A lawsuit alleging the drugging and gang rape of a student by seven members of Cornell University's Chi Phi fraternity in 2024 has led to calls for greater scrutiny of fraternities on campus, and even banning them.  

The case has drawn national attention in recent weeks after it was revealed that only two of the seven men alleged to have been involved were expelled. Both the university and local authorities have come under criticism for their handling of the case.

Cornell President Michael Kotlikoff said in a video message to the university community on Saturday that the school would take “a serious look at the role of fraternities and sororities in campus life” among other steps aimed at creating a safer campus environment. At a protest on the university campus on Monday, people chanted “Ban the frats!”

TIME spoke to Nick Syrett, author of The Company He Keeps: A History of White College Fraternities and chair and professor of gender and women’s studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, about the case, what makes fraternities different, and why they have proved so hard to rein in.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

TIME: You've written a book about white college fraternities. What about this case shocked or surprised you, if anything?

There's a long history of events like this happening in fraternities. Since at least the 1970s and 1980s, there have been incidents of gang rape of intoxicated, incapacitated women in fraternity houses. So it is not surprising that it has happened once again.

TIME: Is there something unique about fraternities that encourages this kind of behavior?

I do think there is something particular about fraternities. One of the things is the single-sex nature of the organization. Aside from sports teams on college campuses, these are the only single-sex organizations, and the men who join them have decided that they want to be in a single-sex organization that allows them to live out their masculinity in particular kinds of ways. They know that these organizations already have a reputation for partying, for drinking, for sometimes hazing, for being places where you can meet women, and so some men join them and other men don't. But when they get in the organizations, the pressure ratchets up because there is an emphasis upon sex and dating and hooking up. That is some fraternities' mandate that like people report who they've hooked up with, who they've had sex with, they talk about these things. It's a way to enhance masculinity. 

The other thing is fraternities just have lots of power on campus. Most of them own their own houses, which means they don't have lots of oversight from university officials. 

TIME: In the wake of the Cornell case, there have been calls for greater regulation and even bans on fraternities. What do you think those regulations would look like, or should look like?

It's hard to say. I think one of the things to know is that all fraternities and sororities are regulated at least to a certain degree. That is, they're recognized student organizations. They have to abide by certain rules that often have to do with things like rushing and pledging—that is how people become members of the organizations in the first place. Social events where fraternities and sororities mix with one another and with unaffiliated members are usually at least registered with university officials. 

The difficulty here is that when a university does the ultimate thing, which is to ban an organization from campus altogether, it loses any ability to regulate because now they're not an official organization. But by and large, the fraternities own their own houses, and so young men who are students at any university can still choose to become members of that fraternity and live in that house if they want to, if that chapter remains recognized by its national organization. So we see that happen with some regularity. There's a fraternity right here at my school, the University of Wisconsin, that two weeks ago the police busted for illegal hazing. That fraternity hasn't been recognized by the university for 10 years, but it's still admitting members, having them pledge, hazing them, and breaking the law.

TIME: How widespread are these issues that you’re talking about among fraternities? Is it limited to a few bad fraternities, or is this kind of just a part of the life?

It's a hard question to answer, in part because we don't always know how people are behaving behind closed doors. There are a few things we know. One, we know that men in fraternities are more likely to sexually assault and participate in hazing than men who choose not to join fraternities. Of course, not all men who are in fraternities do either of those things. It's just that they are more likely to do so than non-affiliated men. So, to my mind, those are the major problems: that is, sexual assault, hazing, and also binge drinking. And most evidence suggests that people in fraternities do drink more than those who are unaffiliated, but it also gets to this question, sort of a chicken and egg question: like, are people who are more interested in those activities more likely to join fraternities in the first place? I think the answer is probably yes, but then those behaviors are simply reinforced in fraternities by older members as well, who make environments that are conducive to those behaviors. 

There are, in fact, chapters that have gone to great lengths to limit binge drinking. Some have eliminated hazing altogether. Hazing is in fact illegal in most states, and all the national fraternities forbid it. But some people do it anyway.

TIME: Why do fraternity members so rarely report on each other when these things happen? Where does that loyalty come from?

Part of it is historical in that when fraternities were first founded, they were secret organizations and they were illegal on college campuses for about the first 25 years of their existence, from 1825 through the 1850s. So joining at all was breaking the rules and keeping a secret. And now there are secrets that are imparted during the rituals, like the secret of what the meaning of the motto is, and that sort of thing. They're not unique or interesting in any way, but definitely fraternity pledges learn loyalty during the period of pledging because they're often asked to do things that are demeaning. If it's hazing, it's illegal in most states, and they're bonded to one another through the process of pledging and having to be humiliated and sometimes physically harmed in some way. So that creates a bond between the members of that pledge class and then the fraternity to which they are demonstrating their loyalty by being hazed and pledged in the first place, so all of it is pretty classic anthropological ritual, and it does in the end create loyalty. 

TIME: If all fraternities went away tomorrow, these issues probably wouldn't disappear entirely, right? Is it the case that they exacerbate these issues rather than create them?

I think that's right. I don't think sexual assault would go away, but I think that fraternities are organizations that exacerbate and encourage both sexual assault and binge drinking and hazing. I also think, importantly, we would see less organized versions of sexual assault and binge drinking, especially, fewer occasions when a group of men together planned out a sexual assault, which in some sense is what happened at Cornell. I think we would see less of it because there would be less pressure placed upon the men in these organizations to carry out these sorts of things. And granted, it's pressure from within, but it's generally pressure from older brothers upon younger ones.

TIME: Fraternity membership has proved remarkably resilient despite decades of scandal. Why? 

When universities have attempted to regulate and/or ban fraternities, they get big pushback. There's evidence to show that alumni who were in fraternities are more active in their schools and give more, and so that is a base of alumni that universities don't want to upset because they're generous and they're powerful. 

There is a subset of incoming college first year students, men and women, who find these organizations really appealing, and some of it is entirely understandable. That is, at a big school, what fraternities and sororities promise you is an instant group of friends, which is very comforting on a college campus where you know no one. Especially if you're going to a school that's farther away from home, when others from your high school are not going there, so you don't know anyone at all. So fraternities promise that kind of friendship and loyalty, and also for young people, 18-year-olds, many of whom are unsure of themselves, fraternities and sororities say this is the way to be popular. This is the way to make friends, have a good time, and you'll get to go to the good parties and you'll be part of an in-group.