Quote:
Originally posted by DeltAlum
Deferred rush works fine at a number of places so I don't think it's the end of the world -- I just don't think that Freshmen change that much in four months.
If anyone has any proof to the contrary, I'd be happy to see it. I have always thought that deferred rush was an academic tool so that new students didn't have the extra time committments as they get used to college -- not an anti-alcohol measure.
|
No argument there, DeltAlum. We've seen enough instances of 21st birthday celebrations turning into funerals due to rapid overdrinking to believe that alcohol misuse is exclusively a freshman problem.
As to another angle -- I was struck by the
Denver Post's coverage of the U. of Colorado fraternities' response to the deferred rush proposal. From the report I gathered that the fraternities are taking the opportunity not only to oppose the idea of deferred rush, but also to end their current (laxly-enforced) voluntary ban on alcohol. They apparently are suggesting hired bouncers at fraternity parties, a stipulated number of sober brother "observers," making sober drivers available, etc.
Time will tell, as I'm always saying.
Speaking of time, is it just me or does the timing of advocacy of "wet" parties at fraternity houses seem a bit off (given the deaths), no matter how many new policies are attached to the idea? Ah, it's probably just me; after all, they waited until after the vigil, the moment of silence at a game, and the initial outpouring of placing notes and balloons and stuff at the Chi Psi house were over.
Threaded Mode