When a camera pops out, every drink in our hand drops. It's not just NPC sororities. :P

yeah...I don't have that kind of personal responsibility :D

Back about 15 years ago, I was at a reception for a professional society with which my parents were involved. A photographer snapped a candid shot that included my parents, a couple of their colleagues, my then-fiance, and me. We were all holding drinks. The picture came out so well that it was published in the society's next newsletter........ and the drinks had been Photoshopped out. That's what Photoshop is for, people. ;)

[QUOTE=33girl;2039582]All NPC facilities are supposed to be dry. As for the organizations themselves, no, none of them are. If chapters choose to pass chapter policies prohibiting any members to drink at any function, that's their business (although I've never heard of such a thing).


Ah, thank you!

For AST, it is on a national level. But of course, I can't speak for all of the other NPCs/GLOs.

Personally, I think that the justification for this rule includes 3 main reasons:

1) It's a risk management issue
2) It perpetuates the stereotype
3) It's disrespecful

However, the how or why isn't really that important. As DrPhil said, worry only about yourself.

For some reason, the first thing that I thought of was that episode of Fresh Prince...

http://m.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&cli...&v=rdSWk6RerQ0

On my campus (a little less than 10k undergrads) it was completely taboo to be seen drinking with your letters on in public (or have any FB pictures with letters and alcohol). This was pretty universal among all IFC and NPC groups. The reason being was it just plays up the stereotype of greek life being only about partying and drinking. And on a campus our size, it would play into the minds of people to not join because of those stereotypes.

(This is not a slight to lucgreek)

I must remind GCers that something being taboo for NPC and/or IFC isn't synonymous with "taboo among Greeks." NPC and IFC aren't the only collegiate GLOs.

(It's the same as when GCers remind NPHCers that we aren't the only ones who stress lifetime commitments, etc. and the way we do things shouldn't be used to judge other GLOs)

I must also remind people that the whole "how will it make Greeks look" is not a universal concern for Greeks across councils and conferences. I only heard NPC/NIC (IFC?) in college who cared about that; and I never heard so much about "the Greek stereotype" until I started posting on Greekchat. NPHCers, for instance, have other concerns and stereotypes that have little to do with drinking and whatever else. Afterall, the Greek stereotype (drinking; the word "frat" being seen as an insult; etc.) is based on the generalized majority, which tends not to include BGLOs, MCGLOs, LGLOs.

Just something to think about.

At my school (a little less than 5k undergrads), the fraternity members all drank in their letters - for the most part, at their own parties - the sororities didn’t. Until.. I saw one sorority member drinking in her letters at a fraternity party. I thought it odd, but obviously didn’t say anything to her about it. Then a few months later, I saw more of her sisters doing the same thing out at the corner college bar (alumnae included), and I just assumed that it was OK in their organization. I think that seeing the split between the groups – the fraternities do it, the sororities don’t – originally just made me think that this is the way it was. Obviously that view eventually changed, but the whole situation wasn’t something I dwelled on.

Thinking back, I was simply told as a new member, “We don’t drink in letters.” No one questioned it, no one thought it to be a ridiculous rule… we just followed it. I think that the reasons why (it’s “disrespectful”) were just assumed… at least on my campus. I can’t say if others had reasons (official or not) explained to them.

The list that I provided earlier is just assumed reasons as to why a national organization might apply this rule.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_1INH3fOI6p.../o_rly_owl.jpg

I'm not trying to bust people, but that's contrary to what I've seen at multiple schools. (And I don't mean back in the day either.)

When we got an interim president at my alma mater, he really disliked the Greek system. It got to be so that if two students were straggling on home to the dorm and one had on letters and one did not, the one with letters would get written up and the one without would get off scot free - even if they were both in the same state of drunkenness. So people stopped wearing them out for a while because they're not dumb and they didn't want to get busted.

I wish groups would come out and say it IS this/risk management instead of wrapping it in the cloak of "it's disrespectful." As I said previously, if drinking in public is such a bad thing for a member of XYZ to do, they shouldn't do it at all. Plenty of people drink in sweatshirts that include the name of their college or the crest. Is that "disrespectful" to your college?

AST policy
Actually it depends on what they mean by "insignia."

/had this bookmarked for some other reason, I just don't know why.

Abuse =/= use. Plus, if you're at Applebee's drinking a coke and someone across the restaurant is getting shitfaced, what are you to do? Take your shirt off?

And I wasn't saying the policy didn't exist, just that it apparently is being interpreted in different ways by different members.

While I agree, the point is that it's a national policy. And I'd argue that any undergraduate alcohol-allowed event will have alcohol abuse at it barring MAYBE wine at a formal dinner in the house (but since houses are mandated alcohol free... yeah never mind.)

Directly from AST’s Policy and Position Statements:

Alpha Sigma Tau Sorority Insignia and Alcohol Use Policy

Alpha Sigma Tau Sorority prohibits collegiate/colony chapter members or alumnae from abusing alcohol or being in a location where alcohol is abused while wearing, using utensils with (cups, glasses, pitchers, etc.), or in the presence of Alpha Sigma Tau insignia, ritual regalia, or the Sorority’s Crest.

Now, whether everyone adheres to that or not is a different story.

After reading this again, under this rule, (because the word "abused" was used specifically) I could see having a glass of wine at a nice dinner while wearing your badge as being OK (which I have admittedly done before), but wearing letters to a bar, fraternity party, etc. would be unacceptable… regardless of whether or not it was the person in letters who was actually drinking.

ETA: Drole beat me to it. It takes me 5 years to complete a post.. but it's all good :D

If you can say that underage drinking = alcohol abuse, maybe yes.

If you're saying that any time there's an event with undergrads and alcohol everyone's using alcohol in an unsafe manner, no.

My point is that the way the policy is worded is really ambiguous and can get twisted around either way, either to save a chapter's ass or to bust them for things that they aren't necessarily doing. If you don't want people to wear letters to fraternity parties, your policy should say "don't wear letters to fraternity parties." Why is that so hard?

I believe AST (and the college/university) are the ones who should be concerned with that.

Although it's not clear, I think it's pretty clear. (if that makes sense)

To say specifically, “Don’t wear your letters to a fraternity party,” then creates room for someone to say, “Well, what about at the bar?” … then they specifically mention the bar, and then someone is bringing an AST mug to a friend’s house to get wasted. Then they have to specifically say each and every item you cannot have at these events and so on and so forth.


IMO, it’s basically saying “anywhere alcohol has the potential to (obviously) be abused, don’t wear anything having to do with the sorority.” If anyone wants to try to work around that somehow, be my guest, but I’d strongly advise against it.

And yes, someone could get wasted sitting at the bar in Applebee’s, but there’s a big difference in wearing your badge out to a dinner where the guy across the restaurant from you is denied another beverage, and wearing a lettered t-shirt to a fraternity party where you go every week and know that half the people there get sloshed. To compare the two is kind of silly.

I don't think I mentioned this in my earlier post...

My local sorority drew a very strict line where alcohol was concerned. We were not allowed to wear letters anywhere alcohol was being served. So you wouldn't ever be in a situation where you're sitting at Applebee's wearing your badge/letters and drinking a coke and the guy across the restaurant is being denied another beverage, because you wouldn't be allowed to wear your badge/letters into the Applebee's in the first place. It also eliminated the ambiguity of "is she really drinking just a coke, or is it a rum and coke, which is a no-no?"

Pledge rings were ok. They kind of had to be ... we were required to wear them at all times, and given that most restaurants around campus (and one dining hall on campus) had liquor licenses, our dining options would have been severely limited during our pledge period!

Yes, illegal use of the substance is considered abuse, as is binge drinking. I didn't say that everyone would be abusing alcohol, but that abuse would be occurring at any undergrad event. Their policy might be worded ambiguously but it lets them say "just don't drink in your letters."

Phi Mu
 

I hope I don't sound like a horrible alumna for saying this but, even as a Chemical Dependency Therapist, if I saw a sister wearing letters at Applebees and she was having a martini, mixed frozen drink, etc.-I would think nothing of it (if she wasn't acting out of hand and getting sloshed).

If I saw a sister wearing letters at the bar, throwing back a few (too many) and making people think, "Wow, sisters of Phi Mu must be a bunch of drunken party girls," I would have a problem with that.

For me (not other GLOs-meaning I'm not pushing my belief on other people of other GLOs to feel the same as me), I would not make an issue of it if it wasn't being done in excess.

Then DO that. List every instance. Honestly, it's not that hard. It's the same thing as the hazing policies - they're so ambiguous that they can either CYA or hang you out to dry.

Actually, no, that isn't what it's saying at all.

But the way the policy is written - "being in a location where alcohol is abused" - fits it perfectly. If someone was being vengeful and really wanted to bring a sister up to standards, they could do so in that instance and it would fit the policy. The policy doesn't say that the person has to be sitting next to you, it just says "a location."

I'm not picking on AST here, I'm sure many if not most Greek orgs have similar ambiguous policies on a variety of things.

I read your posts as picking on AST. That's also why I believe AST (and the college/university) are the ones who should be concerned with all of this. That's also why I believe GLOers should be concerned with their own GLO's policies.

I would find it hilarious if a non-Delta wanted to go back and forth with me about Delta's policies and procedures regarding alcohol or anything else for that matter. It would be in that person's best interest to make a general point instead of choosing a specific GLO and its policies.

I'm not at all. If Sigma Alpha Epsilon or Tri Delta had a similarly ambiguous post and it was on GC for all to see and disect on the internet, I'd do the same thing. They just happen to be the ones whose sister posted it here.

And I'm not going "back and forth" - they can make whatever policy they want. I'm just stating that this particular one is written in a way I find ambiguous, the same way we talk about how this or that news article or bulletin from whoever's HQ is well done or poorly done.

And I'd think you were picking on them and needed to mind your own GLO's business. LOL.

I tend to agree, although this can be one of those areas where GLOs look to other organization's policies for examples.

Without getting specific as to any particular policy, there is a legal principal that a statute or regulation that imposes penalties on a person ought to be sufficiently specific that a reasonable person can understand what is prohibited and what it not. Otherwise, the statute or regulation might be struck down as "void for vagueness."

What I hear 33girl saying is that GLO policies about alcohol should follow that principle and be specific enough that just by reading them and without explanation or interpretation, a member can tell what is prohibited and what isn't. For my money, that's in everyone's best interests -- the members and the GLO.

Again, that general point can be made as a general point. GLOs have risk management and policy people. Challenging specific GLOs' policies and procedures operates under the assumption that those GLOs don't have people working on this in coalition with colleges and universities; and that "you" know something that these specific GLOs are missing.

Like I said before, you have to be specific without being too specific. I don't think that any organization/institution/government has policies that are detailed in the way that you explain, because to create such policies would leave room for someone to say, "But you didn't include THIS, so it's ok for me to get away with it.." As you mentioned, hazing policies can be the same way, but to attempt to list every single thing that can be considered hazing, something will be missed, and someone will claim that they can do it, because nowhere in the policy did it explicitly state that they couldn't participate in that exact activity.

Well then I clearly don't understand my own organization's policies. Please explain it to me.

As with any policy such as this, I'm sure it's dealt with on a case-by-case basis. If I'm sitting in Applebee's as a 55-year-old alumna, having a glass of wine after work, and I'm wearing my badge, I'm sure it wouldn't be a problem, and it wouldn't draw any attention (even if someone across the bar, that I didn't know, was wasted and acting like a jackass). If, however, I just turned 21 and I showed up to Applebee's in a lettered shirt, and I'm pounding drink after drink, slurring my words, stumbling to the bathroom, and starting fights with the people next to me, I would hope that another sister would at least say something to me about it. And if I was brought in front of Tau Honor Council because of it, I deserved it.

And we all hope that our sisters/brothers are reasonable (and not vengeful) people. Is that ALWAYS the case. Probably Not. Unfortunately.

in·sig·ni·a (http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifn-shttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/ibreve.gifghttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/prime.gifnhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gif-http://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/schwa.gif) also in·sig·ne (-nhttp://img.tfd.com/hm/GIF/emacr.gif)
n. pl. insignia or in·sig·ni·as 1. A badge of office, rank, membership, or nationality; an emblem.
2. A distinguishing sign.


A distinguishing sign of membership would include letters of any kind. The only part that I find to be slightly ambiguous would be the 'location where alcohol is being abused' part... but again, we all hope that our members aren't "out to get us."

Basically, if this policy was such an issue and there were so many questions and concerns about it, I'm sure it would be changed at the upcoming Convention in order to make it more specific. As with many policies, until an issue arises or a loophole is found, it continues to read the same and serves its purpose.

Government policies are, or should be, written that way. It's not necessarily a matter of listing every possible way that the policy can be violated. It's a matter of being sufficiently specific as to what is prohibited.


At the risk of drawing a (probably well-deserved) rebuke from Dr. Phil, I'll put this as a question: Why would this not violate your policy, which says (per your quote) that the sorority "prohibits . . . alumnae from . . . being in a location where alcohol is abused while wearing . . . insignia . . . ."?

That's not what's meant by reasonable It's not an assumption/hope that a rule will be applied reasonably (although we do, of course, hope that); it's that a regulation should be written in such a way that a hypothetical person of reasonable intelligence would understand what is and what is not prohibited.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 2040322) At the risk of drawing a (probably well-deserved) rebuke from Dr. Phil, I'll put this as a question: Why would this not violate your policy, which says (per your quote) that the sorority "prohibits . . . alumnae from . . . being in a location where alcohol is abused while wearing . . . insignia . . . ."?

I now feel like we’re splitting hairs. And if this is a violation of our national policy, then my entire chapter, along with our District President (who is now the Director of Collegiate Chapters) broke this rule. We all went out to eat at Applebee’s during a “closed weekend,” for lunch… I mean, come on… at what point do you draw the line?

Ok, new scenario… I’m still the 55-year-old wearing my badge… except I’m not drinking this time. Instead, I went to the mall after work to pick something up. I stopped in the food court to eat, and there were a bunch of teenagers next to me who were drinking out of water bottles that clearly contained something other than water. They were loud, obnoxious, slurring their words, and were clearly drunk. Would I have to leave/take off my badge?

Could someone still put up a fuss and say, “Nope, sorry.. violates national policy”..? Sure. Which brings me to…

Quote:

That's not what's meant by reasonable It's not an assumption/hope that a rule will be applied reasonably (although we do, of course, hope that); it's that a regulation should be written in such a way that a hypothetical person of reasonable intelligence would understand what is and what is not prohibited.

I understand the "reasonable intelligence" aspect of it. I just don't think I worded it well.

My point is, people find their way around rules/laws every day. It happens. And when it does, rules are changed. It’s why we have National Conventions every 2-3 years… to review our constitutions and make amendments. It’s why there are amendments to the Constitution of the United States… and numerous other documents I won’t mention here. Times change, people change, rules change. What might be reasonable/understood/relevant today, might not apply tomorrow. That’s all I’m saying. And again…

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06 (Post 2040291) Basically, if this policy was such an issue and there were so many questions and concerns about it, I'm sure it would be changed at the upcoming Convention in order to make it more specific. As with many policies, until an issue arises or a loophole is found, it continues to read the same and serves its purpose.

Well, that's the question, isn't it? Where does a group draw the line?

To be fair, I don't think I was splitting hairs at all. It seems to me that the plain language of the policy you quoted says that insignia are not to be worn by any member, collegiate or alumnae, "in a location where alcohol is abused." Period, with no qualifications. You described a hypothetical where you are wearing your badge in a location (Applebee's) where alcohol is being abused ("someone across the bar, that I didn't know, was wasted and acting like a jackass").

I'm not questioning whether what you describe would be acceptable to your organization, nor am I suggesting that you, your entire chapter or your district president have been scofflaws. I'm just trying to fit it with the plain language of the policy you shared.

Sorry, but it seems to me that the example you gave proves 33girl's point.

;)

Again, as I've said:

If it has continued to work for the organization, and all members are of "reasonable intelligence" when it comes to this policy, and they know what is appropriate and what isn't, then I say it's doing its job.

And if a chapter doesn't follow this rule at all (as 33girl girl said has happened), and is blatantly breaking every aspect of it, then it would appear as though they have chosen not to follow this in the least, or they are not aware of the policy. It happens... not all chapters of all organizations know about/follow all of the rules all of the time. And I hope that if this particular chapter was discovered to be so obviously breaking this rule, that the national organization would take action.

The fact is, anyone can get drunk anywhere... regardless of whether or not alcohol is being served. To restrict the wearing of letters in that regard would be say that letters can never be worn anywhere.

So until an AST of a higher power comes knocking down my door, I will continue to live out this policy the way that I have! :p

By the way... the word "scofflaw" always makes me think of that one Seinfeld episode where Newman avoids the cop and getting/paying parking tickets...

:D

It's a great word, isn't it? :D

Please understand, I'm not trying to attack or criticise you or AST. You just provided a handy example of what I'd wager can be found in most any organization -- Greek or otherwise. I know I've seen it in organizations I belong to: The words of a rule a rule or policy say one thing, but the practical day-to-day interpretation and application of it differs in some way. What (we hope) keeps it from being a problem is that people are generally more aware of the interpretation/traditional application of the rule than they are of the actual words themselves, or at worst, there is a general understanding that "yes, we know the rule says this way, but what it really means is that way." I guess it's a professional hazard for me that when I've seen instances of this, my reaction is to suggest that we change the wording of the rule so that the wording is consistent with the actual application. Otherwise, I think what we're really doing is operating with two rules: a de jure rule that we ignore and a de facto rule that we follow.

I didn't necessarily mean sisters only, since the policy is apparently widely available online, although it could apply to them as well.

I completely understand where you're coming from. And the problems lie in what we've both stated.

The "hope" (and I hate using that word) is that the intention of our members is not to try and work around such policies and bend the rules, but instead, is to use a good level of judgment when dealing with such situations.

Very true.

From what my understanding is on my campus the Pan Held council has it written you can't drink at any time while wearing letters and our IFC leaves it up to the individual houses to decide the policy they want to use. Im assuming alot of it depends on your national policy.

When I was a new member I was taught not to drink, smoke, or cuss in letters because it was "disrespectful". While I don't think it's disrespectful for those of age to drink responsibly in letters, most collegians are 18, 19, and 20. So I get it. A lot of them will drink illegally and in excess, so branding drinking in letters as "disrespectful" is another way to encourage members not to do it. I think campus culture has a lot to do with whether or not drinking in letters (or smoking/cursing) is acceptable or not. My greek system was small and conservative...none of the (sorority) chapters allowed drinking/smoking/cursing in letters, so when a member of any chapter did forget to take off their jersey before margarita night she got looks.

Since I'm an alumna on the same campus where I was a collegian I get weird looks if I go to dinner and have a drink while wearing a lavaliere or formal/sisterhood/greek week shirt. Drives me nuts.