They did it to Anthony, Jr. in the last season of the Sopranos.. shaved his eyebrows and wrote on him while he was passed out. I doubt that the writers came up with that on their own, so they must've been clued in that it was something that young drunk adults do sometimes.

That doesn't mean it's smart or right, but we do have to keep in mind that the men doing this are very likely pretty drunk themselves and you simply don't make smart decisions when you're drunk.

I'm not condoing or excusing, just explaining. I have yet to see people who are drunk act in a mature, thoughtful manner.

Dee

Well, I guess the question is it Right, Wrong, or Stupidity!

He Died, He is Dead, His Family Grieves, His Brothers Grieve.

Right or Wrong, He is Gone.

Take care of Your own should be the Key Here.

Greeks Feel Good Enough about recruiting a "Pledge or New Associate" so why not take care of Him?:confused:

Well said Tom ... that's what we are about!

I hate to say it, but I can see a group of drunk guys, who don't realize how sick someone is, doing stupid stuff like writing on people or other juvenille behavior. The stories I heard the year I was on a fraternity meal plan shocked me. People who were usually the sweetest people, did the sickest stuff to others occasionally. No it is probably not hazing to write on someone, but guys in college (no offense guys I'm not pointing fingers at anyone) can be the dummest creatures. The world around seems to disappear and all sensibilities are gone. This death is tragic and the ones this fall, it is time for people to wake up and realize.

Little E, interestingly enough the national executive director of Chi Psi is quoted in an article in the October 10 Denver Post as saying, "It seems to me this was a hazing incident."

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...458090,00.html

It's not totally clear whether the executive director meant the writing as well as the drinking . . . perhaps the whole set of activities. Other news stories have reported that another pledge tried to get people to stop writing on Bailey, but it took the intervention of one of the members to eventually get it stopped.

In a different story -- October 11 -- a Denver Post columnist makes several lacerating comments about some of the reactions to Gordie Bailey's death:

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,...459714,00.html

ok, so then they say its hazing, it still doesn't change the fact that even nice guys to stupid shit like this on a regular basis.

Wow ... that editorial is certainly "lacerating" and hard to dispute. I get sick of people being apologists for our organizations by simply saying that such stupid behavior isn't "unique" to the fraternity experience. What should be unique is that these things DON'T happen in our organizations because we actually believe in the values that are a part of our symbols and rituals. Unfortunately, it all gets mixed up in the risk management concerns that we all must also contend with. Therefore, you get national people being quoted in papers because they are making comments that speak to our need to manage risk. As a Greek, I understood what the Chi Psi rep was trying to say. But the writer makes a good point that to most people, some of the "distinctions" are really a bunch of crap. Thanks for posting this editorial.

For the record, writing demeaning remarks on someone's body (sober or drunk) is hazing ... period. I think its sad that this isn't grossly apparent to anyone that calls themself Greek.

Come on ... let's stand for something!!!

Would you act the same way if it was a 25 year old fraternity member that drank himself to death?

I understand the useless emotional outcry that accompanies a highly publisized death.

I understand that emotion clouds logic.

I don't understand your argument. ITs against our values to drink alcohol? OR is it against our values to drink ourselves into an early grave?

I can almost assure you he didn't intend to die.

As far as letting this happen . . . what are you talkking about? We have already establishedthat you have a much better chance of getting hit by lightning as dying of alcohol poisoing. Its a freak event.

But wait wait wait . . . . lets reverse it. Maybe Greeks are doing an awesome job at keeping our brothers and sisters alive.

After all, if drinking is such a clear and present danger that you take your life in your hands every time you drink, then maybe we should laud the fraternities and sororities for prevening literally millions of deaths a year.

WE take such good care of our sisters and brothers and friends that only a couple people slip through the cracks every year to die.

Thats pretty good care.

If they're doing "stupid shit like this on a regular basis," I would question whether they're in fact "nice guys."
But that's just me.

The problem really stems from the fact that when it happens to a member of a Greek Organization, it is then blown up to such a large proportion that the total Greek System looks exceedingly bad.:(

If one considers the Greek Population membership, then the % who die is very small compared to actual alcohol deaths.

But as the supposedly cream of the crop and future possible leaders We are the ones to take the Heat because of other stupid things that are done in conjunction.

I would be equally mortified if the member was 52, James. You miss the point entirely because you are too busy trying to defend the moronic behavior going on out there. Besides ... we know that the vast majority of our collegiate membership aren't even of legal drinking age.

It certainly isn't in our values to ENCOURAGE the consumption of alcohol. And, it is most certainly not a part of our values to consume so much alcohol that you become incoherent. And, it is very much a part of our values to obey the laws associated with alcohol.

I don't really care how many people die from being hit by lightening as it is not relevant in the least bit. You must have flunked out of high-school debate or something. You need to come up with something better than that. You miss the entire point James. In fact you miss the point so much that I can't figure out how you became the moderator for this forum. The overconsumption of alcohol is not a deisred activity. Creating situations where members are encouraged to overconsume alcohol is not a desired activity. Writing on members is not a desired activity. Those are not "freak events".

Let me get this right ... you said "After all, if drinking is such a clear and present danger that you take your life in your hands every time you drink, then maybe we should laud the fraternities and sororities for prevening literally millions of deaths a year." Either you really believe this BS you're dishing out or you're just trying to be contrary. We all know that the overconsumption of alcohol leads to many risks (including possible death). There is NOTHING redeeming in the situation that went down here. NOTHING. I would like to hear you defend the practice of having a chapter tradition to take new members into the mountains and drink massive amounts of alcohol before they can come back and then tap a keg when they are back at the house. And then I would like to hear you defend having a chapter custom of writing on anyone who passes out with their shoes on. There is no defense for it, James. So what if lots of other kids unaffiliated with a Greek group get caught up in drinking too much? We're talking about OUR members who we are supposed to actually care about.

A Greek Organization should be a place that encourages more responsible behavior instead of coming up with more clever ideas of how to do it. I will never throw my hands up in the air and say ... "Oh well, kids will be kids ... at leat not very many of them are dying out there."

Get a clue, James. I only hope that you aren't out there advising a collegiate chapter.

Post of the year. I agree completely.

What if this had happened in Canada, where drinking age is 19, or on spring break in Mexico, where I'm guessing there is no such thing as a drinking age?

I think the laws against alcohol consmption before 21 are discriminatory, dangerous, misguided and wrong. I don't think it is in our values to obey laws that can be classified in that manner...any more than I think it was in our values in 1951 for sororities and fraternities to obey Jim Crow laws in the south.

Just pointing out that our values and the law of the land are not necessarily synonymous...it would be quite upsetting in some situations if they were. To intimate that if you break the laws you aren't upholding your GLO's values is ludicrous and asinine.

We'll never know if he was "pressured" to drink, as we were not there. The guys at Chi Psi might be total assholes, but that doesn't mean that they forced him to drink.

I dunno ... most groups have a core value based around the idea of citizenship which includes abiding by the laws of the land. If nothing else, there are pretty universal rules of each organization at the national level about obeying drinking laws. Dropping someone off in the mountains with a bunch of booze and telling them to drink it before they can come back sounds pretty much like pressure to me. Perhaps you can enlighten us on how this incident supports our values. I must be missing it somewhere.

I think that the drinking age should be lowered to 18. I agree with 33girl about the discriminatory nature of a drinking age of 21.

Alcohol education should realistically address the situations that students will face. They should learn the signs of alcohol poisoning. Students should be encouraged to call for medical assistance without the fear of punishment if a friend gets extremely drunk or overdoses. I really think that ignorance about the symptoms of alcohol poisoning and fear of punishment were contributing factors in the deaths of these students and could contribute to even more deaths.

Almost every day www.collegehumor.com has a campus picture of some passed out guy who's gotten the sharpy treatment. These recent ones are safe for family viewing:

http://www.collegehumor.com/?image_id=72620

http://www.collegehumor.com/?image_id=72547

http://www.collegehumor.com/?image_id=72270

http://www.collegehumor.com/?image_id=71888

Perhaps you can enlighten me on how supporting Jim Crow laws supports our values.

And I hope to heaven that we didn't have any suffragettes in our pre-1920 ranks, because they were most definitely breaking the law. I think we should find out who they were and pull their pins posthumously.

Blind suppport of stupid laws is not good citizenship nor is it a desirable attribute in a fraternity or sorority member.

And I don't see anything in this story where it says they were "dropped off" and left there without the brothers or without a way to leave...if this is in a story further down, please point it out.

I think the fact that these show up as "collegehumor" tells a lot about how the current college student generation views getting so drunk that you pass out. It's viewed as funny, not as a serious medical issue.

While I am not opposed to the lowering of the drinking age to 19 (18 year olds are still in highschool much of the time and we don't really need them buying beer/alcohol for their younger buddies there), I don't think that you can equate it to the Suffrage movement. The Suffragettes formed political organizations and lobbied for change. They didn't simply show up at polls, grab ballots and vote. If these young people want to lobby to get the drinking age lowered, then they need to show that they can drink responsibly. High numbers of college drinking deaths isn't going to be seen as a strong argument for lowering the drinking age to most politicans or most people in the community.

The drinking age was 21 while I was in school, and hadn't been that way for very long, but we didn't think it was funny when someone drank until they got drunk or passed out. There was a level of drunkenness that was fun, but we weren't doing 21 shots on our 21st birthday, this century club thing or the power hour thing.

There is something about our culture now that says "It's hilarious and fun to drink until you black out". Back in the day, it was hilarious and fun to drink until you wore a lampshade for a hat, not til you passed out. It seems like the message for so long was "Don't drink and drive" that people think it doesn't matter how drunk they get, as long as there is a designated driver or they don't have to drive anywhere.

Why the change? I don't know. Hopefully more studies will be done. I have no idea what the solution to the problem is. And, my concern about lowering the drinking age is that we will just see the same problems occurring in younger drinkers.

Dee

Wow, that certainly is a scathing editorial. I think he maybe took on too much of a snotty (not the word I want to use, but I can't think of anything better) tone, but he is right that we have to be responsible for each other. At the very least, we're supposed to be like family to each other (hence the term "brother" or "sister"), even if we're not friends.

I do agree with those of you who said that we should stand for something higher than the average college student. I thought we were supposed to be the example of the educated gentleman or lady.

I'll agree that college students drink too much. I'll agree that people in fraternities and sororities can't be expected to be perfect and that they're going to make mistakes. But there's a line to draw between making a mistake and stupidity. We all know deep down what's right and what's wrong, whether we're in an organization or not.

I don't know how 18/19/20 year olds can show that they will be responsible drinkers when they're not allowed to drink or (in PA) even be around alcohol. It's a catch-22.

You're right on with the "don't drink and drive" correlation - I mean I've seen people younger than me freak out if the DD has even a sip of beer, but if someone not the DD is so drunk we have to carry them to the car, that's OK.

Over the past 10-12 years things have definitely changed...I mean I remember as a high schooler going to an anniversary party w/ my parents and getting very poopy-faced. Nowadays some "well-meaning" person would probably call the cops and have my parents and the servers all thrown in jail. As people have taken it on themselves to judge others and make their decisions for them, the idea of personal responsibility has gone out the window.

I strongly disagree with the U.S. drinking age, but I just don't accept comparisons between this type of law-breaking and the actions of suffragettes or civil rights protestors. What an insult to heroes who risked their lives to make this country better.

Just because someone's breaking a silly law doesn't mean they're protesting it. The drinking behavior we're talking about is breathtakingly selfish. The people involved have no political aims, and the law-breaking they're doing is a lot more comparable to taking illegal drugs than it is to sitting in at a lunch counter. Heroin addicts who die of overdoses are not martyrs to any political movement, and neither is this Chi Psi pledge.

Just a few weeks ago, I would have agreed.

I think that present alcohol education is good and should continue. It should also start earlier. Maybe middle school.

However it occurred to me that it's kind of like Driver Ed. A lot of kids take it -- and ignore it's lessons, break the law, and die in traffic accidents.

I really think this needs to be a peer pressure thing.

You've missed my point.

I said that obeying the law does not equal following your values, because the law is often wrong.

I definitely don't think that 18 year olds drinking beer = civil rights protestors.

I agree completely.

In a lot of schools, the health education does do a great job of informing students of the dangers of alcohol. The students know this stuff, back and forth--they can tell you how long it will take your body to metabolize a LI Iced Tea, and they know what to do when a friend is throwing up sick. They all got "responsible drinking" lectures from their parents.

What it comes down to is that "all bets are off" when some of these kids get to college. They know what to do, but many think it will never happen to them. The kids who go to schools that don't punish for severe intoxication might be in a better position to protect themselves, but they're really not much better.

You've said this a few times, but I still don't really understand it. Why would anybody expect someone's peers to teach him right from wrong, which it sounds like you're implying -- peers should be telling college students not to drink too much. Am I understanding correctly?

Don't most parents spend a lot of time teaching their kids to think independently and NOT give in to peer pressure? If a kid isn't developed enough to think independently, how could he be developed enough to tell good (don't drink too much) from bad (here, try this heroin it's fun) peer pressure?

I think that expecting other kids to teach your kids right from wrong is a cop out -- if your kid needs peer pressure to make a good decision, whose kids are supposed to take responsibility? I stand by my earlier statement that if people have kids who can't function on their own, they shouldn't let them move out of the house until they can.

I agree 100% that it is a parent's job to educate his/her child about the dangers that await outside the family home: alcohol/drug abuse, unwanted pregnancy, STI's, self-defense, cooking and doing your own laundry, cleaning house, peer pressure, self respect and self discipline.

College is a place to fail. It is a place to make lots of mistakes: to try on new hats, take classes you know you'll be terrible at, to assume positions of leadership or thought that might intrigue you. It's the beginning of your adult like, and the more mistakes you make in college, the wiser and more well-equpped you will be when you leave those ivy-covered buildings with your degree. But it IS a parent's responsibility to provide his/her child with the general framework of common sense and self-respect to keep that child from engaging in self-destructive behaviors like binge drinking when the parent at lasts hands his/her precious child over to that university and it's sacred halls of learning.

I don't think anyone willfully drinks himself to death, nor is it the intention of his peers to kill him. Parents, educate your kids about the dangers of self-destructive behaviors. Lobby your child's school, your church, etc. to provide mandatory classes on self-respect and consequences that include attending AA meetings or shocking photos that will snap that child into reality.

Binge drinking won't go away. But with preventative maintenance beginning in the home, and continued awareness through schools and campus organization presentations (including SADD, Greek Councils, Student Council, etc.), more students will be prepared.

Yes, you are understanding me correctly.

Also, please understand that I'm not trying to absolve parents from their (our) duty.

But, how well did you listen to your parents at that age? Who had the biggest influence on you -- your friends or your parents?

I grew up in a fundamentalist protestant family where drinking was absolutely forbidden. It didn't work.

How many parents try to educate their kids about pre-marital sex -- either to abstain or be safe? What's the teen pregnancy rate?

Going back to driver's ed -- I don't think many parents are teaching their kids to drag race or drive recklessly, but teen driving statistics are awful. (buy insurance for a boy under 25)

We are a drug free household, but still one of our three ended up in rehab. Hey, all the other jocks did it. The other two are drug free.

Just one more time for the record. I am not saying that people shouldn't drink. One more time, I believe the drinking age for beer should be lowered to 18. One more time, I understand the rights of passage for college aged students.

(But again, one more time, it is against the law as it now stands and is a serious Risk Management issue for our chapters.)

So, what I believe is that if given that college students will drink, no matter what their parents say, it is important that they somehow find some path to moderation. My experience (as a former person that age -- believe it or not we do remember -- and as the father of three) is that most students are more likely to listen to a voice of moderation that is their own age and from their peer group than from their parents.

In other words make getting too overly drunk the equivalent of wearing stonewashed jeans and having a Donny & Marie poster hanging in your dorm room.

But like valkyrie said, you can't expect this to only work for good and not for evil. Maybe the same "peers" who convince your daughter that it's bad to get too drunk will also convince her that it's cool to throw up after every meal or shun those who are a different religion.

over the past 25 years
 

One great change has occured in the US over the past 25 years - due to education - and that is smoking.

We used to look on smokers as "cool", and now we look on them as stupid.

The poor and the stupid are now smoking (not to offend Tom Earp) cigarettes.

Hopefully an educational campaign about campus alcohol abuse could have similar success.

I don't know -- I agree that smoking is stupid, but there are plenty of otherwise intelligent people who smoke. I don't get it, but it's not uncommon.

I would say that if you are a reponsible parent you would have gotten your child drunk numerous times in different types of alcohol in a controlled setting in order to show the effects of varying amounts of alcohol on them

To take it a step futher you might even want to get the child drunk every night for a couple weeks during vacation and wake them up at 7am every morning to show how hard it can be to function after excessive drinking and no sleep.

That way they know that they will be unlikely to do that and keep grades really high or maintain a high quality of feeling good.

If you don't do stuff like that how are you preparing your child for whats out there?

The first sentence is pretty funny. Thankfully, that was a generation between me and my kids, I think.

Peer can be one person or a group. I think that overall a group will probably gravitate somewhat toward moderation. Not always, but generally. I wouldn't worry too much that everyone in a chapter (or any other group) would be in the "throw up after every meal" mode.

James -- my friend, my buddy -- forget it. You can't prepare your kids for everything. When you start a new job, you learn from your boss or other employees -- your peers. Your education gives you the basics, then you learn specifics by watching and emulating.

Somewhat like the smoking argument, when it became "less cool" to smoke, the use of tobacco dropped off in the younger agegroups. If moderate members of chapters bring pressure to not drink heavily, maybe binge drinking will drop off as well.

I think this peer pressure concept would work well in most sororities in which they have "standards" boards or something similar. It would have to be a combination of things - sisters being on the lookout for others who are on the verge of drinking too much and cutting her off or removing her from the situation, or if it happens when no one else is around, calling the member up before the standards board and reprimanding her for her behavior. (See the "drinking in letters" thread for the attitudes on this - it doesn't matter if you're wearing your letters or not, on many campuses you'll be identified as the sloppy drunk XYZ.) The member would be aware before she goes out drinking that she is at risk of a reprimand if she drinks too much - and if the behavior continues, getting kicked out of her org. This helps punish the individual for her behavior rather than the organization, and helps protect the organization. It would also apply regardless of whether the member is of legal drinking age or not. Not sure how it would work in fraternities, though ...

Great idea in theory, but to wilfully poison a minor in your custody-- that's child abuse and social services will come and take your child away, throw you in jail and strip you of your parental rights faster than you can say, "Captain Morgan."

If my parents did that to me, I'd report them to the cops for providing alcohol to a minor.

ACLU has done a terrific job for Protecting Kids. Oh Yes, you as a parent cannot come down on a kid for screwing up. NOt beat them, but punish them. You as a parent do, they can call the local Law Enforcement and have you arrested and there is no questions asked. Did any of you know that? No brutality envolved, they just call the COPS!

All parents can do is hollor and yell NO NO or you will go to jail as will School Teachers who try to correct and discipline kids.

So, when a Kid goes to college, there is nothing there but PEER preasure for them, so, it is katy bar the door. Lets party, lets do drugs, Lets do anything we damn well please to do, We Are Free!

Well, so a person does not join a Greek Organization and does the same thing. There is not much notority if they die from Alcohol as opposed to being a member of a Greek Organizatin. # 1, We are being held at a higher Standard than Just GDIs. We are supposed to know better because, We are supposed to be the Cream of the Crop.

We are supposed to teach our Members of the wily way of demon Rum and Tobacco.

Hm., no problem with the Federal Govt. trying to put me out of business. Not trying to put a shit load of people out of work and lose tons of taxes.

What is funny, is that Lab Rats get screwed more than any Hooker I ever knew!

Hell give a Lab Rat enought H2O, guess what, they will drown. DA!:rolleyes: