Is this legal? Deactivated one NPC, now part of a new NPC.

It's interesting to see this discussion about NMs being minors.

I know that it was definitely a different kind of time when our organizations were founded, but I recall reading somewhere that several our Founders were teenagers themselves when they established our organizations.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by OTW

It's interesting to see this discussion about NMs being minors.

I know that it was definitely a different kind of time when our organizations were founded, but I recall reading somewhere that several our Founders were teenagers themselves when they established our organizations.

It's interesting to read stuff about how the age at which people were regarded as essentially adult or mature has changed over time.

The founders were amazing and it's hard to imagine very many groups of undergraduate woman today who would be able to do something similar today, at least in part because of additional red tape everywhere.

This is kind of a different issue from the legal idea of being under 18, but I think about how much additional concerns were introduced with the drinking age became 21. It happened before I was in college, so I didn't witness the change first hand, but it would seem like going from almost everyone in the group being legally adult for all purposes to the idea that some people are minors in some areas was probably weird too.

[Buttonz]

Originally Posted by amanda6035

but for AXiD, whenever we pledge a new member and send in their paperwork, we have to submit an "anticipated" initiation date. Prior to that date, FHQ sends us back a letter granting us permission to initiate those women. Granted, we've never received a "no you may not initiate this person" from FHQ - but I figured if we were being given permission to initiate them, then there must not have been a membership problem...

We have to do the same thing.

Originally Posted by AChiOhSnap

It's entirely possible that whichever Rho Pi told me about the age restrictions at the time (she said that you had to be a legal adult for liability reasons and so your parents didn't have to sign off on everything) was giving me bad information, and that the greek life office just wanted PNMs birthdays to know who was underage so they could be prepared to be in contact with their legal guardians if they were to join a chapter. I just took her word for it because it seemed to make sense, and it actually kind of still does if you think about it...I'd think it'd be a pain in the ass to have to get all those parent signatures on insurance forms for greek week, softball tournaments, parties, etc. for an minor member. I would also think there would be special risk managment issues for minors. But I know it happens in chapters all over the place, so I'm sure it works out just fine.

That makes sense. I just wouldn't want to hurt anyone who was 17 as a freshman in the fall (or younger).

Originally Posted by Alphagamuga

This is kind of a different issue from the legal idea of being under 18, but I think about how much additional concerns were introduced with the drinking age became 21. It happened before I was in college, so I didn't witness the change first hand, but it would seem like going from almost everyone in the group being legally adult for all purposes to the idea that some people are minors in some areas was probably weird too.

Esp because right before they were considered legally adult for it and all of a sudden they weren't...

[susan314]

Originally Posted by Buttonz

Esp because right before they were considered legally adult for it and all of a sudden they weren't...

When the drinking age changed to 21, people who were already "legal" under the old law were grandfathered in. So, they didn't lose a privilege that they already had.

I was very young at the time, but I had several cousins who were right around the age of 18. About half of them "made the cut" age wise. I remember vividly one of my cousins being so upset because the law changed a week before his birthday...if it had changed a week later, he would have been grandfathered in also. Instead, he had to wait until 21 to be legal.

[Buttonz]

Originally Posted by susan314

When the drinking age changed to 21, people who were already "legal" under the old law were grandfathered in. So, they didn't lose a privilege that they already had.

I was very young at the time, but I had several cousins who were right around the age of 18. About half of them "made the cut" age wise. I remember vividly one of my cousins being so upset because the law changed a week before his birthday...if it had changed a week later, he would have been grandfathered in also. Instead, he had to wait until 21 to be legal.

Dam. I would have been really really pissed....not like I drank on my 21st or anything (dam MTA strike in NY) but still.