|
Oh, I totally agree that in some cases they have thrown out the baby with the bath water. The problem is trying to define things so there is no room for error. In some cases, it is a matter of following the law. In others, it is removing the chance for a mistake.
I helped my mil when she was a court reporter in a case involving a suit against a fraternity. It was obviously the fault of the member who chose to indulge in risky behavior, but the fraternity was still held accountable. National and International HQs can't be blamed for trying to limit their liabililty - we are talking MILLIONS of dollars in just one suit. It is a harsh reality, but a reality none the less.
Do I think it is ridiculous that you cannot require new members to interview actives, for example? Yes - but I do understand the slippery slope that concerns HQs. If the choice is going a little too far in defining hazing, or exposing the GLO to massive liability, I too must vote for the former.
__________________
Gamma Phi Beta
Courtesy is owed, respect is earned, love is given.
Proud daughter AND mother of a Gamma Phi. 3 generations of love, labor, learning and loyalty.
Last edited by SWTXBelle; 10-27-2007 at 07:05 PM.
|
Threaded Mode
