Another Reason to THINK Before You Send an E-mail

[AGD1978]

Originally Posted by Smile_Awhile

Oh no...

I'm aquatinted with the most recent past president of the chapter. My heart aches for her right now- mostly because I know she never would be stupid enough to let this e-mail be sent if she had seen it.

I feel for her too, and for the entire chapter. I'm sure, in hindsight, they all (I hope!) realize what a colossal error this was. Some days you have to be really, really fast to catch stupid before it gets away. I hope things work out for them and they're able to strengthen the chapter as a result.

A greater concern for me: how did this sort of thinking ever happen? Is it a product of the twitterverse or something? Granted, I'm old, and certainly no innocent, but back in the day we'd never have broadcast something like this. Which isn't to say we didn't think it. Or do it . But we knew it was illegal and would reflect badly on the Fraternity and our Greek community, so we laid low. When did flagrant, evidently blissfully ignorant law-breaking become acceptable? Did they even realize the consequences of their actions? And I'm not just referring to this chapter, or all Greeks, or any specific group. I've worked in Public Safety a long time, and the number of young people who admit to illegal drug and alcohol use, and act surprised when punishment seems imminent, astonishes me. Did no one teach them to distinguish the difference between right and wrong, legal or illegal? Or do they know but not care, or think it doesn't apply to them?

Baffled.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by AGD1978

Did no one teach them to distinguish the difference between right and wrong, legal or illegal? Or do they know but not care, or think it doesn't apply to them?

Baffled.

Are you really saying you're baffled that college kids drink? Or just that they'll readily admit to it?

Do you view the 21-to-drink rules as being more malum in se or malum prohibitum?

[33girl]

Originally Posted by AGD1978

A greater concern for me: how did this sort of thinking ever happen? Is it a product of the twitterverse or something? Granted, I'm old, and certainly no innocent, but back in the day we'd never have broadcast something like this. Which isn't to say we didn't think it. Or do it . But we knew it was illegal and would reflect badly on the Fraternity and our Greek community, so we laid low. When did flagrant, evidently blissfully ignorant law-breaking become acceptable? Did they even realize the consequences of their actions? And I'm not just referring to this chapter, or all Greeks, or any specific group. I've worked in Public Safety a long time, and the number of young people who admit to illegal drug and alcohol use, and act surprised when punishment seems imminent, astonishes me. Did no one teach them to distinguish the difference between right and wrong, legal or illegal? Or do they know but not care, or think it doesn't apply to them?

Baffled.

I don't think it's any more "flagrant" than anything we did back then. We just knew to keep our damn mouths shut. This is the generation that it's been said over and over shares more than ever with their parents - I honestly think it's a product of that. Their home training is lacking. If you've come home drunk or JBF to your mom and she greeted you with a "hi honey! let's make popcorn!" why on earth would you think that your actions are going to have any consequences anywhere else?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Are you really saying you're baffled that college kids drink? Or just that they'll readily admit to it?

Do you view the 21-to-drink rules as being more malum in se or malum prohibitum?

I think lawyers who use latin words among non-lawyers are trying to show off.

Originally Posted by AGD1978

I feel for her too, and for the entire chapter. I'm sure, in hindsight, they all (I hope!) realize what a colossal error this was. Some days you have to be really, really fast to catch stupid before it gets away. I hope things work out for them and they're able to strengthen the chapter as a result.

A greater concern for me: how did this sort of thinking ever happen? Is it a product of the twitterverse or something? Granted, I'm old, and certainly no innocent, but back in the day we'd never have broadcast something like this. Which isn't to say we didn't think it. Or do it . But we knew it was illegal and would reflect badly on the Fraternity and our Greek community, so we laid low. When did flagrant, evidently blissfully ignorant law-breaking become acceptable? Did they even realize the consequences of their actions? And I'm not just referring to this chapter, or all Greeks, or any specific group. I've worked in Public Safety a long time, and the number of young people who admit to illegal drug and alcohol use, and act surprised when punishment seems imminent, astonishes me. Did no one teach them to distinguish the difference between right and wrong, legal or illegal? Or do they know but not care, or think it doesn't apply to them?

Baffled.

This was one person at one chapter. I suspect even in your day, one person at one chapter did something stupid and get caught. And kids have been drinking/using drugs underage since there was an age limit/since drugs became illegal.

I always see "kids these days" and I'm pretty sure that "kids these days" are just about the same as "kids in those days"

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

This was one person at one chapter. I suspect even in your day, one person at one chapter did something stupid and get caught. And kids have been drinking/using drugs underage since there was an age limit/since drugs became illegal.

I always see "kids these days" and I'm pretty sure that "kids these days" are just about the same as "kids in those days"

You completely missed the point. It's not about drinking, it's about being too clueless to know you shouldn't shout it from the rooftops. And it most emphatically is NOT just "one person at one chapter."

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by 33girl

You completely missed the point. It's not about drinking, it's about being too clueless to know you shouldn't shout it from the rooftops. And it most emphatically is NOT just "one person at one chapter."

The sending of the email was one person from one chapter. That was, in this case, the shouting from the rooftops. I maintain that someone, 10, 20, 30 or more years ago, probably got in trouble for something similar, it just wasn't an email.

The drinking and drugging and whatever, as I said, is not new and is not somehow more blatant than 10, 20, or 30 years ago. People have had fake IDs, underage parties and such since the dawn of minimum age laws, and I doubt that they were ALL more subtle.

Point is, in 1981, someone got a group in trouble for underage drinking at a party because they were stupid enough to talk/brag about it in public. 'Kids these days' aren't worse, they just have different ways to get caught being stupid.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

The sending of the email was one person from one chapter. That was, in this case, the shouting from the rooftops. I maintain that someone, 10, 20, 30 or more years ago, probably got in trouble for something similar, it just wasn't an email.

The drinking and drugging and whatever, as I said, is not new and is not somehow more blatant than 10, 20, or 30 years ago. People have had fake IDs, underage parties and such since the dawn of minimum age laws, and I doubt that they were ALL more subtle.

Point is, in 1981, someone got a group in trouble for underage drinking at a party because they were stupid enough to talk/brag about it in public. 'Kids these days' aren't worse, they just have different ways to get caught being stupid.

I don't agree. (Except I never said that drinking etc was new) Unless you were around in that time period, you really can't assert that THE SAME AMOUNT OF people acted the same way. They did not.

Of course there were people occasionally who were dumbasses and got busted because they were blabby. The dumbassery just wasn't occurring as often because the majority of people were aware that they had to keep certain things under the radar.

If fraternities and sororities wanted to put the cap on this behavior, they'd lobby for the states to drop the drinking ages below 21 if they saw fit, and quit worrying about their images.

[ComradesTrue]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

The sending of the email was one person from one chapter. That was, in this case, the shouting from the rooftops. I maintain that someone, 10, 20, 30 or more years ago, probably got in trouble for something similar, it just wasn't an email.

Yes, people 10, 20 and 30 years ago could also be stupid. The big difference is that there was nothing permanent back then. No email, no internet, no twitter, no text. There was also not the level of news/entertainment reporting that there is now. If someone blabbed, it only was heard by those in earshot. If it was repeated, then it became an unproveable rumor. These types of things just didn't travel far. And they certainly weren't important enough to make the 6pm news or the front page of the local paper... which is all the news that we had.

So, the lack of common sense could be the same, but the situation today is completely different. Put something stupid "out there" now not only could the whole world potentially see it, there would be no way to retract it/hide it/deny it. Yes, people got in trouble back then, but the ramifications of their actions weren't near as severe.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I think lawyers who use latin words among non-lawyers are trying to show off.

I figured she'd understand as she's in law enforcement, and hell, can it be considered to be lawyertalk if Jeff Bridges' character in True Grit waxed eloquently on the law using those terms?

I always see "kids these days" and I'm pretty sure that "kids these days" are just about the same as "kids in those days"

True. Trouble is, that our national offices are trapped between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

Create a safe place for illegal drinking? Then when something goes on [and it will] complicity of the HQ is easily proved, even though common sense would seem to dictate that for the members, this would be the ideal approach.

Pretend it never happens and close chapters when they are dumb enough to get caught? Then when something goes wrong [and it will], at least you have plausible deniability. This is obviously the worst approach if the safety of collegians is paramount, but it's the approach most organizations take.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I figured she'd understand as she's in law enforcement, and hell, can it be considered to be lawyertalk if Jeff Bridges' character in True Grit waxed eloquently on the law using those terms?

Yeah, yeah it is.

True. Trouble is, that our national offices are trapped between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

Create a safe place for illegal drinking? Then when something goes on [and it will] complicity of the HQ is easily proved, even though common sense would seem to dictate that for the members, this would be the ideal approach.

can't do it, even if it would make sense logically it's illegal and can't last. Until the law changes there's no choice for our offices at all.

Pretend it never happens and close chapters when they are dumb enough to get caught? Then when something goes wrong [and it will], at least you have plausible deniability. This is obviously the worst approach if the safety of collegians is paramount, but it's the approach most organizations take.

I don't really think that it's necessarily true that creating a safe space for illegal drinking is some how actually safer. I think people believe that it is, but I don't think statistics back that up, not when it's still illegal.
Considering our orgs all seem to do alcohol abuse education in some way shape or form (maybe not all, but many) they're doing more than just looking the other way.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

can't do it, even if it would make sense logically it's illegal and can't last. Until the law changes there's no choice for our offices at all.

That's not altogether true. Although, as an aside, I will say that I'm certainly advocating a position which is different from how I act when dealing with my own chapter (I follow the rules). While active support is probably out of the question, feigned punishment, meaningless suspensions and not shuttering chapters when individuals have lapses in good sense are probably on the table.

I don't really think that it's necessarily true that creating a safe space for illegal drinking is some how actually safer. I think people believe that it is, but I don't think statistics back that up, not when it's still illegal.
Considering our orgs all seem to do alcohol abuse education in some way shape or form (maybe not all, but many) they're doing more than just looking the other way.

Examining a few premises with regard to drinking, would you agree that:

1) Less education is better than more education?

2) Fewer policies looking after the safety of members are better than more policies looking after the safety of members?

3) Drinking at the chapter facility is better than drinking elsewhere and having to obtain transportation home while one's judgment is impaired?

We can talk about those statistics (are you referring to that early-2000s Harvard study?) as it fails to discuss some of its basic assumptions, has some rather flawed premises, and that its conclusions tend to be somewhat viewed in a vacuum, and are not generally reliable if we're wanting to glean anything useful.

I agree that most of our organizations require undergrads (and begrudging advisors in many cases) to view the Alcohol 101 flash presentation, and that's better than nothing, but if we're doing that, are we not on some level admitting that we know that everyone is engaging in this activity?

I do agree that the big issue here with AGD was that the email admitted to many members having fake IDs, which in most places is a felony. That officer's behavior could have resulted in the chapter's officers, advisors, etc., being named as defendants in a conspiracy to commit a felony case. I don't really fault AGD's offices for taking the action they did. Under the circumstances, it was probably appropriate, so I hope no one views my words here as being critical of AGD's activities, because if it was my chapter, I'd probably be supportive of the same sort of action being taken.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Examining a few premises with regard to drinking, would you agree that:

1) Less education is better than more education?

2) Fewer policies looking after the safety of members are better than more policies looking after the safety of members?

3) Drinking at the chapter facility is better than drinking elsewhere and having to obtain transportation home while one's judgment is impaired?

I went to school where the bar age was 19. I know of nobody dying of alcohol poisoning in a bar. I know of several people who died of alcohol poisoning in fraternity houses.

(I know, anecdotes are not data, but I'd argue that a "safe place to drink" did exist, though it was illegal for 19 and 20 year olds to drink there)

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

I went to school where the bar age was 19. I know of nobody dying of alcohol poisoning in a bar. I know of several people who died of alcohol poisoning in fraternity houses.

(I know, anecdotes are not data, but I'd argue that a "safe place to drink" did exist, though it was illegal for 19 and 20 year olds to drink there)

You know, penny pitcher nights aside, I suspect the cost of getting drunk at a bar combined with the lack of "Jungle Juice" made with Everclear makes bars somewhat safer.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I figured she'd understand as she's in law enforcement, and hell, can it be considered to be lawyertalk if Jeff Bridges' character in True Grit waxed eloquently on the law using those terms?

I haven't seen True Grit yet, but thanks to Legally Blonde, I know what the two terms mean

For the record, I'd pick the dangerous one...because I'm not afraid of a challenge!

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

I always see "kids these days" and I'm pretty sure that "kids these days" are just about the same as "kids in those days"

You're right.

I think the point being made was that "kids in those days" did not have social web sites like t-witter, face-book and the such to broadcast everything they did.

"Kids these days" have that option. Unfortunately the "kids these days" choose to use that option when they really should not, for most reasons.