Drinking in Letters

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Abuse =/= use. Plus, if you're at Applebee's drinking a coke and someone across the restaurant is getting shitfaced, what are you to do? Take your shirt off?

And I wasn't saying the policy didn't exist, just that it apparently is being interpreted in different ways by different members.

While I agree, the point is that it's a national policy. And I'd argue that any undergraduate alcohol-allowed event will have alcohol abuse at it barring MAYBE wine at a formal dinner in the house (but since houses are mandated alcohol free... yeah never mind.)

[33girl]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

While I agree, the point is that it's a national policy. And I'd argue that any undergraduate alcohol-allowed event will have alcohol abuse at it barring MAYBE wine at a formal dinner in the house (but since houses are mandated alcohol free... yeah never mind.)

If you can say that underage drinking = alcohol abuse, maybe yes.

If you're saying that any time there's an event with undergrads and alcohol everyone's using alcohol in an unsafe manner, no.

My point is that the way the policy is worded is really ambiguous and can get twisted around either way, either to save a chapter's ass or to bust them for things that they aren't necessarily doing. If you don't want people to wear letters to fraternity parties, your policy should say "don't wear letters to fraternity parties." Why is that so hard?

[DrPhil]

I believe AST (and the college/university) are the ones who should be concerned with that.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by 33girl

If you can say that underage drinking = alcohol abuse, maybe yes.

If you're saying that any time there's an event with undergrads and alcohol everyone's using alcohol in an unsafe manner, no.

My point is that the way the policy is worded is really ambiguous and can get twisted around either way, either to save a chapter's ass or to bust them for things that they aren't necessarily doing. If you don't want people to wear letters to fraternity parties, your policy should say "don't wear letters to fraternity parties." Why is that so hard?

Although it's not clear, I think it's pretty clear. (if that makes sense)

To say specifically, “Don’t wear your letters to a fraternity party,” then creates room for someone to say, “Well, what about at the bar?” … then they specifically mention the bar, and then someone is bringing an AST mug to a friend’s house to get wasted. Then they have to specifically say each and every item you cannot have at these events and so on and so forth.


IMO, it’s basically saying “anywhere alcohol has the potential to (obviously) be abused, don’t wear anything having to do with the sorority.” If anyone wants to try to work around that somehow, be my guest, but I’d strongly advise against it.

And yes, someone could get wasted sitting at the bar in Applebee’s, but there’s a big difference in wearing your badge out to a dinner where the guy across the restaurant from you is denied another beverage, and wearing a lettered t-shirt to a fraternity party where you go every week and know that half the people there get sloshed. To compare the two is kind of silly.

[aephi alum]

I don't think I mentioned this in my earlier post...

My local sorority drew a very strict line where alcohol was concerned. We were not allowed to wear letters anywhere alcohol was being served. So you wouldn't ever be in a situation where you're sitting at Applebee's wearing your badge/letters and drinking a coke and the guy across the restaurant is being denied another beverage, because you wouldn't be allowed to wear your badge/letters into the Applebee's in the first place. It also eliminated the ambiguity of "is she really drinking just a coke, or is it a rum and coke, which is a no-no?"

Pledge rings were ok. They kind of had to be ... we were required to wear them at all times, and given that most restaurants around campus (and one dining hall on campus) had liquor licenses, our dining options would have been severely limited during our pledge period!

[33girl]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

Although it's not clear, I think it's pretty clear. (if that makes sense)

To say specifically, “Don’t wear your letters to a fraternity party,” then creates room for someone to say, “Well, what about at the bar?” … then they specifically mention the bar, and then someone is bringing an AST mug to a friend’s house to get wasted. Then they have to specifically say each and every item you cannot have at these events and so on and so forth.

Then DO that. List every instance. Honestly, it's not that hard. It's the same thing as the hazing policies - they're so ambiguous that they can either CYA or hang you out to dry.

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

IMO, it’s basically saying “anywhere alcohol has the potential to (obviously) be abused, don’t wear anything having to do with the sorority.” If anyone wants to try to work around that somehow, be my guest, but I’d strongly advise against it.

Actually, no, that isn't what it's saying at all.

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

And yes, someone could get wasted sitting at the bar in Applebee’s, but there’s a big difference in wearing your badge out to a dinner where the guy across the restaurant from you is denied another beverage, and wearing a lettered t-shirt to a fraternity party where you go every week and know that half the people there get sloshed. To compare the two is kind of silly.

But the way the policy is written - "being in a location where alcohol is abused" - fits it perfectly. If someone was being vengeful and really wanted to bring a sister up to standards, they could do so in that instance and it would fit the policy. The policy doesn't say that the person has to be sitting next to you, it just says "a location."

I'm not picking on AST here, I'm sure many if not most Greek orgs have similar ambiguous policies on a variety of things.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by 33girl

I'm not picking on AST here, I'm sure many if not most Greek orgs have similar ambiguous policies on a variety of things.

I read your posts as picking on AST. That's also why I believe AST (and the college/university) are the ones who should be concerned with all of this. That's also why I believe GLOers should be concerned with their own GLO's policies.

I would find it hilarious if a non-Delta wanted to go back and forth with me about Delta's policies and procedures regarding alcohol or anything else for that matter. It would be in that person's best interest to make a general point instead of choosing a specific GLO and its policies.

[33girl]

I'm not at all. If Sigma Alpha Epsilon or Tri Delta had a similarly ambiguous post and it was on GC for all to see and disect on the internet, I'd do the same thing. They just happen to be the ones whose sister posted it here.

And I'm not going "back and forth" - they can make whatever policy they want. I'm just stating that this particular one is written in a way I find ambiguous, the same way we talk about how this or that news article or bulletin from whoever's HQ is well done or poorly done.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by 33girl

If Sigma Alpha Epsilon or Tri Delta had a similarly ambiguous post and it was on GC for all to see and disect on the internet, I'd do the same thing.

And I'd think you were picking on them and needed to mind your own GLO's business. LOL.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I read your posts as picking on AST. That's also why I believe AST (and the college/university) are the ones who should be concerned with all of this. That's also why I believe GLOers should be concerned with their own GLO's policies.

I tend to agree, although this can be one of those areas where GLOs look to other organization's policies for examples.

Without getting specific as to any particular policy, there is a legal principal that a statute or regulation that imposes penalties on a person ought to be sufficiently specific that a reasonable person can understand what is prohibited and what it not. Otherwise, the statute or regulation might be struck down as "void for vagueness."

What I hear 33girl saying is that GLO policies about alcohol should follow that principle and be specific enough that just by reading them and without explanation or interpretation, a member can tell what is prohibited and what isn't. For my money, that's in everyone's best interests -- the members and the GLO.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

What I hear 33girl saying is that GLO policies about alcohol should follow that principle and be specific enough that just by reading them and without explanation or interpretation, a member can tell what is prohibited and what isn't. For my money, that's in everyone's best interests -- the members and the GLO.

Again, that general point can be made as a general point. GLOs have risk management and policy people. Challenging specific GLOs' policies and procedures operates under the assumption that those GLOs don't have people working on this in coalition with colleges and universities; and that "you" know something that these specific GLOs are missing.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Then DO that. List every instance. Honestly, it's not that hard. It's the same thing as the hazing policies - they're so ambiguous that they can either CYA or hang you out to dry.

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.." As you mentioned, hazing policies can be the same way, but to attempt to list every single thing that can be considered hazing, something will be missed, and someone will claim that they can do it, because nowhere in the policy did it explicitly state that they couldn't participate in that exact activity.

Actually, no, that isn't what it's saying at all.

Well then I clearly don't understand my own organization's policies. Please explain it to me.

But the way the policy is written - "being in a location where alcohol is abused" - fits it perfectly. If someone was being vengeful and really wanted to bring a sister up to standards, they could do so in that instance and it would fit the policy. The policy doesn't say that the person has to be sitting next to you, it just says "a location."

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). If, however, I just turned 21 and I showed up to Applebee's in a lettered shirt, and I'm pounding drink after drink, slurring my words, stumbling to the bathroom, and starting fights with the people next to me, I would hope that another sister would at least say something to me about it. And if I was brought in front of Tau Honor Council because of it, I deserved it.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I tend to agree, although this can be one of those areas where GLOs look to other organization's policies for examples.

Without getting specific as to any particular policy, there is a legal principal that a statute or regulation that imposes penalties on a person ought to be sufficiently specific that a reasonable person can understand what is prohibited and what it not. Otherwise, the statute or regulation might be struck down as "void for vagueness."

What I hear 33girl saying is that GLO policies about alcohol should follow that principle and be specific enough that just by reading them and without explanation or interpretation, a member can tell what is prohibited and what isn't. For my money, that's in everyone's best interests -- the members and the GLO.

And we all hope that our sisters/brothers are reasonable (and not vengeful) people. Is that ALWAYS the case. Probably Not. Unfortunately.

in·sig·ni·a (n-sgn-) also in·sig·ne (-n)
n. pl. insignia or in·sig·ni·as 1. A badge of office, rank, membership, or nationality; an emblem.
2. A distinguishing sign.


A distinguishing sign of membership would include letters of any kind. The only part that I find to be slightly ambiguous would be the 'location where alcohol is being abused' part... but again, we all hope that our members aren't "out to get us."

Basically, if this policy was such an issue and there were so many questions and concerns about it, I'm sure it would be changed at the upcoming Convention in order to make it more specific. As with many policies, until an issue arises or a loophole is found, it continues to read the same and serves its purpose.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by 33girl

If you can say that underage drinking = alcohol abuse, maybe yes.

If you're saying that any time there's an event with undergrads and alcohol everyone's using alcohol in an unsafe manner, no.

My point is that the way the policy is worded is really ambiguous and can get twisted around either way, either to save a chapter's ass or to bust them for things that they aren't necessarily doing. If you don't want people to wear letters to fraternity parties, your policy should say "don't wear letters to fraternity parties." Why is that so hard?

Yes, illegal use of the substance is considered abuse, as is binge drinking. I didn't say that everyone would be abusing alcohol, but that abuse would be occurring at any undergrad event. Their policy might be worded ambiguously but it lets them say "just don't drink in your letters."

[als463]

I hope I don't sound like a horrible alumna for saying this but, even as a Chemical Dependency Therapist, if I saw a sister wearing letters at Applebees and she was having a martini, mixed frozen drink, etc.-I would think nothing of it (if she wasn't acting out of hand and getting sloshed).

If I saw a sister wearing letters at the bar, throwing back a few (too many) and making people think, "Wow, sisters of Phi Mu must be a bunch of drunken party girls," I would have a problem with that.

For me (not other GLOs-meaning I'm not pushing my belief on other people of other GLOs to feel the same as me), I would not make an issue of it if it wasn't being done in excess.