Quote:
Originally posted by DeltAlum
So, until someone, or some organization, or some legislature or whatever changes it, we live with it. And we abide by it.
Or we lose our charters.
Which part of that is so hard to understand?
|
I think it's less misunderstanding, and more distrust of the liberal application of hazing laws. Few will stand up, even in a fairly anonymous forum, and actively promote hazing, whether as a development tool or as anything else other than a quick way to lose a charter. However, as seen here, more than a couple actively worry that things that aren't hazing, but can be misconstrued or stretched to possibly fall under one unclear sentence of hazing law, can lead to unwanted and unneeded trouble for a chapter. I think everyone can name at least one sob story of a chapter that mishandled affairs, and was rung up for a relatively minor offense that had no negative effects on the actual pledges in question.
We all (should) try to walk the straight and narrow path - it's lunacy to do otherwise. However, there is a point of diminishing returns, even for legislative and other such policy - and I think that's the real deal as far as greek concern, that we've reached a point where we worry more about avoiding any sort of trouble than in what the actual right and wrong of the situation is.