STL Kappa,
I agree that if a Fraternity breaks a dry campus policy by throwing a party in their house then it's obvious that the Fraternity was to blame for the major infraction (still anyone, including sorority girls, who choose to individually break the rule by drinking on campus themseves should be sanctioned as students for that individual infraction, Fraternities should not be used as liability shields for individual actions). But we're not talking about drinking in a Fraternity owned house.
What the article is really addressing (but fails to clairify) is that Fraternities are being held responsible for OFF CAMPUS parties thrown by their individual members at their own homes and their own discretion with no support of the operations of the chapter. We as chapters cannot control every aspect of every members life. The link between individual party and Fraternity responsibility is made by authorities by saying:
"__# members of your Fraternity were participating in the off-campus function where minors were drinking (another individual decision). Therefore it was a 'chapter function'."
Even if there was NO chapter MONEY, PLANNING, SANCTIONING (mention in a meeting or notify through official chapter lines of communication), or RESOURCES going to this private, individual, party.
So to answer your question, by using the same logic used to link fraternities, sororities are indeed breaking the rules by "being there and participating" You are right, legally it matters whose house it is, and who paid. But again, those are individual decisions and those individuals should recieve punishments for disorderly household, or procureing or whatever by law.
But if the University, or the police want to link these inccidents to Greek houses based on under age drinking, what supposidly nabs Fraternities time and time again, they must remember that it is about consumption and proximaty, the girls are there...and guess what...they're drinking. So while sorority members may not own the house or apartment, and maybe they didn't pay for the booze, they are guilty by association.
But that logic is not currently extended to sororities, whose attendance at that function often makes up 50% or more of the people (especially under age drinkers) there. I am willing to bet my life's savings that every off campus private party that has been busted and linked to a Fraternity causing it to be closed or sanctioned has had an over whelming # of girls from any given particular sorority there. Probably the sorority who the legitimate function to take place later is sponsored with!
Sorority members participate equally in the violations, it's about time they participate equally in the sanctions, and hopefully that will cause them to participate equally in solutions to curb these risks.
Either that, or hold Fraternities to the same standard as Sororities and stop punishing the whole for individual actions beyond the scope of chapter control.
I apologize for the length of my responses. But truely appreciate the discussion that is developing. I'll try to keep it short and sweet from here on out
P.S. Homey the Bag: rude man. Not welcome here.