Frat Not Wholly Responsible

To the editors:

There is a saying that it takes a village to raise a child. If something were to go wrong, why should one single person or group be blamed, instead of the whole village? Why is it that the tragic death of Scott Krueger is wholly blamed on the members of the Phi Gamma Delta fraternity at MIT (Editorial, Nov. 4)?

It is true that Scott Krueger was drinking while under 21 and that the members of this fraternity in all likelihood encouraged this. However, there are other people who could have helped prevent such a tragic incident from occurring. First, one needs to consider whether or not Krueger had been exposed to alcohol and/or the dangers of the drug before using it. Did his parents discuss drinking and its effects with him? Was he aware of his own limits when it came to drinking?

Could the blame also partially lie with age restrictions on drinking? In other cultures where alcohol is regularly part of meals, incidents like this are likely extremely rare occurrences. Age restrictions on drinking lead to a mystique that may lead people, especially those underage, to binge-drink whenever they have the opportunity.

Phi Gamma Delta does deserve some blame, but I do not hold the fraternity or its members primarily accountable. In this litigious world, people are too quick to absolve themselves and point the finger at someone or some group instead of trying to determine how they may have played a role. RUSSELL D. RIVERA '99-'00   Nov. 4, 1998