When I became a Sun columnist last semester, I vowed that I would never write about fraternities and sororities. As a member of the Greek cabal, I might not be entirely objective and, well, that makes me uncomfortable. To people who have no interest in the subject, I apologize.

As I understand it, the Interfraternity Council regulates the behavior of the recruitment practices of the fraternities on campus during Rush Week, with a special focus on hard alcohol and drugs. This is necessary, both to accommodate the University and to ensure the safety of the rushees. No one wants kids going to the hospital. The IFC, as it should, takes safety very seriously.

So for some light reading, I decided to go to the IFC website and look up some information on their policies regarding Rush. I figured that, since this was so serious, the IFC would provide fraternities with clear and readily available guidelines on the dos, don’ts, and potential consequences of doing the don’ts.

Now, I’m no big city lawyer, but I was pretty sure that I could find it. But what I found was that there’s surprisingly little information available in the documents regarding Rush. For instance, take the IFC policy on strippers: “Be it resolved, that it is the responsibility of each chapter as a part of the entire Greek Community to evaluate the nature of their events to ensure that they are consistent with the values of their organization and its place in the Greek Community.” The IFC has stated that having strippers at a rush event is inconsistent with the values of the Greek system. So, I can agree with that. In my opinion, hiring strippers to attract potential members is seedy. It would be nice if the code was written clearly and there was a corresponding punishment for its violation but, so be it. No strippers.

Fine, so not everything is Internet accessible. I’m a journalist of sorts so I had to get up from my laptop and actually do some investigating. Readers, here’s how it works: professionals hired by the IFC (no, not the strippers) come around to the different fraternities during Rush events. If they determine that something is amiss, they report it to the IFC.

The IFC President then visits the chapter at his own discretion and may then, again at his own discretion, dole out a punishment — a punishment that is nonnegotiable and that, unlike during the rest of the year, cannot be appealed to a higher authority. The fraternities are slapped with the loss of a day of rush. With the IFC acting as judge and jury, there is not much the chapter can do but accept the punishment or ignore it and thereby risk the loss of a pledge class.

Regardless of the nature of the infraction, the same penalty applies. This year, for instance, one house on campus was “caught” with one closed bottle of liquor in a legal-aged brother’s room. Technically, this was a violation of the rules as hard liquor must not be visible during Rush. Another house was caught taking shots with rushees. Both houses received the same punishment — the loss of a day of rush. And yet, my sources tell me, still another house was caught holding an event with strippers and received no punishment. I am all for clemency, but this strikes me as strange. Believe me, even as a senior, it’s no secret as to what houses are doing what. You just have to open your ears a little to hear blah-blah house has strippers, blah-blah has a giant drinking game with hard liquor as its big event, blah-blah house has … and on and on. Everyone knows what the deal is, everyone breaks the rules, and everyone knows it.

There is a clear conflict of interest between the duties that members of the IFC’s executive board must perform and their loyalty to their own chapters. I hope and believe that the board members will try to be impartial and enforce their own rules. Nevertheless, the conflict is unavoidable and, unfortunately, human.

I mentioned earlier that I felt uneasy even writing about the Greek system because I was a member of it. If I was a member of the IFC — and this, perhaps, is the reason I’m not — I cannot imagine ratting out my brothers for messing up and violating a rule. So in reality, what most likely occurs is that IFC board members allow their brothers to push the rules, merely warning them to stop an activity rather than filing an official report. The more cynical, and I believe incorrect, view would be that IFC board members interfere with specific houses because they are competitors for the same rushees. People cannot avoid their innate biases.

Are we to simply accept that chapter immunity during rush week, intentional or not, is a perk of being on the IFC executive board? I think not. But as the saying goes, you can’t get something for nothing. It would be naïve of me to suggest that, left to their own devices, fraternities would actually police themselves. The solution, I believe, lies in independent parties making the final decisions on what is punishable. This could mean professors or, better yet, students unaffiliated with the Greek system being on some sort of rush committee who would be presumably unprejudiced in their investigations and decisions. Obviously, everyone has biases. But the goal is to create the most equitable situation. I am all for rules and regulations but only if they are equal opportunity. Having disinterested and independent parties involved would increase the legitimacy of the entire process.

I would like to emphasize that these are my opinions alone and do not represent in any way the opinions of my fraternity. I also have absolutely nothing against the members of the IFC as individuals. I truly appreciate the job they do and hold them in high regard (even though I have not met most of them). However, the fact remains: the system must change.