New sexual assault allegations involving fraternities at Cornell University and the University of Arizona are forcing American universities to confront a long-simmering question: Why do colleges continue to formally recognize and support organizations whose traditions and practices repeatedly raise concerns about student safety, accountability, and exclusion?
At Cornell, a former student has filed a civil lawsuit alleging that seven members of the Chi Phi fraternity sexually assaulted her in 2024. The university barred the chapter from campus following the incident. The criminal investigation was reopened in September 2026, and New York Attorney General Letitia James was appointed special prosecutor in October.
Meanwhile, at the University of Arizona, police are investigating a student's report that two men sexually assaulted her at a Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity house on Aug. 26. On Oct. 21, the university suspended the chapter's activities, citing a substantial risk to the university community. The police investigation is ongoing, and the case had not been referred to prosecutors in the latest reporting.
The two cases differ in details, but they underscore the same institutional dilemma: how universities oversee Greek-letter organizations and whether the benefits of maintaining them justify their continued institutional support. The incidents also highlight a broader pattern of misconduct that has plagued fraternities for decades, including hazing, excessive drinking, and dangerous initiation rituals. Research from StopHazing and the University of Maine found that more than half of college students involved in clubs, teams, and organizations reported experiencing hazing, with fraternities and sororities among the groups where it was prevalent.
Not every fraternity engages in such behavior, of course, and many members participate in charitable activities, community service, and legitimate campus programs. But universities should ask whether the benefits these organizations offer are worth the risks, and whether those benefits could be provided through more inclusive alternatives. There is another problem that deserves attention even when no misconduct has occurred: exclusivity. Fraternities select their members through recruitment processes in which existing members often play a substantial role. Social compatibility, personal connections, and perceptions of status can influence who is admitted. Students who do not fit a particular group's preferences may be excluded, regardless of their academic ability or personal qualities.
The consequences can extend well beyond college. Greek-letter organizations frequently promote their alumni networks as a major benefit of membership. These networks can offer mentoring, professional contacts, employment leads, and introductions that remain valuable decades after graduation. Networking itself is not objectionable—people naturally help friends and former classmates—but the problem arises when access to influential networks depends partly on membership in selective social organizations that many equally capable students never join. College is supposed to expand opportunity through education, hard work, and achievement, yet students can enter professional life with very different advantages because of the social connections they made during their undergraduate years.
Those who never belonged to a fraternity may have the same qualifications, ambition, and ability as former members, but they may lack access to the same informal networks. Universities should consider whether their recognition of Greek life helps reinforce this disparity rather than reduce it. Defenders of fraternities point to charitable fundraising, community service, leadership development, and lifelong friendships—all worthwhile pursuits, but none requires membership in a fraternity. Colleges already support student government, academic societies, volunteer organizations, and athletic clubs that help students develop leadership skills, make friends, and contribute to their communities. Universities can encourage these activities without making selective social membership a central part of campus life.
Nor does questioning university recognition of fraternities mean opposing students' freedom to associate. Students should remain free to form private organizations and maintain their friendships, but universities are not obligated to formally recognize, subsidize, or accommodate every organization students create. Recognition is a choice, and it should serve an educational purpose. Where recognition provides access to university facilities, recruitment opportunities, or other institutional privileges, it should also bring meaningful accountability. Universities should establish clear standards for recognized organizations, enforce them consistently, and withdraw recognition when serious violations are established. They should also examine whether their policies adequately protect students, whether reporting procedures work, and whether disciplinary responses address recurring problems rather than merely reacting to public pressure.
The allegations at Cornell and Arizona do not establish that every fraternity is dangerous, but they do underscore the importance of serious oversight. Universities should not wait for another controversy before reviewing the culture, incentives, and institutional arrangements surrounding Greek life. As campuses grapple with these issues, some are already taking steps: the University of Chicago recently banned a suspect in a fraternity house sexual assault as police continue their investigation. Meanwhile, broader pressures on higher education—from enrollment declines to political scrutiny—are prompting colleges to reassess their offerings and priorities. The question of whether fraternities remain a valuable part of campus life is one that universities can no longer afford to ignore.
