For decades, American universities have tried to regulate fraternities without getting rid of them. The latest controversy at Cornell University is forcing that compromise back into the spotlight.
The question sounds simple: if fraternities repeatedly become the setting for hazing, heavy drinking and sexual misconduct, why do American colleges keep them around?
The debate has returned with force after a woman alleged that she was drugged and sexually assaulted by members of the Chi Phi fraternity at Cornell University in October 2024. No criminal charges were initially filed, but Cornell shut down the fraternity chapter and imposed disciplinary sanctions on students. The case has since been reopened by New York authorities, while Cornell has appointed former US Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates to independently review how it handled sexual assault allegations. The men accused in the case have denied wrongdoing.
The controversy has now become bigger than one fraternity or one university.
So, what is a fraternity?
A fraternity is essentially a student membership organisation, usually made up of men, that recruits members at a college or university. The equivalent organisations for women are sororities.
They are often referred to collectively as “Greek life” because many use Greek letters in their names, such as Chi Phi, Alpha Kappa Alpha or Sigma Alpha Epsilon.
Fraternities can offer friendship, accommodation, social events, alumni networks and professional connections. Some are centred around particular interests, professions or communities. Their alumni can remain involved for decades, helping make fraternity membership a powerful social and professional network..
But the traditional fraternity also has another feature: it is a club with its own hierarchy, rituals and social world, sometimes operating partly outside the university’s everyday supervision.
That is where the trouble begins.
The ‘frat bro’ culture
The stereotype of the “frat bro” is familiar: a young man whose social identity revolves around his fraternity, parties, drinking, status and the brotherhood of his group.
It is, of course, a caricature. Not all fraternity members are violent or abusive, some fraternities also run charities, community programmes and professional networks.
But the stereotype survives because there is a real cultural issue underneath it. Researchers and critics have long pointed to environments in which aggressive masculinity, heavy drinking, sexual competition and loyalty to fellow members can reinforce one another.
The concern is not that fraternity membership automatically produces bad behaviour. It is that a group can sometimes turn bad behaviour into a test of belonging.
And then there are the ‘pledges’
A pledge is a student seeking membership in a fraternity, usually during the period known as pledging or the new-member process.
This is supposed to be about learning the organisation’s history, traditions and values. In practice, some chapters have turned it into hazing: forcing new members to drink excessive amounts of alcohol, endure humiliation, perform dangerous tasks or submit to physical and psychological abuse.
The logic is simple but dangerous: if you suffer for the group, you prove that you deserve to belong.
Cornell itself has acknowledged hazing as a serious problem and prohibits practices that put members at risk of physical or emotional harm.
The consequences can be deadly. In 2017, Penn State student Timothy Piazza died after a Beta Theta Pi hazing ritual involving alcohol. That same year, Maxwell Gruver died during hazing at Louisiana State University, while Andrew Coffey died after a fraternity event at Florida State University.
More recently, an 18-year-old pledge at Northern Arizona University, Colin Martinez, died of alcohol poisoning in January 2026 after a hazing ritual involving Delta Tau Delta. A former fraternity leader was sentenced to jail this month.
And the problem is larger than the headline cases. An analysis of the first full year of reporting under the federal Stop Campus Hazing Act found at least 556 hazing incidents between July 2025 and August 2026 across 1,441 US colleges with bachelor’s programmes and on-campus housing.
Cornell has tried reform before. So have other colleges
Cornell’s own history illustrates why the debate keeps returning. The university has dealt with fraternity misconduct for generations, including hazing allegations, alcohol-related deaths, sexual misconduct and dangerous initiation practices.
After a fraternity-related alcohol-poisoning death in 2012, Cornell moved to curb risky pledging. In 2018, another fraternity faced sanctions over a degrading sexualised contest. In 2022, allegations involving sexual assault and drugging at fraternity-linked housing prompted the university to temporarily suspend fraternity parties.
The latest Chi Phi case therefore raises a difficult question: if restrictions, suspensions, advisers, training and disciplinary systems have not eliminated the problem, what comes next?
So, should colleges ban frats?
There is a strong case for banning them. Universities control much of the student environment and have a responsibility to prevent organisations from becoming parallel systems of power where rules are difficult to enforce. Critics also argue that the social and networking benefits of fraternities can be provided through ordinary student clubs without preserving structures associated with hazing and abuse.
But banning fraternities does not automatically eliminate parties, drinking or sexual violence. Students could simply move those activities elsewhere, potentially making them harder for universities to monitor.
There is also the question of enforcement. Many fraternities operate through private houses, national organisations and alumni networks. A university can suspend a chapter, but changing the culture that exists among its members is considerably harder.
That leaves colleges with an uncomfortable choice: keep trying to reform a system that has survived generations of scandals, or accept that some institutions may be too difficult to make safe and end them altogether.
Cornell’s latest crisis suggests that, for American higher education, that argument is nowhere near over.
Why are fraternities associated with sexual misconduct?
The problem is not that every fraternity is dangerous, or that every fraternity member behaves badly.
Research has nevertheless linked fraternity party culture with heavy alcohol consumption, while academic reviews have examined the relationship between fraternity environments, traditional gender roles and sexual violence.
Alcohol matters because intoxication can increase vulnerability and complicate questions of consent. Group loyalty can also create another problem: witnesses or members may be reluctant to report misconduct involving their friends.
That does not mean fraternity membership itself causes sexual assault. Studies have found associations between Greek-life participation and some forms of sexual assault, but researchers also point to factors such as drinking and the wider campus environment.
The bigger question after Cornell
That leaves colleges with an uncomfortable choice: should they abolish fraternities, or accept that Greek life can exist only if universities exercise much tighter control over it?
Cornell’s response shows how high the stakes have become. The university has now brought in ex-Justice official Sally Yates to examine its handling of sexual misconduct, including campus police responses, disciplinary procedures and oversight of fraternities.
The Cornell controversy therefore raises a question bigger than one fraternity or one university.
If colleges recognise fraternities, allow them to recruit students, use their names and alumni networks and operate houses where students socialise, how much responsibility should universities bear when something goes badly wrong inside them?
That may ultimately be a more difficult question than whether fraternities should simply be banned.
The fraternities are totally ok.
What is not ok is women trying to be part of fraternities which were conceived of at their very inception for men only. The rules and regulations were designed with men in mind – naturally, these fraternities do injustice to women. They are inherently misogynistic and prey on women.
What women need is their own fraternity – one whose rules and regulations are laid down by them. A safe and secure place for women students to socialize, connect and have fun.
The US universities must ask women to create their own fraternity and not be a part of any male fraternity.