ATTN: Chapter officers - Liability premiums

[madmax]

Originally posted by James
Expell members that drink underage. Immediately. They are in violation of the Law and are the single greatest threat to in terms of liability.



If you are a National Officer why wouldn't you be recomending the expulsion of a person that was in clear violation of the law (underage consumption of alcohol) and therefore a risk management liability to the National Fraternity?

You wont have any members left if you expell everyone that drinks underage.

[Kapsig1]

Originally posted by madmax



You wont have any members left if you expell everyone that drinks underage.

Or we might attract more members that don't have underage drinking as a priority.

[Kevin]

Or we might attract more members that don't have underage drinking as a priority.

That's a very unrealistic view. First off, not EVERYONE is interested in the greek system. Otherwise you'd have a much higher membership level.

I'm a believer in the free market system. It would dictate that if there was a demand for fraternities that really cracked down on underage drinking -- explelling underage drinkers for example -- then someone would have success with that idea. There would be a fraternity out there that found a niche and succeeded.

Has that really happened? Have the nationally dry fraternities outpaced the wet ones? Will they ever?

The answer -- not unless the courts intervene. And what's to say that if they put all national fraternities out of business that we'll still not have a successful wet house at the local level? It is my constitutional right after all to associate with anyone that I want to.

If you ignore it and say it's prohibited, sure you'll catch some chapters violating the rules. Maybe you'll even get to yank a few charters. However, nearly every single one of your other chapters that doesn't get caught will still be practicing it. What national GLO wants to commit suicide like that?

The answer is education, good risk reduction practices and strong leadership. New rules would have a very low impact on changing people's behavior.

LHT
Kevin
MT 5
University of Central Oklahoma

[Kapsig1]

Originally posted by ktsnake


That's a very unrealistic view. First off, not EVERYONE is interested in the greek system. Otherwise you'd have a much higher membership level.

I'm a believer in the free market system. It would dictate that if there was a demand for fraternities that really cracked down on underage drinking -- explelling underage drinkers for example -- then someone would have success with that idea. There would be a fraternity out there that found a niche and succeeded.

Has that really happened? Have the nationally dry fraternities outpaced the wet ones? Will they ever?

The answer -- not unless the courts intervene. And what's to say that if they put all national fraternities out of business that we'll still not have a successful wet house at the local level? It is my constitutional right after all to associate with anyone that I want to.

If you ignore it and say it's prohibited, sure you'll catch some chapters violating the rules. Maybe you'll even get to yank a few charters. However, nearly every single one of your other chapters that doesn't get caught will still be practicing it. What national GLO wants to commit suicide like that?

The answer is education, good risk reduction practices and strong leadership. New rules would have a very low impact on changing people's behavior.

LHT
Kevin
MT 5
University of Central Oklahoma

Kevin, what do you base your assertion that it is unrealisitic on?

Beyond experience, one expert I found in my archives, Dr. Henry Wecler, of the Harvard School of Public health recently asserted the following:

"Abstract. Underage drinking is a major problem at American colleges, but little is known about the extent of alcohol use in different student groups, in different colleges, and in states with different control policies. We used data from the 2001 and 3 previous Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Studies that compared responses of underage students with those of their 21–23-year-old peers. Underage students drank alcohol less frequently but were more likely to drink to excess when they drank. College educational efforts and deterrent policies were limited in their outreach, and half of underage students obtained alcohol very easily. Underage students in states with extensive laws restricting underage and high-volume drinking were less likely to drink and to binge drink. A majority of underage students supported increasing efforts to control underage drinking. The results suggest that additional policy efforts to control underage drinking may be effective and feasible."

Dry housing does NOTHING to to the underage drinker beyond not allowing him to drink at the house.

Again, if we keep "doing business" as we have been, we will all be gone, it's a matter of time. Please don't attempt to bring associational rights into this - I am perhaps the strongest supporter of those rights you will ever come accross on these boards - BUT, we our associational rights STOP the minute we break statute.....i.e. the drinking age law.

Withg repsect to "organizational suicide," we're already committing it! Were just doing it slowly, if we do nothing we will surely die.

What do you mean by "strong leadership"? We have been educating ourselves for over 10 years with no decrease in behavior. If you've got a solution in "strong leadership" then let's hear it. Personally I agree, strong leadership cannot sit by and watch the self destructive abuse of our policies that are in place to ensure our healthy existence. But, I'm interested in what you mean?

Brad

[madmax]

Originally posted by Kapsig1


Or we might attract more members that don't have underage drinking as a priority.

Dont bet on it. About 95% of college students have experimented with alcohol before the age of 21.

If you want to go dry and only rush students that dont drink, then go ahead. I wont stop you.

PS. You will probalbly still pay the same high insurance as the wet fraternities.

[Kapsig1]

Originally posted by madmax


Dont bet on it. About 95% of college student participate in underage drinking.

If you want to go dry and only rush students that dont drink, then go ahead. I wont stop you.

PS. You will probalbly still pay the same high insurance as the wet fraternities.

Actually, it might be a good idea to educate each other on the real data. I don't see it as perfect, but it's better than the guesstimations that have been posted. Take a look at:

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/cas/Docu...nds/trends.pdf

Sorry - but the real number of has to be less than 80% - considering minors drink at lower rates than their "of age" counterparts.

[madmax]

Originally posted by ktsnake

ones? Will they ever?

The answer -- not unless the courts intervene. And what's to say that if they put all national fraternities out of business that we'll still not have a successful wet house at the local level? It is my constitutional right after all to associate with anyone that I want to.

There are many chapters out there that are doing just that and doing it well. In the past few months on Yahoo "Fraternal News Groups" I have read stories about DU at Syracuse, SAE at Penn, SAE at Duke, TKE at SDSU and they are doing fine.

If you go local you will also save thousands in insurance. Most of your insurance is a waste. Nationals tell you that you need insurance because you are a high risk group and you have high risk activities, but most of the policies are void if you participate in high risk activities such as drinking, hazing ect. If you dont participate in high risk activities then why do you need the insurance?

[Kapsig1]

Originally posted by madmax



There are many chapters out there that are doing just that and doing it well. In the past few months on Yahoo "Fraternal News Groups" I have read stories about DU at Syracuse, SAE at Penn, SAE at Duke, TKE at SDSU and they are doing fine.

If you go local you will also save thousands in insurance. Most of your insurance is a waste. Nationals tell you that you need insurance because you are a high risk group and you have high risk activities, but most of the policies are void if you participate in high risk activities such as drinking, hazing ect. If you dont participate in high risk activities then why do you need the insurance?

Ever been sued? Your assertion probably holds water in a state like mine where there is no wage garnishing. But if your state does, how'd you like half you paycheck going to pay off a judgement for the rest of your life? You need insurance, especially as a local - there are no deep pockets to go after, so they will go after every one of the members.

Brad

[madmax]

Originally posted by Kapsig1



Ever been sued? Your assertion probably holds water in a state like mine where there is no wage garnishing. But if your state does, how'd you like half you paycheck going to pay off a judgement for the rest of your life? You need insurance, especially as a local - there are no deep pockets to go after, so they will go after every one of the members.

Brad

No we have never been sued and yes are property is insured. Why should we buy additional insurance from a national?

[madmax]

Originally posted by Kapsig1


Or we might attract more members that don't have underage drinking as a priority.

If you think you are right then go prove it. Go dry, only rush students who dont drink, have 4.0 gpa and charge them thousands each for insurance. Then come back and show us the results.

[DeltAlum]

Please read this very carefully.

In fact, please read the entire thread.

Unrealistic?

What is unrealistic is to think that the system can survive if chapters go on with "business as usual." Insurance will bleed us to death financially.

If we expell those who break the law, will it make it impossible to find new members? Will it kill the system? Possible, I suppose, but I think it's equally possible that we might even attract a different kind of member -- one who holds academics and some of the other values upon which many of our organizations were founded higher than underage drinking. I'll bet there are people out there who don't join now because they object to the living circumstances as they exist presently in Greek houses. If that's true, maybe our liability rates would drop instead of skyrocket. Some houses that have gone "dry" actually report an increase in recruitment and membership. I actually have some Fraternity Brothers who don't now, and have never drank. One in particular has seen his chapter closed three times, and the absolutely beautiful house they owned sold to the university. That chapter will probably never open again. Three strikes...

Or did we all just join for the parties?

I don't recall anything in the Delt Ritual about partying. In fact, one part I remember vividly is the one where I pledged not to do "anything to hurt her." Was there anything like that in your ritual? Go back and think about it.

Please take a hard look at who started this thread. Brad is a person who works for a Fraternity at the National level. Someone who can see the "big picture." He doesn't strike me as a temperance worker. In the overall scheme of things, Greek Letter Organizations have many of the same financial responsibilities as a business or any other not-for-profit organization. Not the least of which is perpetuating its' own continued existance. (I guess that's redundant -- you probably can't perpetuate something that doesn't continue, can you? Unless you're perpetuating it memory. Think about that in terms of this discussion.) That's what we pay our professional staff for. That's part of their job.

Now, I'll say this once again -- although I'm sure not for the last time. I'm not against drinking. I like parties. I enjoy alcohol in moderation. (Damn, there's that "M" word again) If we were moderate in these things, we probably wouldn't be in the situation we're in.

What I don't relish is the spectre of sitting around in about ten years -- maybe having a drink with a brother alum -- talking about how great the Greek System WAS! Maybe saying how sad it is that today's undergraduates can't have the experience because it died of neglect when somebody saw the coming demise and did nothing about it.

Fraternally,
DeltAlum

[33girl]

Originally posted by Kapsig1

Beyond experience, one expert I found in my archives, Dr. Henry Wecler, of the Harvard School of Public health recently asserted the following:

Oh, you mean the same Henry Wechsler who said it's possible to "binge drink" (the big Chris Farley quotes on that one) and not get drunk?? The same ol' Henry media whore Wechsler who doesn't use a TIME FRAME for all these studies? Come on Brad, you're a smart guy - I think you'd know better than to get all Cocker Spaniel eyed over something just cause it's a "Harvard study."

I think what madmax wanted to say (sorry if I am putting words in your mouth) is that 95% of underage college students drink underage. There are more 21+ year olds at college now than ever cause of returning students and more people being on 5-6-7 year plans.

I don't think it has as much to do with drinking **regularly** as much as having the option. When I pledged we had a great many sisters who drank rarely, if at all. That doesn't mean that they wanted to join the WCTU.

If a fraternity wants to kick out every underager that drinks (and sticks to it for every instance, every chapter), fine, go for it. You are within your boundaries to do it, and will probably be lauded for it by many people. But I guarantee you, your fraternity will be very, very different. You might flourish, and you might disintegrate. The only way we can know is if a large national fraternity takes that path.

[Kapsig1]

Originally posted by 33girl


Oh, you mean the same Henry Wechsler who said it's possible to "binge drink" (the big Chris Farley quotes on that one) and not get drunk?? The same ol' Henry media whore Wechsler who doesn't use a TIME FRAME for all these studies? Come on Brad, you're a smart guy - I think you'd know better than to get all Cocker Spaniel eyed over something just cause it's a "Harvard study."

I think what madmax wanted to say (sorry if I am putting words in your mouth) is that 95% of underage college students drink underage. There are more 21+ year olds at college now than ever cause of returning students and more people being on 5-6-7 year plans.

I don't think it has as much to do with drinking **regularly** as much as having the option. When I pledged we had a great many sisters who drank rarely, if at all. That doesn't mean that they wanted to join the WCTU.

If a fraternity wants to kick out every underager that drinks (and sticks to it for every instance, every chapter), fine, go for it. You are within your boundaries to do it, and will probably be lauded for it by many people. But I guarantee you, your fraternity will be very, very different. You might flourish, and you might disintegrate. The only way we can know is if a large national fraternity takes that path.

33 - read the studies and THEN try tear them down. Please.

Brad

[shadokat]

I don't know that throwing people out of fraternities is necessarily the solution, but I can't say I do know what is. As college students, the opportunity to drink is there, and many take advantage.

Just a point, nationals do insurance on a chapter by chapter basis most times. If your chapter is on a high risk campus, or if you've been in trouble for alcohol or hazing or risk management, then you pay more for insurance. And yes, if you violate policies that are part of the national organization, then you do forfeit your right to the insurance. It is all part of the insurance policy. If you're a local, the insurance companies put provisions in those policies as well to prevent liability. If you break the law, the insurance company can deny you coverage. If they actually do cover the incident, they will then go after the person or persons who were at fault. It's called subrogation, and insurance companies do it all of the time.

[madmax]

Originally posted by shadokat
I And yes, if you violate policies that are part of the national organization, then you do forfeit your right to the insurance. It is all part of the insurance policy. .

Would it be fair to say that GLOs need insurance because they are high risk but non of their high risk activites are actually covered?