Quote:
Originally Posted by SWTXBelle
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.
|
I don't understand. When you say "interview" actives, what do you mean?
We had to meet every active and learn something about her, then get her to sign our pledge book. We didn't have to DO anything to get that signature, just talk to her, perhaps discuss some aspect of our pledge training, get to know her a little. Of course, there were fewer than 20 actives, and we pledged for a full semester. I can't imagine having to have a 30-minute conversation with every sister in an 80-member house, not if you're going to keep the grades up and meet other obligations. But what's wrong with an interview?
Or does "interview" now have some connotation I'm not familiar with? Perhaps it isn't a real interview?
Threaded Mode
