University of Virginia Library

Closed Door Policy

The closed party rule being tried this weekend on an
experimental basis is in direct conflict with the tradition
of fraternity hospitality that has developed at the University
over the past fifty years. This hospitality has
given the Virginia weekend a unique character that is
known all over the Eastern Seaboard, and anyone desiring
to see this sort of sociability preserved must agree that the
new rule is a mistake.

There is no doubt that under the old system of completely
open parties unpleasant incidents were common.
The most notorious of these in recent years, you might
remember, was a fracas in which a student was shot.
Under the first version of the closed party rule-a rule
which allowed any University student to attend a fraternity
party-there was a marked decrease in such
activity. There continued to be some rowdiness and a few
thefts, we must admit, but the former will appear whenever
people have an abundance of alcohol, and the latter
is chiefly the work of the members of the combos,
who will be inside the houses regardless of any rule.

There were members of the administration and of the
Inter-Fraternity Governing Board, however, who felt that
the closed party rule as it operated until this weekend was
insufficient. The result was the new rule, which requires
that the doorman at each fraternity have a list of guests.
No one other than a member of that fraternity or someone
whose name appears on the list can be allowed inside
the house. The problems of enforcement of this rule alone
should have discouraged its adoption. Supposedly an
independent whose fraternity friends have forgotten to add
his name to their list can call his friends to the door to
identify him, for example. The chances of this happening
in a crowded and dimly lit fraternity house should be
obvious.

As we said above, though, the main reason we oppose
the new rule is not so much a matter of procedures,
unwieldy as they might be, as it is a matter of policy.

The University has been negligent in providing social
facilities for its students-a look at the Alderman Road
dorms should demonstrate this-and one reason doubtless
is that the fraternities have gone a long way in filling the
social void in Charlottesville, both for their own members
and for the independents who attend the house parties
on big weekends.

The secret of an effective closed party rule is having
a good doorman. Provided that each house has such
a doorman, we see no reason why the previous closed
party rule should not be reinstated.