Substance free- an important clarification

[a.e.B.O.T.]

EE-Bo, I just set here and wrote an angry comment about how offended I was from your last post, because I interpreted as you basically calling me ignorant. I think it is in my best interest to change it, because I do not want to convey that.

Here is my final thoughts: I think we all want what is in the best interest in Beta. I think that is why we come here and continue to chat at this thread. I love Beta very much and I really want to see what is best for the organization. I realize we all have different definitions of that, and that is o.k. That is what this country is all about. I really didn't mean to sound ignorant. I read everything everyone wrote, and I sympathized with a lot. I just don't agree that that is where we need to be. Again, that is where I stand, as one of 160,000 members of the organization. I don't want to fight, but after contemplating what you guys have said, and I really have contemplated it, I still don't agree, so lets just leave it at that, because I think we got as far as we our going to go.

I DO have respect for you guys, and I would hope you say the same for me.

[ECUJacob]

I never thought I'd say this, but I'm afraid that I have to side with Coramoor (and EE-BO) on this one.

Although I agree that the chapter house should be a place of respect and reverence where it is due (ritual), it also the home and place of comfort for the residents. If a brother is of the legal age (21 years old) to purchase and consume alcohol, then it should be his right to do so. I will, however, stress that it will be important for the chapter's culture to be one of vigilance and action should someone's behavior get out of hand. Our goal is teach our young men how to be responsible adults. How can you do that if you prevent them from experiencing or being shown how to do that?

[EE-BO]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

EE-Bo, I just set here and wrote an angry comment about how offended I was from your last post, because I interpreted as you basically calling me ignorant. I think it is in my best interest to change it, because I do not want to convey that.

I DO have respect for you guys, and I would hope you say the same for me.

Hi a.e.B.O.T,

I have a great deal of respect for you. You speak with an intelligence beyond your years (and thank you nittyalum for your kind words to me on that score- I wish I was always able to live up to that praise.)

I did not mean to call you ignorant- and my comments were not directed at you so much as at a general sentiment I and other alumni have heard from many others who are currently active in various chapters.

There is a delicate balance here- and substance free is merely an issue reflecting a growing process I think Beta is undergoing right now.

The alumni of my chapter have put substantial financial support into paying travel and registration expenses to get actives to attend the various General Fraternity leadership opportunities. And 100% of the guys who go come back and report it was a great experience. These training opportunities are having a good effect and we continue to support them.

However, there is also a sentiment often expressed- usually from newer colonies it seems- that there is an "old way" of how to be a Beta- and that way must be bad, but without any coherent or intelligent explanation as to why that is the case.

This attitude comes up in discussions about things like substance free housing. There are very practical reasons to consider it, and there are Beta chapters where the actives or alumni have chosen to go that route. And to date, it has only been imposed on chapters who have shown an inability to execute their risk management responsibilities with the care and diligence one should expect of a Beta.

But the "attitude" I speak of does not address things like that. Instead it quickly degenerates into telling alumni they rushed Beta for the wrong reason or that they are part of a problem that has to be solved.

This is when we get upset. Friends of Beta who run these seminars will give out lots of theoretical advice, but after that you are on your own. And if you fail the easy response is, "well, you didn't try hard enough."

Alumni are still the ones who pay for houses and run local chapters as advisors and Housing Corporations. And more and more we are on our own. There is noone at Oxford to call anymore with requests for guidance on legal issues like tax considerations or working on zoning issues that come up at various campuses. I have Housing Corp records from decades ago when General Fraternity sent out periodic newletters with tax alerts and other legislation that Housing Corporations needed to know about. Those days are over.

That does not mean we run the show. General Fraternity does that, and their direction combined with the wishes of an individual chapter is how things have to work. As long as a chapter is not looking to do anything against Beta Principles, General Fraternity policy or in some way illegal- I think alumni are honor-bound to support the path a chapter chooses, or convince them with reasoned explanation why a different path is best.

It is a careful balance that has to be maintained.

But that balance is interrupted with some of the idealogical commentary that comes up at times and insists that we are on some new path that is unique to Beta and all the old guys are "bad". The attack on Coramoor is a good example of that.

If someone tells me that at a given campus a chapter needs to have a dry house so more guys will live there, and so the house can be kept in better condition and be the kind of haven the actives want- I can buy that.

But to say that anyone who thinks substance free is overboard chose Beta for the wrong reasons is not a logical or intelligent comment by any measure.

And that is where my "life experience" comment comes into play. Substance free, reduced hazing and all the issues we talk about today have been there for a long time. It has always been something to be dealt with, and while I am glad General Fraternity is addressing it in a central and education-drive way, there is no doubt that some people take that instruction to fanatical extremes and have developed a very unrealistic view of how the world works.

Many of us "Southern" chapters have long histories with a very clean record because we rejected illegal hazing practices long ago, and because we take risk management seriously.

And there are certainly Men of Principle substance free chapters with absolutely dismal risk management records in recent years- including specific incidents that no good Beta chapter, MPI partnered or not, would even consider could happen.

A piece of paper or a lecture from a Friend of Beta can go a long way to promoting a better chapter and a better fraternity. But that is no substitute for a chapter with alumni support that is moving in those good directions on its own already.

That is the subtle distinction. It is a matter of putting trust in Betas first and in training tools as enhancement of that- and not the other way around.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

Hi a.e.B.O.T,

I have a great deal of respect for you. You speak with an intelligence beyond your years (and thank you nittyalum for your kind words to me on that score- I wish I was always able to live up to that praise.)

I did not mean to call you ignorant- and my comments were not directed at you so much as at a general sentiment I and other alumni have heard from many others who are currently active in various chapters.

There is a delicate balance here- and substance free is merely an issue reflecting a growing process I think Beta is undergoing right now.

The alumni of my chapter have put substantial financial support into paying travel and registration expenses to get actives to attend the various General Fraternity leadership opportunities. And 100% of the guys who go come back and report it was a great experience. These training opportunities are having a good effect and we continue to support them.

However, there is also a sentiment often expressed- usually from newer colonies it seems- that there is an "old way" of how to be a Beta- and that way must be bad, but without any coherent or intelligent explanation as to why that is the case.

This attitude comes up in discussions about things like substance free housing. There are very practical reasons to consider it, and there are Beta chapters where the actives or alumni have chosen to go that route. And to date, it has only been imposed on chapters who have shown an inability to execute their risk management responsibilities with the care and diligence one should expect of a Beta.

But the "attitude" I speak of does not address things like that. Instead it quickly degenerates into telling alumni they rushed Beta for the wrong reason or that they are part of a problem that has to be solved.

This is when we get upset. Friends of Beta who run these seminars will give out lots of theoretical advice, but after that you are on your own. And if you fail the easy response is, "well, you didn't try hard enough."

Alumni are still the ones who pay for houses and run local chapters as advisors and Housing Corporations. And more and more we are on our own. There is noone at Oxford to call anymore with requests for guidance on legal issues like tax considerations or working on zoning issues that come up at various campuses. I have Housing Corp records from decades ago when General Fraternity sent out periodic newletters with tax alerts and other legislation that Housing Corporations needed to know about. Those days are over.

That does not mean we run the show. General Fraternity does that, and their direction combined with the wishes of an individual chapter is how things have to work. As long as a chapter is not looking to do anything against Beta Principles, General Fraternity policy or in some way illegal- I think alumni are honor-bound to support the path a chapter chooses, or convince them with reasoned explanation why a different path is best.

It is a careful balance that has to be maintained.

But that balance is interrupted with some of the idealogical commentary that comes up at times and insists that we are on some new path that is unique to Beta and all the old guys are "bad". The attack on Coramoor is a good example of that.

If someone tells me that at a given campus a chapter needs to have a dry house so more guys will live there, and so the house can be kept in better condition and be the kind of haven the actives want- I can buy that.

But to say that anyone who thinks substance free is overboard chose Beta for the wrong reasons is not a logical or intelligent comment by any measure.

And that is where my "life experience" comment comes into play. Substance free, reduced hazing and all the issues we talk about today have been there for a long time. It has always been something to be dealt with, and while I am glad General Fraternity is addressing it in a central and education-drive way, there is no doubt that some people take that instruction to fanatical extremes and have developed a very unrealistic view of how the world works.

Many of us "Southern" chapters have long histories with a very clean record because we rejected illegal hazing practices long ago, and because we take risk management seriously.

And there are certainly Men of Principle substance free chapters with absolutely dismal risk management records in recent years- including specific incidents that no good Beta chapter, MPI partnered or not, would even consider could happen.

A piece of paper or a lecture from a Friend of Beta can go a long way to promoting a better chapter and a better fraternity. But that is no substitute for a chapter with alumni support that is moving in those good directions on its own already.

That is the subtle distinction. It is a matter of putting trust in Betas first and in training tools as enhancement of that- and not the other way around.

AAAH, EE-Bo, you did it again. Listen, im raising the white flag, which is what I've been trying to do, but you seem not to let me. You defend attacks by attacking me? weird, anywho, you win! I take back what I said about coramoor, because you took it WAY the wrong way. It is not his opinion on the issue that made me say this, it is what and how he relays that message, here and in almost every previous thread. We just come from different aspects, I guess, and that is OK. My right and wrong reasoning for joining a fraternity is different then yours, etc, and so will yours be to others. I am not here to argue, but merely to state my opinion and read other's opinion. I don't feel like I attacked, and if you feel that way, then please know that those are not my intentions. Please don't respond, because really, there is nothing to respond to. It has all been commenting it to a whole lot of nothing.

[Oldest_Pledge]

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.

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.

[Sageofold]

don't forget gentlemen, the risk management policy does not mandate substance free (i.e. alcohol free). those chapters that have alcohol free houses have largely done so by their own volition, the house corps volition, or as a sanction from the university. my point is that while we can argue for "self-governance," self-governance is typically the reason chapter's go substance free! this is an important distinction though, and one that i believe needs to be stated. much different than an Oxford mandate, which thankfully has never come down.

[Coramoor]

Originally Posted by Sageofold

don't forget gentlemen, the risk management policy does not mandate substance free (i.e. alcohol free). those chapters that have alcohol free houses have largely done so by their own volition, the house corps volition, or as a sanction from the university. my point is that while we can argue for "self-governance," self-governance is typically the reason chapter's go substance free! this is an important distinction though, and one that i believe needs to be stated. much different than an Oxford mandate, which thankfully has never come down.

Since when does coercion mean the same thing as self governance?

[ECUJacob]

Coercion? Coramoor, can you explain that a little bit further?

To coerce: 1) to restrain or dominate by force, 2) to compel to an act or choice, 3) to achieve by force or threat.

[Oldest_Pledge]

Originally Posted by ECUJacob

Coercion? Coramoor, can you explain that a little bit further?

To coerce: 1) to restrain or dominate by force, 2) to compel to an act or choice, 3) to achieve by force or threat.

From what I have read here, I would take it to mean the "you will be MoP or no longer be a chapter" attitude used on those chapters that have had problems, issues etc...(real or perceived) and faced reorganization.

But this is just my opinion.

[EE-BO]

The issue has been how certain chapters were disciplined relative to the severity of their misdoings.

While it has been interpreted as an MPI vs non-MPI dividing line, the real dividing line has been how Miami of Ohio has been treated compared to all other Beta chapters. And while they have been kept going, I think it also safe to say the stipulations and scrutiny they have faced in the past decade has been far beyond what any other Beta chapter has endured. So in the grand scheme of things it is hard to say they have gotten a "pass" since in many ways they have not.

This is all moot now of course since all chapters operate under the same expectations.

And to be fair I have to give Beta some credit for how the transition was handled. Unlike many NPC fraternities- Phi Delt and Lamba Chi being prime examples- every Beta chapter was given the chance to operate "as normal" with MPI partnership and recolonization only coming into effect if an incident indicated it should happen.

The good news for most chapters- including some of us southern folk- is that how we operate means we are in good shape. I certainly know this applies at Texas.

But there is no doubt that there has been much ambiguity about expectations and enforcement. That I do have an issue with. Even though my chapter has run clean and well for over 120 years with no shut downs or other issues, on principle I do wish there had been clearer guidance and enforcement from Oxford during that 10 year period when there were essentially two tiers of operational rules for chapters.

[Oldest_Pledge]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

The issue has been how certain chapters were disciplined relative to the severity of their misdoings.

While it has been interpreted as an MPI vs non-MPI dividing line, the real dividing line has been how Miami of Ohio has been treated compared to all other Beta chapters. And while they have been kept going, I think it also safe to say the stipulations and scrutiny they have faced in the past decade has been far beyond what any other Beta chapter has endured. So in the grand scheme of things it is hard to say they have gotten a "pass" since in many ways they have not.

This is all moot now of course since all chapters operate under the same expectations.

And to be fair I have to give Beta some credit for how the transition was handled. Unlike many NPC fraternities- Phi Delt and Lamba Chi being prime examples- every Beta chapter was given the chance to operate "as normal" with MPI partnership and recolonization only coming into effect if an incident indicated it should happen.

The good news for most chapters- including some of us southern folk- is that how we operate means we are in good shape. I certainly know this applies at Texas.

But there is no doubt that there has been much ambiguity about expectations and enforcement. That I do have an issue with. Even though my chapter has run clean and well for over 120 years with no shut downs or other issues, on principle I do wish there had been clearer guidance and enforcement from Oxford during that 10 year period when there were essentially two tiers of operational rules for chapters.

Well said. I think your last sentence sums it up perfectly. Add to that some ambiguity regarding zero tolorence for substance-abuse or use (legal use by legal citizens) and I think it is covered.