Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin
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.
|
Feigned punishment never results in respect for the rules. I think that's a bad idea.
Quote:
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?
|
No, No, No (and that's a very non-neutral premise the way you worded it, I'm disappointed in you.)
Quote:
|
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 haven't seen anything that suggests that, for example, teens who have parents who let them have alcohol at home (as a party, not as a glass of wine with dinner) are better about handling their alcohol either. I think we trick ourselves into thinking that.
I
Quote:
|
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?
|
Yeah, it's a systemic issue, one that's outside of our orgs control. If our organizations want to lobby to change the legal drinking ages, I'm all for it. Our organizations should NOT condone - tacitly or explicitly - illegal activity.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I agree, that's a whole other issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 33girl
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.
|
No, I don't have to have lived then because that's just anecdotal evidence. If there's statistical evidence out there I'm glad to examine it, but I don't know that it exists.
Instead, I'm making what I feel to be logical assumption that someone, somewhere on a yearly basis, throughout the history of organizations has done something stupid and made it public. Just like someone, somewhere every year has an MLK party with fried chicken and watermelon and 'thinks' that it's cool. Stupid college students do that sort of thing. One hopes they grow out of it, but this is not something new.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I disagree, I think we just find out what happens at XYZ, Alpha Beta chapter because of the internet. I believe that XYZ Alpha Beta chapter would have gotten in trouble every year, but Joe Schmoe cross the country wouldn't have heard about it.
Quote:
|
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.
|
I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blondie93
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.
|
I do agree with this. I was disagreeing with the idea that kids these days were just scandalous in ways never considered before. I think they don't realize the ramifications of putting things online, but I think they've always been just as stupid (and smart) as ever.
Hybrid Mode
