In my day, women living in the house who were 21 could drink in their rooms. No parties (other than rush) were held at the house. My D’s house prohibited any alcohol at all on the premises. My S’s fraternity house is owned by the u and located on campus and has the same rules as the dorms. No parties with alcohol are allowed
“I think they have just as many events. They are not supposed to have boys over, but when I was there one Sun morning to pick up D1, I saw few boys in the dining room.”
Not allowed to have boys over at all, or just not upstairs or after certain hours? I would have to imagine a guy could come and hang out with his girlfriend in common areas but maybe I’m wrong.
There are boys in the sorority houses all the time. They are Hashers (waiters), houseboys (maintenance), friends, dates, study partners, fathers, brothers, delivery men. At my house they weren’t allowed upstairs, which is where the bedrooms were, but were allowed in the living rooms, tv room, dining room all the time.
PG - those boys had their jammies on and looked like they just woke up. They were a bit embarrassed. 
D1 had a good guy friend stay over at the house, but he stayed in the basement. Their house parent(s) lived in a private quarter and I don’t think they made a habit of coming to the house to check up on them that often.
Agreed. Also, laws and local statutes need to be written in such a manner so responsible drinking under parental and close relative supervision is not effectively proscribed for under 21 year olds. Better they learn HOW to drink responsibility under parental/adult supervision than figuring it out on their own among other undergrads…an environment which can often be the blind leading the blind.
Actually, the organization in charge of covenant controlled neighborhoods DO need to justify their rules to authorities so they do not violate housing discrimination laws, especially those of the EEOC protected classes.
One covenant controlled neighborhood about a 30 minute walk from my area found that out in the mid-1970s when their covenants barring Jews, African-Americans, and anyone deemed “working class” from buying a place and living there had to be eliminated because they were in violation of such laws.
But having rules barring alcohol is not against any law like some of the covenants were (and those conditions were legal when enacted). HO’s have rules about not parking your monster truck in the driveway and not cutting the grass before 7 am. Not illegal to have those rules, and not illegal to request that members of an organization agree to abide by the rules. They do not justify their covenants, conditions and restrictions, they just draft them to comply with the laws.
The sororities agree to the rules, and generally think it is for the best to have rules that are more strict than the law requires, just as some parents think curfew should be at 9 and not 11 for a teen.
A good reason to keep Animal House out of beautiful sorority houses
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1733554-university-of-michigan-fraternities-vandalize-2-ski-resorts.html#latest
“Actually, the organization in charge of covenant controlled neighborhoods DO need to justify their rules to authorities so they do not violate housing discrimination laws, especially those of the EEOC protected classes.”
Completely irrelevant to a corporation that owns a house prohibiting alcohol. Especially a house with underage residents.
I’ve written many CC&Rs, and as long as I follow the laws, I don’t justify them to anyone, especially the potential buyers. Buy the house or don’t, but the restrictions are filed and you’ll have to live with them if you buy the house. Oh, and you’ll pay your dues so that they can be enforced even if you don’t like them!
Sometimes, unenforceable CC&Rs (e.g. the ones ruled illegal because they discriminate on the basis of race or religion) still exist because no one bothered to go through the hassle of removing them. For most practical purposes, ignoring such unenforceable CC&Rs works out, although there is an extremely remote risk of a future court decision rendering them valid once again.
Then again, some state constitutions still have provisions that have been ruled illegal or unenforceable in Supreme Court decisions. For example, http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeOfAlabama/Constitution/1901/CA-245806.htm and http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?waisdocid=90570825438+0+0+0&waisaction=retrieve (section 7.5). The latter is happily being ignored by the current state government officials; surprisingly, the former is the subject of recent failed attempts to repeal it.
Prohibiting alcohol on premise has nothing to do with discrimination.