Cardinal Rule Broken by Our Greek Advisor ;-(

[Senusret I]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Since GC NPCers are quick to tell usernames that they cannot join one NPC sorority and then join another NPC sorority/

I am pretty sure most of these GCers would advocate submitting an inquiry to a NHQ if this new Dean claimed to be an initiate of 2 NPC sororities. Those GCers may not recommend a student be the one doing the investigating but they may be in favor of an anonymous (and relatively effortless) membership verification and/or report to an NHQ--or recommending the student hand the task to a nonstudent NPCer. Perhaps those GCers would not believe an NPCer who claims she was given permission to be initiated in 2 NPC sororities 10 years ago. Perhaps those GCers would also grasp why this dishonesty (on the Dean's part) or inconsistency (on the NPC sorority's part if the Dean is telling the truth) may contrast on both a personal and professional level with the Dean's roles at the institution.

*applause*

and

I want to know what sorority she's in.

[adpiucf]

First World Problems.

I've missed you, GC.

[DrPhil]

Yikes. People still use archaic phrases like "First World."

[SoCalGirl]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

Yikes. People still use archaic phrases like "First World."

I'm not sure I understand why you find the phrase archaic. We learned about first world vs developing nations / 2nd world vs third world in one of my economics classes. I've never thought of it as outdated or possibly offensive.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_World

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by SoCalGirl

I'm not sure I understand why you find the phrase archaic.

There are people and subdisciplines around the world who consider it outdated and derogatory. Such classifications are highly correlated with culture, race, ethnicity, and socioeconomics. The (predominantly white) people from the "First World" tend not to be the ones offended. Tell people from poorer and uncoincidentally darker shaded countries that they are "Third World" and some people do not care what you intended to convey regarding economists, capitalism, industrialism, etc.

[AlphaFrog]

I would think it less offensive used in a context as it was above (and largely how the meme has been used), because you're acknowledging the fact that you have a "problem" that, in comparison to starving children in Africa, is relatively insignificant. You are acknowledging your privilage to dote on frivolous things.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

I would think it less offensive used in a context as it was above (and largely how the meme has been used), because you're acknowledging the fact that you have a "problem" that, in comparison to starving children in Africa, is relatively insignificant. You are acknowledging your privilage to dote on frivolous things.

You are acknowledging your privilege all while perpetuating such privileges.

I know there are disciplines and people who find nothing wrong with it. That is absolutely fine despite the tone of my first post. However, there are also disciplines and people who find something wrong with it. I have been spoiled by people (personally and professionally--including some economists) who consider it archaic. My bad for allowing that to become my reality. LOL.

Back to the regular thread.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

I would think it less offensive used in a context as it was above (and largely how the meme has been used), because you're acknowledging the fact that you have a "problem" that, in comparison to starving children in Africa, is relatively insignificant. You are acknowledging your privilage to dote on frivolous things.

Yeah, this is actually the reason why some find it offensive - it's an implicit value statement.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by SoCalGirl

We learned about first world vs developing nations / 2nd world vs third world in one of my economics classes. [/URL]

Ditto

/onlycontribution