Quote:
Originally Posted by EE-BO
aeBOT and Oldest_Pledge, I think to a certain degree you put this as too much of a black and white issue. I do not think Coramoor is judging his experience in the house based on the flow of alcohol- he is merely pointing out that at a certain age all men deserve some trust and freedom of choice.
|
I agree that young men deserve a choice. That being said, the law clearly limits the availabel choices as does the Risk Management policies. So, these young men must work within the limits they are given until such time as they successfully change these limits or oare no longer bound to them. The law is black and white.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EE-BO
Oldest_Pledge, I did in fact have a wine cellar in my room when I lived in the house. I regularly served Lafite, DRC, a nice Montrachet or a fine Alsatian Riesling at formal chapter dinners or over a poker game.
I was 21 years old the year I had that cellar in the house, and I never made excess noise after hours or tore the place up. Same goes for most others who drank in the house on a regular basis.
Yet, under substance-free rules I would be eligible for removal from the house and early alumni status or worse- same as someone who was 19 and got drunk all the time and tore the place up.
|
And this is where I disagree with the Risk Management policies and substance-free rules. A person of legal age should be allowed to have some libations in his residence. However, if you were an obnoxius drunkard and smashed your room I would expect you to be removed from the house.
There is room for middle ground. It will just take time for the pendulum to swing back.
Threaded Mode
