Alums and alcohol in chapter houses

[skylark]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

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.

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. ;-)

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by skylark

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.

[33girl]

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.

[SAE_Alumnus]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

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).

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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by skylark

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?

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.

[33girl]

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.

[Titchou]

It's not an insurance driven ban. MJ could certainly provide coverage that would include allowing of alcohol...but who could afford it? And how would it be monitored? And it's just been in the past 10 years or so that all NPC groups went with MJ. Some were in FIPG with some fraternities. It's the litigious society that we are living in these days that is driving this issue. Along with rules for men in the house and pets. We just can't afford to take chances.