massimo wrote:I agree that university officials "more or less" chose to ignore these parties thrown by Chadima, where people under 21 were being served, thereby "more or less" sanctioning them.
This is sort of what I'm saying, but not really. First, I'm not really interested in talk about underage drinking here. And I don't even know whether these parties were ignored by Chadima's higher-ups. I'm sure they knew exactly what was happening. Sports reporters who traveled to bowls apparently knew about the parties.
My beef is that having senior officials drinking to excess and approving the purchase of lots of booze on an official trip is insane, criminal assault or not. Like with the Solomon case, I'd like to know that responsible parties are addressing the drinking. Want to get a beer after the council meeting? Fine. Want to have a dozen drinks and get plastered with staff? Not okay.
When you put people in situations like this, where it's a gathering of co-workers and the booze is flowing freely, regrettable situations are almost inevitable, even if they don't rise to this level.
Have you ever heard from a coworker that your company's holiday parties used to really be crazy? There's a really good reason why they're not like that anymore: People do stupid things when they're drunk and grievances are filed, valued employees quit, lawsuits are threatened, etc. Smart HR managers are doing away with that kind of thing and slimmer budgets are just helping them make the decision.
So either the UW is way behind the times or there's so much money and influence from the jockocracy there that they've been able to overrule the risk managers.