Alums and alcohol in chapter houses
 

Would love to hear what others think of this, especially the NPC ladies:

A woman I work with is an alumna of another NPC group, and she told me about an interesting situation her chapter dealt with recently.

A fellow alum from her chapter was a real "Super Alum". She helped implement a scholarship for the chapter in memory of another alum's young daughter (who died many years ago), and has a daughter of her own who she would bring to visit the chapter house for events like Homecoming while this girl was growing up. About 10 years ago (right before SA's daughter was about to enter college there), the chapter was struggling with membership numbers and was thisclose to losing their charter. Apparently Super Alum stepped in, organized a big fundraising effort among the other alums to keep the chapter afloat financially while they worked on improving their numbers, and ultimately ended up helping to save the chapter (it's apparently one of the top chapters at this school now).

The daughter ended up pledging her mother's chapter shortly after, won that GLO's prestigious annual named-after-their Founder(s) scholarship, and went on to have a happy experience with this GLO, following in dear old mom's footsteps.

Flash forward to last summer. Apparently this woman's daughter's new member class had a reunion in the chapter house. School was not in session, and there were no collegians there. Just the young(er) alum members from the daughter's era. For whatever reason, Super Alum was there too. On the last night of their reunion, they had a very nice meal and apparently without consulting anyone (like the Collegiate Advisor), SA served wine with the dinner - in the chapter house.

When the powers-that-be from that local chapter found out, I guess they gave SA a very stern scolding for breaking a pretty big rule. SA disagreed, the two sides went round and round, and ultimately SA played the "to hell with you guys" card and refuses to have anything more to do with this chapter.

Personally, I'm with the collegiate chapter advisors/staff - these no-alcohol (and other) policies are in place for very good reasons. But...at the same time, everyone was alum, no collegiates were present (underage or otherwise), no one got drunk and out of control (just a glass of wine with dinner), they're all adults, and on and on.

But then again...if you let this sort of thing slide, who's to say you won't later be up against excuses like "But I'm alum and school's not in session. I want my husband/boyfriend/fiance/guy I just met at the bar/<fill in the blank> to sleep here with me tonight." Situations like that that end up being a 'gray area' nightmare.

I just thought this was an interesting situation and am curious what everyone else thinks. Thoughts?

It's been a long time, but we had something set up if we needed alcohol for an event (i.e. Wine and Cheese on Parent's Weekend), we would go to the House Association for permission. As long as it was never a "party", it was approved.

Now, that was many years ago and liability laws have changed. When I think back, most of my sisters were not 21 but sipping wine. Even though they weren't drunk and in their parent's presence, we could have been liable. I'm no legal expert, but you could have someone like SA sign a waiver that she accepts all responsibility.

I never lived in a house, so I'm not sure why those rules are in place... our housing allowed alcohol as long as you were 21. (At least, I'm pretty sure that wasn't against DG rules... I turned 21 right before our chapter closed)

Anyway, I don't see the big deal as long as everyone present was 21, but yes they should have asked permission... unless of course they knew it was wrong and were trying to hide it, in which case, why's she so upset? It's her fault!

I guess my only thing is that if she only got a stern warning, why did she have to throw a fit? They didn't do anything to her, just asked that she abide by house rules!

I can absolutely tell you that Delta Gamma's alcohol policy states there is to be no alcohol on ANY delta Gamma property - this means house, steps, parking lot, anything. Absolutely NO waivers are given for alum functions. They have been asked for and have been turned down. This is one policy for which waivers are never granted.

My thoughts exactly... a warning = SA's ego deflated. It sounds like SA thought she was the sh*t with her GLO because she "saved" a chapter and everyone should be so grateful for her self-sacrificing GLO spirit... who does HQ think they are making her follow pesky rules that she could probably even change if she really wanted to (some sarcasm, I hope, was detected).

Yeah, the spirit of the rule probably isn't violated since it was wine at an alum-only dinner... but shouldn't HQ be able to decide FIRST if this is a worthy exception before some SA (who is so involved in the sorority it is unlikely that she didn't know of the rule) decides that she has the authority to make the exception because of who she is?

Exactly. No need to continue.

People get too much of a stick up their ass about alcohol rules. One (or two) glass(es) of wine for overage alums does not pose a Risk Management issue.

I hope they were wearing their pins/letters too...just for the full effect.

I know it's wrong, but that scenario is friggin' funny. :)

I'm with AF on this one. It was a glass of wine at dinner. Not a huge everyone-grab-your-own-bottle-and-let's-party-like-we-were-19-again event.

I'm not sure why SA got all crazy because it's not like they seriously reprimanded her.

As far as the overnight guest scenario goes, being an alum = being out of college = some sort of income = hotel room. There is no reason for an overage alum who is not in college, or the house mom, to be staying in a sorority house during the summer or at any time for that matter.

Anyway, if the chapter & housing corp. was serious about making sure nothing happened in the house while everyone was out, they would have made sure the house was locked and no one had access to it. Apparently something happened that allowed this group of women in unsupervised

Here's the deal -whether the rule is stupid or not, it is still a directive from Headquarters. The alumnae should have had their meal at a nice restaurant, or not had wine in the chapter house. What kind of message does it send to the collegians when a "super alum" flouts the rules? You are setting the stage for all KINDS of unnecessary conflicts. If SA loves her GLO, she should follow the rules. I suspect she once vowed to do just that. And if she really doesn't like the rule - change it. I suspect, based on my own experience, that it had more to do with her ego than anything else.

Our local "Super Alum" and I had a discussion about alcohol. She & her husband have a very active social life, and occasionally, she goes from someone's party to the chapter. She was wondering if she was wrong having even a glass of wine at the party, prior to going to the Suite. We decided that telling the chapter that she had come from a previous engagement which included wine with dinner was the best way to go.

As innocent as this reunion seems to have been, there seems to have been a lot of over-reaction on both sides. SA & her daughter knew better, and the GLO was right - but in defense of both sides, they ALL should remember to "pick their battles". A politely worded "of course, you know better" from the GLO and a politely worded, "I'm sorry, it will never happen again" would have saved a lot of angst in this case.

What a shame all of this gets so over the top.

When I used to visit the house, I always stayed there with the guys.

Some other people seem to have a (THE) stick up somewhere.:rolleyes:

No one should violate GLO policies, alum or otherwise. But GLO policies need to be communicated to alum members particularly if they might have changed since the alum was active.

That said, I can just as easily imagine that the correcting of SuperAlum was regarded as an opportunity to take her down a peg as I can imagine it was tactfully handled but SuperAlum overreacted in return. Since none of us were actually there, it seems unlikely that we'll ever know.

But I will say this, although I don't really think that anyone should be visibly intoxicated at even event*, I don't think that groups need to be weirdly Puritanical about their alcohol policies.

For liability reasons, a blanket policy about serving and consuming alcohol on the groups' property makes compete sense to me. Feeling obligated to abstain from drinking or explain your drinking because you anticipated going on the property later seems a little odd to me for members or alums over the age of 21.

*honestly, yes, even undergraduate members over 21 probably shouldn't be visibly liquored up at formals or whatever. But I understand that reality falls short of the ideal.

A couple of questions occur to me.

Honestly, how many sorority houses are totally "dry?" Meaning nobody has a little bottle of something hidden in her room.

Is the national dry rule for the house (physical house) or the chapter(s)?

Does Nationals own the house, or the House Corporation?

If it's the House Corp, if there are no undergraduates present, is it still a sorority house? (Air Force One is not designated that if the President isn't on board.)

In the overall state of things (fair or not) some people are "more equal" than others. (Thank's, I think, to Mr. Orwell)

So, in the final analasys, is it worth losing a fairly influential alum for what would appear to be a very trivial thing?

Maybe.

Maybe not.

Because all NPC groups purchase their insurance from the same source - MJ Insurance - I can tell you that all NPC groups have a rule about no alcohol in the house. It is a condition of our coverege. Now, we all know that rules are broken all the time. But the rule is there.

I've been in some of the sorority houses down here often........and I have never seen even a hint of alcohol. Same with some other schools as well.

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.

FWIW, even if it was an alum who never gave a dime to the chapter, if she showed up with a bottle of wine or something, she also should receive a gentle warning, not her head handed to her on a plate. Treating ANY alum like that is unacceptable. It's just stupider in this case since they probably sent a lot of $$ walking out the door.

Excellent point.

It is also a fact that racism still exists in the "real world," but that doesn't mean we should teach students that racism is okay. If we want today's students to make the world a better place, they have to believe they have the power to change it - that we can someday achieve equality (in terms of race or social status, or any other factor for that matter).

This type of attitude certainly doesn't give much promise for a better future.

Alumni should not automatically have the respect of active members. I know plenty of Greek alumni who perpetuate stereotypes and give nothing back to their organizations. Alumni should have to earn the respect of actives by being positive role models and upholding the values of their organization.

Certainly, the alumna in question has done much to earn respect, but I would be careful about making generalizations.

Alcohol does not belong on sorority property, regardless of whether or not school is in session or it is an alum-only event.

In the case of SA, I think it should have been handled as tactfully as possible for her to save face and defer to her to "educate the alums b/c they will respect" her position more... so she would want to continue to support the organization. If it had been handled as a face-to-face meeting and given her the chance to tell the other alums in her own way... a la, "Oopsies, girls! We're not allowed to have alcohol at the chapter house and I don't know where my head was! It was great to see all of you, though, and we'll have to remember to have our drinks off-campus next time!"... then I think she wouldn't be such sour grapes.

And Alums do deserve respect. If the collegians and HQ's want that lifetime alumnae support, they need to show some respect to the alums who have come before them. Especially if they ever hope to ask for $$$ or volunteers to support the chapter. You can't just go to the alums with outstretched hands. You have to cultivate and maintain a relationship. The alum has a lot of options on how she wants to spend her time and money. She isn't obligated to donate those to the sorority if she feels that all she is an open pocket book and a warm body.

And yes it sucks if you personally don't care for that individual. But this isn't about being BFF... it is entirely political, and sometimes you have to do things to keep programs going.
We easily forget that sororities are non-profit organizations. SA may be a PITA and a martyr, but that chapter probably would not exist right now had she not stepped in and helped rally the alumnae and raise the money necessary to keep it alive.

Couldn't they have gone to a restaurant or something that was NEAR the house? And then coffee and dessert at the house afterwards?

They could have, probably, but I don't think there's any reason to think that they knew they weren't supposed to have alcohol in the house, so it probably never occurred to them to do so.

Just to throw out these two cents: it's wrong to do anything that your GLOs policies forbid in the chapter house, but let's keep in mind that the real issue here is apparently about the kind of insurance the groups have.

There's nothing independently, morally wrong with a bunch of alumnae drinking wine in the chapter house, so nobody should really be on their moral high horse about the issue.

They just needed to tactfully explain that it was against the rules. Now, if she did know it was forbidden and did it anyway, I think the chapter is probably better off without her.

disagree
 

Yes, they should automatically have respect, unless they do something to show that they don't merit it. Maybe the guy who "perpetuated a stereotype" gave $5000 to his fraternity's philanthropy or helped a brother who was in emotional trouble, but didn't feel the need to wave it around just so he could hear everyone say what a paragon of Greek virtue he was. As you said, be careful about making generalizations.

You don't bitch someone out in the rudest way possible who was simply trying to do something nice for someone, if they just didn't know the rules. Especially if the rules are pretty freaking ridiculous, antiquated and sexist to begin with.

Sorry for the interruption, but what's a PITA?

I wouldn't be so sure that she didn't know the rules. If this was an NPC sorority, then it is common knowledge that no alcohol is allowed in the houses.