Freshmen beware: Cornell fraternities may soon be going the way of temperance.

Recent talks within the Interfraternity Council have focused on the role of drinking in fraternity recruitment. Some have argued that alcohol factors importantly in the recruitment process. Others have pointed out that high-volume drinking, and in this case, underage drinking, is both dangerous and against the law.

The best argument in favor of a “wet rush” is much akin to the argument for legalized prostitution: People are going to do it anyway, so in the interests of safety, we may as well keep it regulated.

The problem with this argument is that young would-be fraternity boys are not prostitutes. Their families are not starving and they don’t need to drink to put food on the table.

In fact, the real reason why fraternity rush involves alcohol is simple: tradition. Freshmen boys expect to get liquored up in the spring, and fraternity brothers are happy to oblige.

Is this the way things have to be?

The simple answer is no. Things would actually be quite different if fraternity presidents and national chapters committed themselves to making a change. In the absence of alcohol, it is unlikely that freshmen rushes would riot in the streets and threaten bodily harm to fraternity brothers. More likely, those freshmen would accept the situation and participate in some alternative activity.

A case in point is sorority rush. Sororities do not serve alcohol during rush week yet still manage to attract a slew of scantily clad candidates. Is there something wrong with these women? Do they hate alcohol?

Barring any revelations to the contrary, it seems as if Cornell women simply take what sororities give them. Houses explain the way things are, and rush continues as planned.

Given the success of sorority rush, it makes little sense to argue that Greek life is only initially attractive under the influence of alcohol. Fraternity brothers could make rush dry if they were so inclined. It’s simply a matter of individual initiative and personal responsibility, character traits ostensibly encouraged by the Greek community anyway.

The question then becomes whether fraternity brothers should be inclined toward a dry rush. The answer to this question is more complex, as it depends on what role fraternities wish to play in the Cornell community.

On the one hand, the primary function of fraternities can be to facilitate partying, recreation and entertainment. If this is what fraternities want, a dry rush would be counterproductive: Fraternities should try to recruit pledges who like to party, or more accurately, who like to drink, and rush should be predicated on party- (read: alcohol) related activities.

On the other hand, the primary function of fraternities can be to promote friendship, leadership and community service. If this is the case, a wet rush would attract the wrong kind of recruit, rushes who show up for the free alcohol instead of out of some shared sense of community responsibility.

At least today, fraternities don’t seem to know which social space they want to inhabit. Many chapters say things that imply a commitment to leadership and service while concurrently claiming that they need alcohol to attract enough desirable recruits. This reasoning makes no sense. It is up to the fraternities to be honest with themselves about who they really are and what kind of kids they want to initiate. There is no divine inevitability about drinking during rush. The only inevitability is that rushes will do whatever fraternity brothers tell them to do. It’s up to those brothers to lead their rushes in the right direction.