Uh Oh

[john1082]

There is a back story here that was not mentioned . . .

[PiLambda1]

Originally Posted by john1082

There is a back story here that was not mentioned . . .

Boy I wonder what it was...That chapter was disbanded in 1984. That's before I was even born...

I gave a half-hearted search of the web, then realized that the internet really didn't even get doing much until after '85. Looks like it's gonna have to be anecdotal if this is going to come about....

[GammaZeta]

A back story from 1984???

Seriously, if every chapter was held responsibile for what happened 20 years ago, every chapter would be on probation or disbanded.

What happened 20 years ago is irrelevant.

Let the chapter be responsible for their actions. If someone from outside acts up, let the chapter suffer the consequences. These aren't little babies.

[PiLambda1]

Originally Posted by GammaZeta

A back story from 1984???

Seriously, if every chapter was held responsibile for what happened 20 years ago, every chapter would be on probation or disbanded.

What happened 20 years ago is irrelevant.

Let the chapter be responsible for their actions. If someone from outside acts up, let the chapter suffer the consequences. These aren't little babies.

CALM DOWN! Is your familial little Brother in that Zeta? You are
really putting up a fight for them.

If John says there's a back story that's not being written about,
there is one. Me saying it's from 1984 is a silly assumption and likely
irrelevant. Point blank: there's a story there because John doesn't
lie, and he wouldn't make a vague post like that unless there really was
more to the story.

Of course I don't expect them to pay for things done 20 years ago.
What I do expect of them is to be aware of what happened 20 years
ago. I expect them to realize what they got away with 20 years ago
might land their asses in prison today. It might cost them more than
their "Active" Status. People don't just go after the chapter anymore
when something goes awry, they go after you, your parents, and
anything else you have....

I'm not trying to be my Brother's keeper here. I'm trying to be my
Brother's Brother and call them out when I think a bad decision was
made.

[GammaZeta]

I don't think it was a bad decision. It's clearly not against Fraternity policy, unless I'm mistaken.

It's their chapter, who are you or any of us to criticize their decision making? They're grown men. Unless those specific men were involved in an "incident", then I don't really care what the background or story is. It simply doesn't matter.

I really don't like the fact that a current chapter and brotherhood is limited in any capacity because of something some brothers did in the past. So the chapter had an incident 10 or 20 years ago. Tell me exactly how that should effect the brothers of present?

I'm a very outspoken member, but I would never come on here and criticize another chapter for making a legal decision within the boundaries of our international fraternity law. It's called autonomy.

[HONKY660]

The chapter doesn't even have a chapter house. The story says they have a lodge in a hall, and alcohol is still not allowed there. So whats the big deal if they aren't dry anymore? I bet they changed from being dry because it was affecting their rush, I remember meeting some of their guys at GA and they had a small chapter of about 25 guys on a campus that had anverage size of 60. Just my thought.

[Tom Earp]

While it might be ideal if ALL Fraternities were dry, they are not.

Also while LXA would like to be dry housed for R M situations, it is still not against Our National rules/regulations.

It is a fine line about what to do in a case to case situation. It would be a moot point if the Zeta was not there. Again, while what happened at a Zeta before has now dwelling or point in a re-colonization. It is a fine line such as when in Rome, do as the Romans do. Competing is part of the level playing field.

Now, it is how the Zeta uses the rules or non rules. It is unbeleiveable how people at the age of 16-18 are considered adults, when they are restricted by the same laws and are not of age to consume alcohol.

Ideal situations never exist do they?

[john1082]

Originally Posted by PiLambda1

If John says there's a back story that's not being written about,
there is one. Me saying it's from 1984 is a silly assumption and likely
irrelevant. Point blank: there's a story there because John doesn't
lie, and he wouldn't make a vague post like that unless there really was
more to the story.

Thanks for the kind words

[PiLambda1]

So, in essence this is a push to recruit with alcohol?

Bah, regardless, I'm not going to argue about it anymore. As was said
ear;ier, if a 21-year old Brother wants a beer fine...If we are changing
the rules to look cool to the 18 year old Freshman, that's not really
fine in my book. He's not legal to drink anyway.

[john1082]

BTW, that number of 100 was basically everyone, from all classes, living in the substance free dorm!