i find it hard to believe that alums who were smart enough to get into duke, would take (what i consider a temper tantrum) "their balls home" bc the university is enforcing the laws. i think the thing that scares me the most is that people were injured (the hospitalized pledge and the member who fell) and all of the chapter decided to leave rather than face the consequences. i wonder what kind of group of people cares more about the inability to "get wasted" rather than the fact that their "brothers" were inconvienced by that silly trip to the hospital to get his stomach pumped or who got hurt bc he had fallen out the window!

when i was a sophomore in college, there was a big crackdown on campus parties. everyone was all upset bc the college started busting fraternity parties (which was the main way those of us who were under 21 got our alcohol all weekend). so a group of people (a large group) decided to stage a protest in our main plaza to protect our "freedom" to drink underage. i couldn't stop laughing that people really thought the school was going to ignore the fact that we were drinking alcohol and were not 21.

sadly, you can't look the other way bc someone will get hurt and you will get sued. end of story. anybody remember how much they drank before they were 21? and then a few months after you were 21? 18 might be a better age for the legal drinking age, but as ivy pointed out, a university can not change the law....only the nc govt can!

If you'll allow me to suspend the rules here for a moment, and take this out of the context of a situation in which a chapter clearly violated the rules and therefore must face the consequences . . .

1. Will you allow that, on some campuses, the basis of social life centers on parties?

2. Will you also allow that, on some campuses, fraternities are an active (if not integral) portion of this campus social life?

3. Does it seem logical that, if campus social life centers around fraternities, a fraternity without ability to participate in regular social activities has no chance of success on that particular campus? (here "regular" = "normal for its environment")

4. Using the above, would it be a difficult connection to draw if we said that a fraternity with no ability to throw parties, including alcohol, on this campus would be removing itself from a huge part of campus social life, thus effectively rendering itself most likely unsuccessful on this campus?

Now . . . there are certain flaws in this argument, but perhaps this makes it easier for us to see how these men could draw the conclusion that they must remove themselves from campus. Perhaps they're not "packing up and going home", but rather attempting to preserve what they feel to be the only way they can survive.

Whether they're right or wrong, I haven't a clue - it's a ridiculous situation to my mind, one I'd be loathe to participate in. But the rationale isn't as moronic as it is being portrayed, to my mind - perhaps just misguided.

Re: Going Independent
 

That is really interesting.. I never knew the Brothers of the Delta Lodge once belonged to a national organization.

Well, if you want to challenge the drinking age of 21, you might have to take it to Congress rather than the NC legislature. The reason that all states went to a drinking age of 21 was that Congress said that no state with a drinking age under 21 could receive federal highway funds.

>Congress said that no state with a drinking age under 21 could receive federal highway funds.

Yes, but the states are still making a choice. Not every state immediately changed after the Congressional policy was passed; Louisiana maintained its lower drinking age for quite a while before buckling. It was making more from the sales tax on legal alcohol sales to under-21s than it was getting in highway funds. Altering the tax structure could make that choice fiscally feasible. (I don't think it's going to happen, but it could.)

Also, the wording of the state law makes a huge difference. NC will lose funds if it makes it legal to sell alcohol to under-21's, but it could freely decide to reform its tort structure to relieve private entities of responsibility for the foolish acts of guests. That would make a gigantic difference in the liability -- and thus the alcohol-friendliness -- of universities and fraternities.

This is a little more likely, especially given the general movement toward tort reform at the national level.

Ivy

So in English (har) if you get drunk at a bar and crash your car you can't sue the bar?

Could a law, or tort or something, get around the federal highway funding act by making underage drinking less of an offense, comparable to say, a parking ticket?

True as to the potential of states making a choice, but reality in most states, I think, is that its really a Hobson's choice. I agree that it's not going to happen.

A little more likely perhaps, but only a very, very, very little more likely. Ah well.

So in English (har) if you get drunk at a bar and crash your car you can't sue the bar?

Right.

Could a law, or tort or something, get around the federal highway funding act by making underage drinking less of an offense, comparable to say, a parking ticket?

That's pretty much where it is in a lot of states -- remember when Jenna Bush got the citation for drinking in a bar in Austin? That was basically like a speeding ticket. She had to show up for a hearing, and I think there were some slap-on-the-wrist type punishments like alcohol education class or community service.

I don't know the wording of the federal appropriation, but it's entirely possible that the states could be very lenient and still stay within the letter of the federal grant. For example, when Congress wanted all states to lower the speed limit to 55, they did the same thing and conditioned highway funds on the change. Montana, where you can pretty safely curl up in the backseat of your car and take a nap if you have cruise control, didn't like this rule at all, but it wanted the highway money. So it set its statewide speed limit at 55, along with a law that the maximum fine for speeding between 55 and 75 was $5 per offense. It ain't the Autobahn, but people pretty much drive how they want to in Montana.

Ivy

I'm liking the $5 per offense thing. I keep forgetting how restrictive PA is compared to the rest of the country. :rolleyes:

I think it is pretty crazy to think that a national chapter who was well aware of their own regualtions(as in it is printed in B&W) would have to be forced to do this. If they broke the rule they should be strong enough to deal with the punishment and rebuild.

Is it me or maybe someone else sees this: If we do not like the regualtion, we wait until it is inforced to rage against it and say how it should change for our situation? As in the NPC resolution...

At my school we cannot have open parties at houses, apts and so on. Not b/c the school says so b/c our national regualtion says so. And when we are there(3rd party vendor), we check IDs and have a birthday list at the door for members and guests. I know some schools do not have 3rd party vendors....that situation I am not sure about.

When I was in school this whole thing started and was difficult to start relearning how to throw a party, but I think if we joined a group and signed risk management papers/membership responsibilities you are expected to follow through on your pledge of membership. Why are we OK with collecting benifits from a group if we are not being a productive member?

The idea is to have a SAFE, GOOD TIME!

The only reason the Jenna Bush thing ever occured was because some Liberal saw her try to order a beverage at a restaurant and called 911 THREE times. The intent to "protect the law" was attitudinal and masked through legal terms. Jenna Bush wasn't doing anything different than other people her age but because she was the president's daughter she was marginalized and scrutinized through partisan. One of my friends actually used to hang out with her in Austin and she's a really cool person.

wow Lexi, we agree!
 

I agree, although maybe on the other side of the coin...if you don't like a regulation, you should speak up about it even if it doesn't apply to you. For example, if you are a fraternity without a house, if your group passes a dry housing policy and you disagree, you should speak up even if it doesn't affect you. Because eventually someday it might.

I know that's easier said than done though, because sometimes if you speak out on behalf of something, people think you are planning on doing it even if you are not. (Example: Donna lobbying for sex ed on 90210. :D)

That is pretty amazing 33~ I knew it was just a matter of time!

And you don't think that has anything to do with who her father is? I have friends who've received the same citation in Texas and had a pretty hefty fine and would have lost their liscence had they been in-state. But we can't all be the president/former governor's daughter.