We, the undersigned members of the Cornell community, urge President Kotlikoff and University leadership to reverse the blanket suspension of IFC social events for the remainder of the 2026–2027 academic year. Student safety matters, and serious misconduct should absolutely be investigated and punished. But accountability is not the same as collective punishment. Many current juniors were freshmen when the incidents underlying this decision occurred before they had even rushed or joined the organizations they now belong to. Punishing thousands of students for actions they did not commit and could not have prevented is neither fair nor proportional.

More importantly, this policy risks being performative rather than protective. Banning fraternity events will not stop students from socializing; it will simply push social life into apartments, bars, and unregistered house parties that are far less regulated. Many fraternity events now hire professional security at the door and inside the event, use sober monitors, maintain guest procedures, and have identifiable student leaders who can be held accountable. Private house parties often have none of those safeguards. If alcohol or drugs are present, moving students into smaller, closed-door spaces can make risky behavior harder to notice, prevent, or respond to, not easier.  In addition, now many victims of SA will have fears to come forward as Cornell's solution is to banish the social scene and punish all members including women.

The ban will also make Cornell’s social environment more fragmented and exclusionary. Instead of larger events where students can meet people outside their immediate circles, social life will increasingly depend on private invitations, apartments, and existing friend groups; encouraging cliques, interpersonal drama, and isolation. In Ithaca, this displacement is especially concerning: students will be pushed toward overcrowded bars and farther-away gatherings, often walking late at night in freezing temperatures, snow, and ice. Removing structured social spaces does not remove socializing; it removes many of the structures that make it safer.

Cornell should pursue targeted, evidence-based accountability instead: investigate individual organizations, sanction those responsible, strengthen security and sober-monitor requirements, improve transportation and event oversight, and allow organizations in good standing to continue operating responsibly. Real safety policy asks what students will do after a ban; performative policy simply imposes the ban and declares the problem solved. If the likely result is more unregulated parties, less security, greater social fragmentation, and substance use pushed further outside Cornell’s oversight, then this policy may not solve the safety problem—it may make it worse.