"No Contact" and Strict Silence" Nonsense

[Kapsig1]

Parrothead points out (in a related thread) a question that I've never gotten a LOGICAL response to - why have "no contact rules" imposed by Panhell/IFC's?

GLO's have battled, and continue to battle to maintain our "freedom of association" for years. Why do most Panhelenics and some IFC's find it necessary to hand those same rights over to others? Doesn't this weaken our stance when we attempt to fight overzelous administrators that want to infringe upon them? While not an attorney, I'll ask the question - WHAT IS THE HARM in allowing an "open market" interaction to occur? I've heard all the "level playing field" arguments. But what does that teach our undergraduates in terms of real world experience? Does anyone think that KPMG and a small 4 man consulting firm are operating on a level playing field? Of course not. I realize this is NOT a business environment, but if part of our responsibility is to help prepare our members for graduation/post graduation realities - I believe we're doing them a disservice with all the "no contact" stuff.
Defend away - but think first!

Brad Bracken
A decidedly Keynesian Economist