Quote:
Originally Posted by skylark
I'm fine for having exceptions (so long as someone gets pre-approval rather than just "doing it"), but why should those exceptions only be available to alums (or even more limited, the super alums)? Doesn't that send a message of selective enforcement to the rest of alums and actives?
|
Well, the purpose of the rule is to keep college kids from drinking too much, right? So if an alum -- a super alum drinks and is punished, why are we even worrying about enforcing the rule?
The world is full of double standards.
Personally, if I were said alum, I'd realize my mistake and allow the house corp, etc. to make a show about how deadly serious they were about the policy's enforcement. It'd be an agreed thing and one with no serious consequences.
I think in that regard, the group has missed out on a great opportunity to make a statement to the undergrads.
That said, it is stupid to alienate one of your group's biggest supporters for breaking a rule where by doing so, no possible harm could have occurred. In every enforcement of any rule, a group needs to weigh the costs vs. the benefits of doing so. Alienating an influential and giving alumna is simply not worth 'making a point' in my book.
-- Far be it for me to tell another organization what they ought to be doing though.