Substance free- an important clarification

[EE-BO]

Good evening everyone,

Our ELC came in town last night and we had a great dinner discussing the chapter's terrific success this past year.

We also talked about a lot of high level issues- and it was a good conversation which I appreciated and set my mind at ease on many things.

I won't repeat it here obviously, but I did want to post something important I learned because I have been passing out bad information in several threads on this forum and I am sorry for that.

Simply put- substance free housing pertains to alcohol and illegal drugs ONLY. It does not apply to tobacco. Some of our chapters have added that for their own chapter housing, but it is not required.

In my defense I would say that I was misinformed by someone from one of those chapters- but it was not necessarily intentional. Might just be a case of someone reporting what they know which of course starts with how things work at your chapter.

Overall this is a good reason why some more general clarification from Oxford would be of benefit to all us advisors who are not involved in the day to day, but it also pays to do your homework- and I should have done more research before commenting on so momentous an issue.

[Coramoor]

I still think it is bad policy to try and ban something that members have every legal right to use if they so desire.

Right now the Army tells me I'm not allowed to drink. It's one thing when in a war zone...but some old guys sitting in Oxford saying that?! Haha, yeah right.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Well, i think the chapter house is suppose to be sacred: a place of meetings and ritual, and I know some people live there but there are a lot of other places for the drinking and etc. Now here is where clarification is needed: sometimes substance-free means you can not be drunk and go into that area. If someone lives in the house, I think they should be able to get drunk on their own terms somewhere else, and be able to come back to sleep, or etc.

[Coramoor]

Sacred...?

C'mon man. It's not a church. It is the living space of a Social Fraternity.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by Coramoor

Sacred...?

C'mon man. It's not a church. It is the living space of a Social Fraternity.

its not a bar or a club either dude and drinking is not a requirement to be a "Social" fraternity, just a stereotype. It is however where ritual is done and is the center point for brotherhood. It should be respected. I am all about the having fun and drinking plays apart about it in college, but I don't see anything major about not drinking in ONE building.

[Coramoor]

That one building is where the larger part of my chapter lived. That one building is where I spent 4 years throwing money into, cleaning, fixing, and having fun.

If I was not allowed to drink and live how I wanted in that one building, I would have moved into an apartment. That in turn would have hurt the ability of my chapter to have a house and to have the money to function.

Alcohol is part of being social. In any adult social function there is going to be alcohol. If not...well, it's probably not worth going to anyway.

[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.

[Oldest_Pledge]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

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.

I agree that young men deserve a choice. That being said, the law clearly limits the availabel choices as does the Risk Management policies. So, these young men must work within the limits they are given until such time as they successfully change these limits or oare no longer bound to them. The law is black and white.

Originally Posted by EE-BO

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.

And this is where I disagree with the Risk Management policies and substance-free rules. A person of legal age should be allowed to have some libations in his residence. However, if you were an obnoxius drunkard and smashed your room I would expect you to be removed from the house.

There is room for middle ground. It will just take time for the pendulum to swing back.

[Sageofold]

don't forget gentlemen, the risk management policy does not mandate substance free (i.e. alcohol free). those chapters that have alcohol free houses have largely done so by their own volition, the house corps volition, or as a sanction from the university. my point is that while we can argue for "self-governance," self-governance is typically the reason chapter's go substance free! this is an important distinction though, and one that i believe needs to be stated. much different than an Oxford mandate, which thankfully has never come down.

[Coramoor]

Originally Posted by Sageofold

don't forget gentlemen, the risk management policy does not mandate substance free (i.e. alcohol free). those chapters that have alcohol free houses have largely done so by their own volition, the house corps volition, or as a sanction from the university. my point is that while we can argue for "self-governance," self-governance is typically the reason chapter's go substance free! this is an important distinction though, and one that i believe needs to be stated. much different than an Oxford mandate, which thankfully has never come down.

Since when does coercion mean the same thing as self governance?

[EE-BO]

We did the same 33girl- there were formal chapter rooms and a formal meeting room which were 100% off limits to any non-Betas at any time. Plus they were always kept locked and secured when not in use for their intended purpose.

A good point you raise and proof that a house does not have to be dry to show respect for what brings us all together.

[EE-BO]

We all want the best for Beta, and I think everyone in this discussion feels that way.

But at the same time, it is dangerous to be too idealistic on every point.

Coramoor is an esteemed member of the Armed Services who has defended our country. I am self-made in my own right without relying on any family support. We both have been actively involved in helping our chapters, and we both have some life experience under our belts- and the latter is priceless. I have not been out of school for 10 years yet and already I am amazed to look back and see what life experience and business experience mean. That wisdom far outweighs what I learn in school.

While I respect the motives of the substance-free proponents of this thread, please understand that it is very frustrating to be summarily dismissed on the notion that alcohol in a person's residence is inherently bad. To suggest that Coramoor (me too perhaps since I agree with him?) pledged Beta for the wrong reasons just because of a position on the substance-free housing question is a pretty big insult and it puts things in black and white terms that should not be a basis for judgement in a brotherhood.

That is where the internal strife comes from- and it is unnecessary since any time I have sat down and met with Betas on both sides of the argument, we could come away from it with a mutual respect and understanding. (The internet removes that personal interaction and is a good reason why online can be a treacherous forum for such discussions.)

It has been suggested in other threads, some now gone, that Beta is not a "frat". The fact is, we have some fratty chapters. And so do all fraternities. Plus all of us have chapters which are not at all fratty. There is no NIC group which is all one or the other.

And the real internal strife in all NIC fraternities over being alcohol-free is based in the fact that unlike the sororities, we have not all moved to a definitive policy at the same time. It has nothing to do with one fraternity or another having the magic answer to making all chapters places that will be free of risk management and potential lawsuits.

By virtue of the fact one has to spend a lot of money to belong, we are considered elite organizations and a segment of American society will always hate us for that. Get used to it. It is part of being successful in a country where success is prized by the intelligent and ambitious, but resented by the inadequate and lazy.

There is no doubt improvement can be made. I will admit right here and now that if my chapter was operating today the way it was when I was an active, I would not have been interested in the countless hours and financial support I put into the place now.

I recognize and appreciate the need for fraternities to evolve- but that comes just as much from the inherent changes in top colleges across the country where scholastics have become incredibly competitive as it does from the ongoing desire for fraternities to take the finest young men in a college population and make them better through their affiliation with a fraternity.

But the issue of substance free is not a moral one in my view. As I have said before, if the existing rules are enforced and honored- then there is no need for additional rules or for chapters who elect to go substance free to look down on those who do not (which is a HUGE issue right now.)

In the grand scheme of things- rush is the real answer. The drunk house on campus will bring in drunks during rush. And the reverse is true.

The answer is to have members who would not, on the whole, choose to booze up during college and make that the priority. The increasingly competitive nature of scholastics and admissions at top colleges helps a great deal in removing that crowd from the rush pool altogether.

But within the remainder, the answer is to find top guys who can be trusted- and then put them in an environment where they are trusted to do the right thing.

JMHO.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

EE-Bo, I just set here and wrote an angry comment about how offended I was from your last post, because I interpreted as you basically calling me ignorant. I think it is in my best interest to change it, because I do not want to convey that.

Here is my final thoughts: I think we all want what is in the best interest in Beta. I think that is why we come here and continue to chat at this thread. I love Beta very much and I really want to see what is best for the organization. I realize we all have different definitions of that, and that is o.k. That is what this country is all about. I really didn't mean to sound ignorant. I read everything everyone wrote, and I sympathized with a lot. I just don't agree that that is where we need to be. Again, that is where I stand, as one of 160,000 members of the organization. I don't want to fight, but after contemplating what you guys have said, and I really have contemplated it, I still don't agree, so lets just leave it at that, because I think we got as far as we our going to go.

I DO have respect for you guys, and I would hope you say the same for me.

[EE-BO]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

EE-Bo, I just set here and wrote an angry comment about how offended I was from your last post, because I interpreted as you basically calling me ignorant. I think it is in my best interest to change it, because I do not want to convey that.

I DO have respect for you guys, and I would hope you say the same for me.

Hi a.e.B.O.T,

I have a great deal of respect for you. You speak with an intelligence beyond your years (and thank you nittyalum for your kind words to me on that score- I wish I was always able to live up to that praise.)

I did not mean to call you ignorant- and my comments were not directed at you so much as at a general sentiment I and other alumni have heard from many others who are currently active in various chapters.

There is a delicate balance here- and substance free is merely an issue reflecting a growing process I think Beta is undergoing right now.

The alumni of my chapter have put substantial financial support into paying travel and registration expenses to get actives to attend the various General Fraternity leadership opportunities. And 100% of the guys who go come back and report it was a great experience. These training opportunities are having a good effect and we continue to support them.

However, there is also a sentiment often expressed- usually from newer colonies it seems- that there is an "old way" of how to be a Beta- and that way must be bad, but without any coherent or intelligent explanation as to why that is the case.

This attitude comes up in discussions about things like substance free housing. There are very practical reasons to consider it, and there are Beta chapters where the actives or alumni have chosen to go that route. And to date, it has only been imposed on chapters who have shown an inability to execute their risk management responsibilities with the care and diligence one should expect of a Beta.

But the "attitude" I speak of does not address things like that. Instead it quickly degenerates into telling alumni they rushed Beta for the wrong reason or that they are part of a problem that has to be solved.

This is when we get upset. Friends of Beta who run these seminars will give out lots of theoretical advice, but after that you are on your own. And if you fail the easy response is, "well, you didn't try hard enough."

Alumni are still the ones who pay for houses and run local chapters as advisors and Housing Corporations. And more and more we are on our own. There is noone at Oxford to call anymore with requests for guidance on legal issues like tax considerations or working on zoning issues that come up at various campuses. I have Housing Corp records from decades ago when General Fraternity sent out periodic newletters with tax alerts and other legislation that Housing Corporations needed to know about. Those days are over.

That does not mean we run the show. General Fraternity does that, and their direction combined with the wishes of an individual chapter is how things have to work. As long as a chapter is not looking to do anything against Beta Principles, General Fraternity policy or in some way illegal- I think alumni are honor-bound to support the path a chapter chooses, or convince them with reasoned explanation why a different path is best.

It is a careful balance that has to be maintained.

But that balance is interrupted with some of the idealogical commentary that comes up at times and insists that we are on some new path that is unique to Beta and all the old guys are "bad". The attack on Coramoor is a good example of that.

If someone tells me that at a given campus a chapter needs to have a dry house so more guys will live there, and so the house can be kept in better condition and be the kind of haven the actives want- I can buy that.

But to say that anyone who thinks substance free is overboard chose Beta for the wrong reasons is not a logical or intelligent comment by any measure.

And that is where my "life experience" comment comes into play. Substance free, reduced hazing and all the issues we talk about today have been there for a long time. It has always been something to be dealt with, and while I am glad General Fraternity is addressing it in a central and education-drive way, there is no doubt that some people take that instruction to fanatical extremes and have developed a very unrealistic view of how the world works.

Many of us "Southern" chapters have long histories with a very clean record because we rejected illegal hazing practices long ago, and because we take risk management seriously.

And there are certainly Men of Principle substance free chapters with absolutely dismal risk management records in recent years- including specific incidents that no good Beta chapter, MPI partnered or not, would even consider could happen.

A piece of paper or a lecture from a Friend of Beta can go a long way to promoting a better chapter and a better fraternity. But that is no substitute for a chapter with alumni support that is moving in those good directions on its own already.

That is the subtle distinction. It is a matter of putting trust in Betas first and in training tools as enhancement of that- and not the other way around.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

Hi a.e.B.O.T,

I have a great deal of respect for you. You speak with an intelligence beyond your years (and thank you nittyalum for your kind words to me on that score- I wish I was always able to live up to that praise.)

I did not mean to call you ignorant- and my comments were not directed at you so much as at a general sentiment I and other alumni have heard from many others who are currently active in various chapters.

There is a delicate balance here- and substance free is merely an issue reflecting a growing process I think Beta is undergoing right now.

The alumni of my chapter have put substantial financial support into paying travel and registration expenses to get actives to attend the various General Fraternity leadership opportunities. And 100% of the guys who go come back and report it was a great experience. These training opportunities are having a good effect and we continue to support them.

However, there is also a sentiment often expressed- usually from newer colonies it seems- that there is an "old way" of how to be a Beta- and that way must be bad, but without any coherent or intelligent explanation as to why that is the case.

This attitude comes up in discussions about things like substance free housing. There are very practical reasons to consider it, and there are Beta chapters where the actives or alumni have chosen to go that route. And to date, it has only been imposed on chapters who have shown an inability to execute their risk management responsibilities with the care and diligence one should expect of a Beta.

But the "attitude" I speak of does not address things like that. Instead it quickly degenerates into telling alumni they rushed Beta for the wrong reason or that they are part of a problem that has to be solved.

This is when we get upset. Friends of Beta who run these seminars will give out lots of theoretical advice, but after that you are on your own. And if you fail the easy response is, "well, you didn't try hard enough."

Alumni are still the ones who pay for houses and run local chapters as advisors and Housing Corporations. And more and more we are on our own. There is noone at Oxford to call anymore with requests for guidance on legal issues like tax considerations or working on zoning issues that come up at various campuses. I have Housing Corp records from decades ago when General Fraternity sent out periodic newletters with tax alerts and other legislation that Housing Corporations needed to know about. Those days are over.

That does not mean we run the show. General Fraternity does that, and their direction combined with the wishes of an individual chapter is how things have to work. As long as a chapter is not looking to do anything against Beta Principles, General Fraternity policy or in some way illegal- I think alumni are honor-bound to support the path a chapter chooses, or convince them with reasoned explanation why a different path is best.

It is a careful balance that has to be maintained.

But that balance is interrupted with some of the idealogical commentary that comes up at times and insists that we are on some new path that is unique to Beta and all the old guys are "bad". The attack on Coramoor is a good example of that.

If someone tells me that at a given campus a chapter needs to have a dry house so more guys will live there, and so the house can be kept in better condition and be the kind of haven the actives want- I can buy that.

But to say that anyone who thinks substance free is overboard chose Beta for the wrong reasons is not a logical or intelligent comment by any measure.

And that is where my "life experience" comment comes into play. Substance free, reduced hazing and all the issues we talk about today have been there for a long time. It has always been something to be dealt with, and while I am glad General Fraternity is addressing it in a central and education-drive way, there is no doubt that some people take that instruction to fanatical extremes and have developed a very unrealistic view of how the world works.

Many of us "Southern" chapters have long histories with a very clean record because we rejected illegal hazing practices long ago, and because we take risk management seriously.

And there are certainly Men of Principle substance free chapters with absolutely dismal risk management records in recent years- including specific incidents that no good Beta chapter, MPI partnered or not, would even consider could happen.

A piece of paper or a lecture from a Friend of Beta can go a long way to promoting a better chapter and a better fraternity. But that is no substitute for a chapter with alumni support that is moving in those good directions on its own already.

That is the subtle distinction. It is a matter of putting trust in Betas first and in training tools as enhancement of that- and not the other way around.

AAAH, EE-Bo, you did it again. Listen, im raising the white flag, which is what I've been trying to do, but you seem not to let me. You defend attacks by attacking me? weird, anywho, you win! I take back what I said about coramoor, because you took it WAY the wrong way. It is not his opinion on the issue that made me say this, it is what and how he relays that message, here and in almost every previous thread. We just come from different aspects, I guess, and that is OK. My right and wrong reasoning for joining a fraternity is different then yours, etc, and so will yours be to others. I am not here to argue, but merely to state my opinion and read other's opinion. I don't feel like I attacked, and if you feel that way, then please know that those are not my intentions. Please don't respond, because really, there is nothing to respond to. It has all been commenting it to a whole lot of nothing.