I believe that the first priority of any national organization is to avoid liability.
These organizations function as businesses and have to stay both in business and solvent.
It is difficult to legislate behavior. So generally if people want to violate rules such as where and when they can drink they generally will.
Therfore it makes me wonder if these rules increase safety to any significant degree.
Because even if people obey the change in rules such as no drinking in a house, they actually increase their risk by driving off campus somewhere . . . a predictable result that gives the lie that its a rule being used to promote safety.
Unless national officers are completely short sighted.
However, if you break the new rule it diminishes their liability and makes it less likely they will have to pay out money.
|
Threaded Mode