Joseph Koch A CPD supporter holds a placard and a copy of a sign found on the home of Irvin Landrum, Jr.’s uncle, Obee Landrum, in Long Beach. It reads: "Black ass nigger ‘Obie’[sic]. Irvin got what he deserved and so will you if you get your nigger ass caught in the good white people areas of our town after dark. Our CPD is doing the good job our citizens want and that is nigger abatement. White pride."

Claremont College Student Arrested at Protests in Seattle Trustees Asked to Divest From GCC CCLA Places Bid for Smashing Pumpkins Shared Media Department in the Works Boogie Wonderland: Rave Houses Smith O.E in the I.E. Student Government Fosters Aspirations Sagehens Dart Out to 2-1 Start Women Swimmers Sink Oxy in Season Opener The DL on the NCAA, the BCS, and Ricky W. Yuppie Trappings Swamp Unsuspecting Consumers We’ve Got One Word for You, Son: Plastics Error Mystifies Author of Article We’re Just Not Very Funny, Haha! This text should be hidden!

An open forum was held Friday, November 19 to hear arguments posed by fraternities on campus requesting access to the alcohol fund set up by the administration. Last spring, the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) of California began enforcing existing legislation restricting organizations from charging an entrance fee to events where alcohol is served, however, in previous years, some fraternities’ chief source of revenue was earned from door receipts obtained at parties where alcohol was served.

The ABC’s ruling initially affected organizations other than fraternities. The CCLA and ASPC, as well as academic departments, were no longer able to throw alcoholic parties that could generate revenue.

In order to rectify this problem, Dean of Students Ann Quinley’s office set up a fund of $3000 per semester that would go toward these parties. This fund did not come from mandatory fees; it was created from vending fees and Quinley’s discretionary money.

Yet, because the fraternities are self-selecting, closed-membership organizations (SSCMOs), they do not have access to this fund.

Fraternities claim that the new enforcement of the ABC legislation is threatening their survival, and that they provide a valuable service to the social life of Pomona College, and should therefore have access to the alcohol fund.

According to President Peter Stanley, the exclusion of fraternities from this fund is due to the nature of their organizations, not any distrust on the part of the administration or student body. "I don’t think that there is any animosity towards fraternities in the faculty or administration anymore; in fact, I know there is none within the administration." In spite of the decrease in tension between fraternities and students, Stanley recognizes that "A number of students on campus don’t like frats, and for a large number of students there is too much alcohol [on campus] and not too little."

The decision to prohibit fraternities’ access to this fund was made partly due to the reports of a 1991 Social Life Task Force which determined that the role of fraternities on campus was too large and that their dominance of the social scene was creating an atmosphere of fear for many women on campus. After this report, fraternities were denied access to all school funding, including the newly created alcohol fund. This reduced the presence of fraternities on campus, but they were able to survive because they could charge money for parties.

On November 9, the ASPC voted to ask the Student Affairs Committee to recommend that the faculty reconsider the 1991 ruling that SSCMOs not receive Pomona College funds from either student fees or general fees. The ASPC has asked the SAC to consider a specific exception for the alcohol fund. The InterFraternity Council (IFC) brought this proposal to the ASPC. The open forum held last Friday was the first of two scheduled forums to hear both sides of the debate.

The fraternities argued that since their parties were open to all students, they should have access to the fund.

According to Samantha Brenner ’02, the "main issue is the purpose of frats on campus. The task force said that frats should not get money because it is not good for campus life." Brenner and others who are against the proposal feel that other options for funding, such as philanthropy and fund-raising, have not been adequately explored by the fraternities. Members of Sigma Tau responded to this claim by insisting that they do not have the capital with which they can undertake these ventures.

Tamara Chellam ’00, campus events commissioner, said that, "CCLA did not ask for the fund. We were willing to throw non-alcoholic events and would rather see the fund cease to exist than SSCMO’s get funding.

" Another objection to the fraternities’ access to the fund is their lack of accountability. Fraternities are only accountable to one faculty member. Additionally, the planning of the parties would be completely closed to non-members.

Another objection was raised by Laura Ephraim ’00, who pointed out that "fraternities do much of their recruiting at these large parties, and access to the fund would essentially help the fraternities perpetuate themselves." She felt that a better solution to the declining quality of Pomona’s social life was to publicize the existence of the fund and encourage other non-closed organizations to throw parties. Ephraim also worried that the fraternities might deplete the fund, leaving little money left for other organizations.

The fraternities refute these arguments by claiming that they are providing a service for the entire campus and that the parties are not their chief method of recruitment. According to Tyler Dillavou ’01, President of the IFC, fraternity members want to "challenge the idea that only [they] and their friends go to these parties." He continued that, "frats have accountability to students just like the CCLA." The depletion concerns were answered by the assertion that the weekly socials would continue to be funded by the fraternities themselves, and the fund would only be accessed for large, five-college parties.

A member of Nu Alpha Phi seconded these arguments by pointing out that at a recent initiation party, over 200 people came–a much larger attendance than in previous years. She felt that this increase was due to the lack of other options on campus.

Jon Vanasco ’00 objected to the proposal on many of the grounds mentioned above, also arguing that, "access to the fund would allow fraternities to spend more of their own money on things like the cabin of Nu Alpha Phi, furniture for social rooms, and other private things." Since the fraternities are closed organizations, they are able to throw events to which access is closed. Objectors to the current proposal worry that, by giving fraternities school money to use for five-college parties, the SSCMO’s would then have more money with which to sponsor these exclusive events.

Carmel Carlton ’00 remarked that, "More money for the fraternities may mean a few more campus-wide parties, but it could also translate into a lot more closed events." Certain past traditions have included hiring exotic dancers to entertain the members and rushees of the fraternities.

According to Sigma Tau member Mike Salk ’00 "This is a tradition that has been discontinued because it’s not something that’s attractive to us. It used to be a way for the frat to attract potential members, but we’re not about that anymore–we don’t want to attract those kinds of people."

Kappa Delta member Graham Smith ’00 made the point that his fraternity had recently thrown a 70s party and a semiformal to which all students received an invitation. He claims that no recruitment efforts were made at these parties.

Nick Snow ’01 of Sigma Tau pointed out that "the purpose of the fund was to alleviate pressure from groups that had previously charged for parties."

Yet, some people, such as Brenner, feel that allowing fraternities access to the fund, "is not worth the risk of upsetting the balance," alluding to the task force report which said that, prior to 1991, fraternities had a larger presence on campus.

Many feel that the social life on Pomona’s campus has been negatively affected by the change in ABC administration. Prior to the change, fraternities threw events that drew attendants from all five colleges. The entrance fees to these parties usually ranged from three to five dollars; once students were inside, the alcohol was free. The revenue generally paid for the party, or at least substantially cut the cost to the fraternity.

Thought no consensus was reached at the forum, according to one member of the ASPC, both sides were adequately represented, but fraternity members and others arguing their side really carried the day."