Alums and alcohol in chapter houses

DeltAlum · #1 09-03-2007, 02:39 PM

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.

Titchou · #2 09-03-2007, 02:51 PM

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.

macallan25 · #3 09-03-2007, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

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.

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.

DeltAlum · #4 09-03-2007, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macallan25

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.

SWTXBelle · #5 09-03-2007, 07:11 PM

Or they don't drink in their rooms -they go to parties and bars for that!

dukedg · #6 09-03-2007, 08:25 PM

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!

James · #7 09-03-2007, 09:28 PM

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.

skylark · #8 09-03-2007, 09:55 PM

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.

fantASTic · #9 09-03-2007, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James

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.

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.

Taualumna · #10 09-09-2007, 09:55 PM

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

UGAalum94 · #11 09-09-2007, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taualumna

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.

RU OX Alum · #12 09-10-2007, 11:58 AM

i would say "to hell with you all" as well

UGAalum94 · #13 09-10-2007, 05:30 PM

I agree that it might not be common knowledge.

I had no idea that there was a blanket NPC, insurance driven ban.

I knew that we couldn't have alcohol in our house back in the day, but I wouldn't have realized that it was a property based rule rather than an alcohol serving rule (like, having to employ bartenders who checked IDs or something).

Since I don't think there's anything weird or bad about people who are legally old enough drinking wine at dinner, I don't know that I would have known.

(On the other hand, I think someone else who served on a house committee would have known and mentioned it at the time, but who knows? Some people are freakily anti-confrontational.)