There is a great quote from earlier in the thread that I think makes a very clear explanation of why these rules were put into place:
Quote:
Originally posted by Panhel
The purpose of this policy is not to penalize fraternities and sororities, it is to ensure that fraternities that are dry are given an equal chance to compete socially. The new NPC policy states that NPC sororities will not participate in a social mixer, on fraternity property, where alcohol is present. While the 26 sororities have taken three different stances (facilities, function, and support)they have all agreed that there will be no alcohol invoved in mixers taking place on fraternity property. The facilities policy is the most strict (no functions at the houses of fraternities that are not dry). The support policy actually means that those sororities support the policy itself and are still deciding which stance they want to take within the perameters of the policy itself. It all seems a little confusing but as a member of out Executive Board for Panhel, I attended the Panhellenic Conference for the South East US and many of the workshops were geared toward clarifying this policy. The main goals of this policy are (A) to reduce the amount of liability placed on chapters themselves by encouraging social events involving alcohol to move outside the fraternities houses and place that liability on a third party (bars, rental halls) and off of the chapter and (B) support IFC (NIC) fraternities that decide to go dry by ensuring a level playing field for them to compete socially.
I encourage you to contact Panhellenic for more information. They have sent informational packets and alternative social solutions to you college Panhellenic.
|
I don't think anyone here said the policy is supposed to prevent us from drinking; I think it's supposed to help prevent us from getting sued for drinking. Obviously, a 3rd party vendor is going to do a better job than Sally Sister at prohibiting under-aged members from drinking.
Re the kicking members out for under-aged drinking thing, of course we'd lose all our members if we did that. I think the point James was trying to make was that by us trying to create a rule that eliminates our liability, but not reprimanding our members for not abiding by the law, we're being hypocritical.
Threaded Mode