[EE-BO]

This is a great discussion and I think gets to the core of the matter at hand. Good comments all around, but I would offer some counter-perspective on both points.

aeBOT and Oldest_Pledge, I think to a certain degree you put this as too much of a black and white issue. I do not think Coramoor is judging his experience in the house based on the flow of alcohol- he is merely pointing out that at a certain age all men deserve some trust and freedom of choice.

Coramoor- I side with you in theoretical terms 100%, but my counterargument to you based on my own experiences as a Housing Corp Director and my time as an active is that many people choose not to live in a house where they feel there is so much social activity that it distracts them from their studies. In fact, I think it is safe to say that back when I was an active and we had the largest chapter house on campus (sold a few years ago due to lack of residents even though the chapter was still large), our financial undoing was a lack of willing residents because of the partying. Even looking back at our Housing Board meeting minutes of 20-30 years ago I see this issue. There are many instances in our minutes where the report from chapter officers to the Board indicated that the house was not full in a given semester because so many members did not want to live in the middle of all the late night noise and partying of a very few members.

My problem with substance free is that it is too broad and constricting a solution. Oldest_Pledge, I did in fact have a wine cellar in my room when I lived in the house. I regularly served Lafite, DRC, a nice Montrachet or a fine Alsatian Riesling at formal chapter dinners or over a poker game.

I was 21 years old the year I had that cellar in the house, and I never made excess noise after hours or tore the place up. Same goes for most others who drank in the house on a regular basis.

Yet, under substance-free rules I would be eligible for removal from the house and early alumni status or worse- same as someone who was 19 and got drunk all the time and tore the place up. How does such an injust policy promote young men to be more responsible and learn to partake, or not partake, of alcohol in a social setting. A big part of college is growing up and becoming more socially adept. Substance free does not promote that in my mind. It merely takes alcohol underground and continues the excess sense of prohibition in this country.

The real trouble comes in two forms I think- both from a risk management and a financial perspective,

1. Letting a few people who do party too much do what they want without chapter action. If this small group gets too powerful then suddenly the majority of house residents are excess partyers and not only do fewer people live in the house- but the general character of the house residents (who are the guys who are always around) affect rush and over time more excess partyers are going to pledge and bring the chapter into a riskier state of existence.

2. Social functions in the house- even with security, closed guest lists and 3rd party servers- are what really creates the major noise issues and potential damage. This also creates a lot of risk management issues. It was not my chapter (and not necessarily Beta for what I speak of), but I am aware of several situations of attempted sexual assaults on female guests that happened at fraternity homes by non-members who came to the party. But the fact the assailants were non-members did not help when the story hit the local newspaper.

The existing Beta Theta Pi Code and Risk Management policies in place are adequate to cover issue #1- and it is up to advisors and Housing Corporations to help chapters deal with difficult members who create risk.

Issue #2 I think is easily dealt with by prohibiting formal social functions at the house. And this is what I think a more solid direction. The cost of hiring security and 3rd party servers for a social event at the house are not small. It is not that much more to have the party offsite and rent out a bar or other location for a social event. And this is I think an ideal solution.

But that solution has to come from Housing Corporations. Oxford has to think about the big picture and the overall legal framework in which a chapter operates. For them to ban social functions at the house does not really provide an adequate stance. It only works if Housing Corporations adopt such measures in conjunction with a national policy that deals with the letter of the law and a sense of care for all members- which is what the current policy does.

I see this like the immigration issue really. The problem is not a need for stricter rules, but rather better enforcement of existing rules.

If chapters and alumni are not enforcing existing rules, then why would they be more likely to enforce stricter rules like dry housing? I know of at least one NIC fraternity with a dry house policy- and it is not working effectively.

Down the road I think we are all destined to have dry houses or some kind of policy along the lines of what I have laid out above as a good solution. But that needs to happen with all NIC groups doing it together at once- like the sororities did. Then everyone is on a level playing field and there are no excuses.