Another Reason to THINK Before You Send an E-mail

[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.

[33girl]

I would think it's more the presence of bartenders and (if they are allowing underagers to drink or being lax in IDing) quickly putting the kibosh on anything/throwing out anyone that might get them busted. Trust me, there are some bar concoctions out there that go on special that make everclear seem like water (our one bar had one called Rocket Fuel that lived up to its name).

One of my friends is in her early 30s, was Greek, and told me she NEVER drank beer in college, always mixed drinks. I cannot fathom this. Obviously (at least some) college students have money to blow on hard alcohol on a regular basis.

[DSTRen13]

Originally Posted by 33girl

One of my friends is in her early 30s, was Greek, and told me she NEVER drank beer in college, always mixed drinks. I cannot fathom this. Obviously (at least some) college students have money to blow on hard alcohol on a regular basis.

I never drank beer, only mixed drinks - but I'm not a big drinker, and I went to a school where there was little chance of having to buy my own drinks anyway. (All you girls going to schools with majority female populations are completely missing out.)

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by 33girl

she ... drank ... mixed drinks.

Thanks to Ladies Nights and idiot college boys lol

ETA: DSTRen13 types faster

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by 33girl

One of my friends is in her early 30s, was Greek, and told me she NEVER drank beer in college, always mixed drinks. I cannot fathom this. Obviously (at least some) college students have money to blow on hard alcohol on a regular basis.

Dudes did not buy girls drinks on my campus, but there were things like $5 pitchers of rum and coke or the $10 "shark bowl".

[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!