Nike isn't a private organization where you must be invited to be a member. Nike is a public company that sells its goods and services to whoever chooses to pay for them. The comparison is completely silly and invalid.

This is true, but I think her question is still valid. SHOULD GPhiB (or any sorority) be able to have control over non-members representing themselves as members? Because it seems to me that that is exactly what Johanna has done. She is no longer a member of Gamma Phi Beta, but by simply wearing that shirt, she has made almost everyone believe that she is. Therefore, she is representing an org that she is not even a part of.

However, Greek organizations license their logos and symbols to companies that sell merchandise to the public. I've never been asked to show my badge or initiation certificate when I've purchased something with my organization's symbols. So in essence, Greek merchandise is sold to whoever chooses to pay for it, much like Nike.

Do you ever bring anything valid to the table? Or are you just an incessant troll with nothing better to do than post one liners?

Yes, Nike and a GLO are quite different. However, as gonegreek says, the letter merchandise is still sold to any member of the public willing to pay for it. Perhaps a better analogy would be sports team licensed merchandise. Chances are good that someone walking around in an LA Lakers T-shirt isn't actually on the team. Do the Lakers have any control over what people can do while wearing their shirts?

Well, I wouldn't say it's silly & invalid.

Regarding the legal matter, it just isn't something that everyone knows. I only know about it because I just took a class on Constitutional law. (Wouldn't it be great to say everyone remembers things learned in high school classes?)

When we agree to become members of organizations (whether they're Greek, jobs, etc.), we do have a choice on whether we want to follow any of the (reasonable, meaning legal) restrictions place on us: we can join & do what's asked of us, or we can choose to not join. As someone mentioned earlier, the prohibition of taking those rights away only applies to the government.

Granted, if she is no longer a member, that's different. I don't even know if there are reprecussions for that, because she wasn't wearing her letters while making any false accusations about the organization.

Excuse me???? That was a joke between me and my soror. And speaking of wearing letters, etc. what does your screenname mean?

Now back to the discussion at hand and the real posters. Delta has licensed vendors for which we must give approval to what they sell. But we have no control over the non-licensed vendors--all we can basically do is threaten to sue them if they misuse our symbols, but who really has the funds to do that?

As for selling merchandise, that would also be hard to control since many people (non-members) buy 'nalia for their friends or relatives.

The biggest issue I see in this case is the fact that Johanna chose to resign her membership, yet still wear the 'nalia. In the BGLO world we call that perpetrating. And it is not unusual to "ask" a perp of your org. to give you their 'nalia.

I also think that the sorority in this case may be able to bring legal action, because of the signed documents.

ROFL!

At the same time, if I wear a shirt that says Harvard Alumni Association Member on television, that doesn't necessarily mean that I'm a member of it -- it means I'm wearing a t-shirt, not necessarily that I'm a member. And if you believe that a person is a member of an organization merely because they are wearing some letters, then I have some ocean-front property in Utah to sell you.

Joanna probably got that shirt while she was part of the organization, and she hasn't thrown it out yet. After a member quits or is asked to leave an organization, a national sorority doesn't exactly have the right to demand all merchandise with their letters back -- she may have purchased it from a store, not her headquarters. If organizations don't like seeing ex-members wearing their stuff, they should be more careful about who they pick for membership.

I'm sure there's a legal precedent on the likelihood of things like this....i.e. a 10 year old girl wearing a Lakers shirt is obviously not a member of the team. Anyone who would think she is is stupid.

And I'm sorry, but when someone got terminated from my chapter, we went to her dorm/apartment and removed her merchandise...if she was enough of a nut job to buy more off the internet or from the Greek store and wear it, we would have made sure everyone knew she was NOT a member. If this was my chapter and someone who got terminated was wearing my letters, I'd be screaming to MTV and posting on their boards 24/7 until they blurred the letters out.

I know this probably isn't something the Gamma Phis want to speak about, but honestly, sometimes it depends why someone terminated. If she terminated simply because she couldn't afford it, they might still consider her a sister and this is why they're not raising hell with MTV. She still shouldn't be wearing letters, however, if she's no longer an official member.

But I bet Harvard alumni would be running to their association directory to see if you are listed. And who knows what they might do when they find out you are not.

This is exactly how I see it. To be honest, I think it makes her look a little sad to still wear the letters of an org that she doesn't want to be a part of anymore.

That was how we felt after my little was asked to leave the sorority. She claimed she didn't want to be there anymore either, yet still wore the t-shirts all the time. It didn't make her look good.

Did she consent to this, or did you just feel entitled to enter her dorm/apartment and remove items?

shut up

When someone was terminated it was explained to her that she was no longer a member and as such did not have a right to the insignia of the org. The girl's big usually went over with the prez or whoever, and the girls terminated didn't have a problem with it...they knew it was coming. If there was a real problem, she would be given $$$ for the expensive items like her jacket.

No one was entering the girl's place and removing items without her being there. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Well, yeah, we figured that much.

If someone were to formally disassociate herself from my sorority, she has relinquished all rights and responsibilities as a member. That includes but is certainly not limited to wearing 'nalia.

Can I give you a big hug and stuff?

Exactly. It really isn't a difficult concept to grasp. If someone formally disassociates herself, she is expected to give up her ritual, pin, and other items. It would not make sense to want to keep those things. Unless the person is trying to be disrespectful.

:p

Yes.

WTF....?

Wow, does your national organization have people sign a clause to a Greek Letter Search and Seizure agreement? Why did you have to go thorugh someone's apartment, can't you just be respectful enough to ask her not to wear it?

That is really sad, especially since some people choose to disaffiliate because of finances, illness, or other personal issues in their life.

If I ever disaffiliated from my sorority, it would be for very good reason, and I certainly wouldn't let people come ransack my place for their letters. Who is the psycho now?

Let me ask this:

When you type "disaffiliate" what do you mean?

When I type "disaffiliate" or "disassociate," I am talking about people who do not want to be a Delta anymore. That surpasses financial, health, and personal issues. I am not simply talking about someone who is inactive or nonfinancial for a period of time. Therefore, choosing to relinguish membership through national headquarters is something that should be well thought-out and should be irreversible.

Some people do not willingly return all of their sorority items. In that case, I see nothing wrong with the sorority going to retrieve the items. This does not require force or ramsacking because the person should have no problem with completely letting go of something she no longer wants to be a member of.

Hey Mensa (tm KSigRC),

I just stated in a post that the girl's big or someone else in the sorority went to her house WHILE SHE WAS THERE and picked up the items.

Crack kills, please note. (tm AlphaFrog)

LOL.

Although I'd have no desire to continue wearing letters after disaffiliating, I'd have a big problem with former sisters entering my dorm room or apartment and going through my things. It's about privacy and boundaries, rather than a refusal to let go.

I'm talking about both actually.

I know of several situations where women have been faced with tough decisions about continuing their membership. For example, on some campuses with large physical houses, the sororities require members to live-in so they can pay-off their mortgages.

I've known of several instances where the chapters told people "live in, or else you're totally out" because they wanted to force someone into helping pay for the mortgage. For example, I had a friend whose father died during her junior year, her family lost their business, and she had to commute from home in order to afford school. But her sorority was having problems filling all the beds because they were below total -- so they told her to turn in her badge. It was a nasty thing to do, but it wasn't an isolated incident. It happens more often then people realize.

So technically, she was forced to "disassociate", but it really wasn't a choice.

If her chapter had gone to her home, gone through her drawers, and pulled out her sorority items, that would have been pouring salt in her wounds. That's nasty, and unsisterly.

hot damn

I think the word "ransack" is pretty harsh here. I completely understand what 33girl is saying. This is exactly what we did when someone disaffiliated.

And, I am talking about people who leave for problems other than something like money. In cases of someone not being able to afford to be a member, I think the only thing that they ask for is their pin, but I could be wrong in that.

I mainly think this is about situations where there may be tension between the member and the chapter (such as with my little) or someone just not wanting to be there anymore.

Then, I think it is completely reasonable for the chapter president and advisor to go to the girl's house (yes, while she is there) and ask that she return any sorority letters. This is generally done without any problems from the girl. Besides, I see this as being more of a quiet and private way of doing this. That way the she doesn't have to bring it all to the chapter house or anything.

When my little was asked to leave, I certainly wanted the chapter to get back things like her pin. Not because we all hated her, but just because she showed that she had no respect for our sorority.

Then make sure you have gathered those things and returned them along with your disassociation paperwork.

Some things are really as simple as they seem.

Oh for crying out loud in a bucket!!

NO ONE GOES THROUGH ANYONE'S CLOSETS, DRESSERS, UNDER BED BOXES, ARMOIRES, CHIFFEROBES OR ANY OTHER CLOTHING STORING DEVICES.

Please quit being enraged at something that simply doesn't exist.

^^^ Doesn't own 'nalia. I wonder why.

You must've had a sip of the stuff I normally drink when I post on here. :)

I'm talking about Crystal Light, of course. :o

It wasn't a nasty thing to do. It was part of the "business" of being in a sorority. When she signed her pledge to her group, she promised to fulfill certain financial obligations. I'm betting she was also told that she had to live in at some point.

Did she try to explain her situation to the standards board and the treasurer? Did she attempt to set up a payment plan?

and again, NO ONE EVER MENTIONED GOING THROUGH DRAWERS EVER EVER ANYWHERE!!!

Well, to avoid confusion, stick to what the rest of us are talking about.

You did use the words "WE" and "REMOVE" not "Ask For It Back". What are we supposed to think?

Well, that is the difference between organizations and perhaps even between NPHC and non-NPHC.

If someone in the NPHC is a duly initiated member, their inability to meet financial obligations and so forth isn't enough to expel the person from the organization. The person can be inactive or nonfinancial, but they can always be reinstated or reclaimed while in college or upon graduation.

So, I presume I'm talking about something different than what you initially were as well. :(

You're supposed to read the post where I clarified what I meant about 6 posts above yours.

Do you need a thesaurus?

I knew what she meant, but maybe that is because I saw it happen in my chapter.

Yep.

I know for a fact that some chapters do use force, but that's unfortunate and neither here nor there.