Quote:
Originally Posted by ASTalumna06
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.."
|
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.
Quote:
|
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).
|
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 . . . ."?
Quote:
|
And we all hope that our sisters/brothers are reasonable (and not vengeful) people. Is that ALWAYS the case. Probably Not. Unfortunately.
|
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.
Threaded Mode
