LETTER | Prohibition didn’t work, will banning hard liquor from fraternity houses?

In 1920 the United States wrote the “noble experiment” of Prohibition into law. This ban of alcohol aimed to reduce crime and resolve social issues of the time. Proponents of Prohibition concluded that difficulty to access alcohol would reduce the amount consumed. This seems logical, and at first, it seemed successful. However, after an initial decline, consumption began to rise steadily. Underground production, speakeasies and organized crime sprung up across the country as acts of rebellion to this ban.

One of the most notable consequences of Prohibition has been labeled the “Iron Law of Prohibition” by Richard Cowan. This law states that a direct correlation exists between intensity of law enforcement and potency of the prohibited substance of concern. 

Before Prohibition, Americans spent roughly the same amount of money on beer as they did hard liquor. However, during Prohibition, almost all alcohol production was of hard liquor, mainly due to the added difficulties of beer harboring and distribution in comparison to liquor.

Furthermore, demand for alcohol also rose because Prohibition law augmented the attractiveness of alcohol consumption to young Americans by adding a façade of thrill and glamour to the action. According to a study of 30 major U.S. cities, the number of crimes rose 24 percent between 1920 and 1921. Arrests for drunkenness and disorderly conduct increased 41 percent, and arrest of drunken drivers increased 81 percent.

Prohibition, while noble, did not exhibit its intended result. So, what makes us think that banning hard liquor from Auburn fraternity houses will be successful? 

As a former president of a fraternity, I have seen, first-hand, the dangers of misusing alcohol. It is without question that the substance can impair judgment and often is the root cause of many behavioral problems. 

However, adding the obstacle of a hard liquor ban from fraternity houses will not successfully function as a means of diminishing University or fraternity liability or even incidents resulting from alcohol misuse.

I would argue that instead of hard liquor becoming obsolete like administrators and the Interfraternity Council are intending, students may be encouraged to consume more of it at a faster rate before attending social events at fraternity houses. Events before the official events are dubbed “Pre-Games,” where binge drinking is often a characteristic behavior. With knowledge of liquor absence at the actual fraternity event, a student may feel an inclination to take that extra shot or swig from a liquor handle. 

This additional consumption could be what sends a student over the edge of intoxication and out of control. Evidence of this already exists preceding other university activities ­— binge drinking at tailgates before football games and prior to transportation for sorority functions, both of which are alcohol-free environments.

The reality of excessive drinking by college students still exists today; it is a problem that should be addressed by the University for several prominent reasons. But rather than strict prohibition, a more promising approach is establishing measures that seek to promote safe and responsible drinking. 

Surface-level consideration of hard liquor dismissal from fraternity property might seem beneficial, and I acknowledge the University’s motives in this decision. Protection of Greek Life as a whole is something we need to continue cultivating, and diminishing liability for these organizations is a great way to further this. However, we are not comparing apples to apples with this new rule. 

The options are not validly: a) hard liquor is present at fraternity houses, or b) hard liquor is not present at fraternity houses. Instead, the choice is between: a) controlled distribution and consumption of liquor at fraternity houses through third-party, University-approved vendors, and b) uncontrolled, unacknowledged hard liquor consumption and binge drinking outside of fraternity houses, intensified by the absence of liquor at actual fraternity events. In short, where Auburn University and the Interfraternity Council believe they are gaining control through this liquor ban, they ironically might be losing it.

Fraternities at Auburn have come a long way in terms of safety since my freshman year. Over the past year, IFC has encouraged and promoted University-approved, third-party vendors. 

From my experience, they provide a safer method to partake in controlled, responsible drinking. I would propose to continue the effort to eliminate hard liquor from being brought into fraternity events and utilize the services that third-party vendors provide. Why don’t we give that a chance before this radical approach is taken?

The preservation of history exists to educate future generations on the successes and failures of their predecessors. Let Prohibition speak to our present circumstances, and through the American government’s retrogression of control, might we as Auburn University recognize a different route to a better Auburn.