So they're either very smart (and good at hiding things) or they always obey the rules to the letter.

Or they don't drink in their rooms -they go to parties and bars for that!

A couple of years ago a few UC Berkeley DG alums wanted to have a reunion at the house over the summer (they wanted to stay at the house a couple of nights, reminisce, etc.). We discussed it with our regional housing team and they were given the all clear as long as they did not bring or consume alcohol at the house. I'm not sure if the event ever happened, because I moved to LA shortly after.

I know in the past (60's or 70's?) the Berkeley chapter used to do a mother-daughter fashion show fundraiser and they would apply for and receive a waiver for alcohol to be served in the house. Of course, back then the drinking age was lower... I'm not sure when that rule changed, but I have never heard of anyone since I have been involved with DG getting a waiver or even applying for one (I pledged in 1997).

As far as I understand it, beyond being the fraternity's or sorority's policy, the ban on alcohol in the house is also part of the insurance agreement!

There are few absolutes when it comes to social rules.

In this case I would say that its obvious that the people that really pressed this point didn't appreciate Super Alumna on some level or another prior to this infraction . . . because in perspective the problem is not even worth mentioning versus her contributions to the chapter.

To put it another way. If someone saved my life, supported me and constantly looked out for me it wouldn't occur to me to harshly berate them about breaking a relatively small rule after the fact. Which would be the personal equivalent of what SA did for her chapter.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that there is a really petty lack of loyalty and gratitude to the SA that I am surprised the more mature alum and chapter members allow.

I think I take a really different perspective than James. To me it isn't her contributions versus the rule breaking. To me it is saying that these are the rules -- we don't care who you are. And I didn't get the impression from the OP that anything had happened to SA or her daughter because of the event. Just, "don't do this again." Contrast that to having to plead your case to your chapters judicial/membership standards/equivalent committee if you are an active.

One point I'd like to make is that if no one mentioned the fact there was wine there, then there wouldn't have been any kind of reprimand. So, not only did they have the wine but at least one person was dumb (or obstinate) enough to brag about it or at least mention it in passing. When I have a casual glass of wine at a meal, I don't normally mention the wine specifically. That fact alone makes me think that at least someone at that dinner KNEW that they were breaking the rule and didn't care.

I also find the enforcement of the rule fair to the active girls. Many of them are of age and would probably love to have a senior sisterhood dinner and responsibly drink some wine. If the alums were allowed to do it, I would be pretty pissed as an of-age active. Furthermore, regardless of whether I was or wasn't of age, as an active I'd tend to take my HQ's alcohol policy a lot less seriously if the alums didn't even respect it while in the house.

True. HOWEVER...

Does the fact that she has donated money and time give her the right to do whatever she wants, even though it is breaking sorority rules? No. Maybe the rule was stupid, maybe they overreacted, but your contribution to the chapter does not give you an 'all clear' when it comes to obeying the rules. If it did, then where is the line drawn?

The rules are the same for everyone. Bottom line, she should have asked, and not made such a big fuss over being informed that she had broken the rules.

I've always thought that rule was a bit dumb anyways, but that's not the point here.

So, the question to me is, was a "very stern scolding" necessary and appropriate as oppossed to maybe a letter explaining the problem with some degree of diplomacy? This isn't an undergraduate being dressed down, but someone who had been important to the chapter and might have been again sometime in the future.

I'm not sure it's been established whether the rules were explained, given that the circumstances and situation were different from normal chapter/house operations. Perhaps and explaination and a mild rebuke might have been more in order.

For that matter, did anyone in the chapter or house corporation contact Nationals for guidance on whether this is really a problem given that it was an alumni function and all the participants were alumni and of drinking age? It doesn't appear that any law was broken and rules, even "big" ones can sometimes be relaxed in special circumstances.

I'm big on obeying the rules, but there is an exception to everything. In this case, it appears to me that the sorority has lost two potentially important alumni over an infraction that would prove pretty minor in the overall scope of things.

It seems possible to me that there was an over-reaction that may cost the chapter much more than it anticipated.

Rules such as this should be enforced only with the organization's best interests at heart. It seems to methat keeping loyal and active alums sometimes supercedes rules -- especially when the breaking of htem does no harm.

I'm fine for having exceptions (so long as someone gets pre-approval rather than just "doing it"), but why should those exceptions only be available to alums (or even more limited, the super alums)? Doesn't that send a message of selective enforcement to the rest of alums and actives?

College students are old enough to get a taste of the "real world". In the "real world", money, power, influence, contributions, etc get you privileges and exceptions (even after the fact). No, it's not "fair" to the average Joe, but that's life. If she was doing something potentially harmful/dangerous to herself or others, I would feel differently. It's wine in small quantities. It's nothing to get your panties in a bunch over.

Well, the purpose of the rule is to keep college kids from drinking too much, right? So if an alum -- a super alum drinks and is punished, why are we even worrying about enforcing the rule?

The world is full of double standards.

Personally, if I were said alum, I'd realize my mistake and allow the house corp, etc. to make a show about how deadly serious they were about the policy's enforcement. It'd be an agreed thing and one with no serious consequences.

I think in that regard, the group has missed out on a great opportunity to make a statement to the undergrads.

That said, it is stupid to alienate one of your group's biggest supporters for breaking a rule where by doing so, no possible harm could have occurred. In every enforcement of any rule, a group needs to weigh the costs vs. the benefits of doing so. Alienating an influential and giving alumna is simply not worth 'making a point' in my book.

-- Far be it for me to tell another organization what they ought to be doing though.

They most likely did not lose only this alum, but also a few others. Someone that influential takes others with her.

The better idea would have been for the alums of the local chapter (I'm assuming you mean the housing corp board) to go to the regional director and let her know what happened, explain this woman and ask the RD to send her a letter or something. It probably would have prevented her getting pissed off and explained the policy so it didn't happen again.

When you have people FROM YOUR OWN CHAPTER reading you the riot act when you damn well know what they did in college - it doesn't fly well at all. Not to mention, I'm guessing some of the women who "dressed her down" were jealous of her influence.

Agreeing whole-heartedly with his whole post, but especially this part. As I said, a round of "I'm sorry, but we need to reprimand you as an example," and "I'm sorry, I shouldn't have" would have gone a long way towards keeping peace in the GLO.

Life's often not fair. However, that isn't an excuse if you are perpetuating the unfairness. What if that is what the courts said whenever someone argued in front of them to have the laws applied equally? Yes, money and power create influence, but shouldn't sorority leaders strive to avoid that corruption?

By the way... my panties are perfectly unbunched today, thank you. ;-)

I wasn't actually talking about you...I was talking about the sorority leaders.

Panties were definitely firmly bunched in that situation.