disappear.

If universities want to eliminate Greek life, they need to explain what happens afterward and how students will be better protected.

Stop Treating Education Like a Checkbox

The answer cannot simply be more mandatory online training modules that students click through while scrolling TikTok.

I’ve watched fraternity education become an exercise in compliance rather than meaningful development.

Real education should be woven into recruitment, chapter meetings, leadership development, and everyday expectations. Students should be learning about consent, intervention, responsibility, and the consequences of their behavior throughout their membership.

But education alone isn’t enough.

I would rather see universities make independent investigations, continuing in-person education, and enforceable accountability conditions of fraternity recognition.

When serious misconduct is alleged, qualified investigators independent of the fraternity should examine the claims, with fair procedures for everyone involved. National headquarters should help finance those investigations without controlling their findings.

And when organizational failures are established, the consequences should not end with expelling a few members.

Chapter leadership should answer for its decisions. National headquarters should answer for failures in its oversight. Chapters should have to demonstrate meaningful reform before regaining privileges or recognition.

Fraternities are also businesses. Recruitment means dues, membership growth, and financial support for national organizations. If headquarters benefits from a chapter’s success, it cannot simply treat that chapter’s failures as somebody else’s problem.

The goal should not be preserving every fraternity. It should be creating organizations that are genuinely worth preserving.

Abolition Is Not the Same as Accountability

The Cornell allegations are deeply disturbing. A former student has accused seven men associated with Chi Phi of sexually assaulting her in 2024. Those allegations remain the subject of legal proceedings.

Nothing about my argument should diminish the seriousness of those allegations or the responsibility institutions have to protect students.

But I worry about a future in which universities declare Greek life abolished, remove their organizational relationships, and consider the matter resolved.

The fraternities might disappear from campus brochures. Their parties might disappear from official calendars. Their letters might disappear from university websites.

Yet the students could continue gathering, and the underlying problems could remain.

I want fraternities to return to something closer to their stated purpose: meaningful brotherhood, shared values, personal development, and people holding one another to higher standards.

Not the next party. Not the next opportunity to get drunk. Not the next chance to gain social status.

I am not arguing that Greek life deserves to exist simply because it has existed for generations. I am arguing that eliminating Greek life without addressing the culture surrounding it risks confusing institutional convenience with student safety.

I’d rather have an imperfect system we can hold accountable than an underground system that answers to almost no one.

But keeping that system means demanding far more from the people responsible for running it.

We should not measure success by how many chapters universities close. We should measure it by whether misconduct declines, students feel safe reporting it, and organizations face meaningful consequences when they fail.

Removing the letters is easy. Changing the culture is the hard part, and that is where accountability must begin.

—

Connect with Anthony W. Haddad on social media. Got a tip? Send an email.