Quote:
Originally posted by pinkyphimu
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. **trimming**
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!
|
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.