Drinking in Letters

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

I now feel like we’re splitting hairs. And if this is a violation of our national policy, then my entire chapter, along with our District President (who is now the Director of Collegiate Chapters) broke this rule. We all went out to eat at Applebee’s during a “closed weekend,” for lunch… I mean, come on… at what point do you draw the line?

Well, that's the question, isn't it? Where does a group draw the line?

To be fair, I don't think I was splitting hairs at all. It seems to me that the plain language of the policy you quoted says that insignia are not to be worn by any member, collegiate or alumnae, "in a location where alcohol is abused." Period, with no qualifications. You described a hypothetical where you are wearing your badge in a location (Applebee's) where alcohol is being abused ("someone across the bar, that I didn't know, was wasted and acting like a jackass").

I'm not questioning whether what you describe would be acceptable to your organization, nor am I suggesting that you, your entire chapter or your district president have been scofflaws. I'm just trying to fit it with the plain language of the policy you shared.

Sorry, but it seems to me that the example you gave proves 33girl's point.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Well, that's the question, isn't it? Where does a group draw the line?

To be fair, I don't think I was splitting hairs at all. It seems to me that the plain language of the policy you quoted says that insignia are not to be worn by any member, collegiate or alumnae, "in a location where alcohol is abused." Period, with no qualifications. You described a hypothetical where you are wearing your badge in a location (Applebee's) where alcohol is being abused ("someone across the bar, that I didn't know, was wasted and acting like a jackass").

I'm not questioning whether what you describe would be acceptable to your organization, nor am I suggesting that you, your entire chapter or your district president have been scofflaws. I'm just trying to fit it with the plain language of the policy you shared.

Sorry, but it seems to me that the example you gave proves 33girl's point.

Again, as I've said:

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

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.

If it has continued to work for the organization, and all members are of "reasonable intelligence" when it comes to this policy, and they know what is appropriate and what isn't, then I say it's doing its job.

And if a chapter doesn't follow this rule at all (as 33girl girl said has happened), and is blatantly breaking every aspect of it, then it would appear as though they have chosen not to follow this in the least, or they are not aware of the policy. It happens... not all chapters of all organizations know about/follow all of the rules all of the time. And I hope that if this particular chapter was discovered to be so obviously breaking this rule, that the national organization would take action.

The fact is, anyone can get drunk anywhere... regardless of whether or not alcohol is being served. To restrict the wearing of letters in that regard would be say that letters can never be worn anywhere.

So until an AST of a higher power comes knocking down my door, I will continue to live out this policy the way that I have!

By the way... the word "scofflaw" always makes me think of that one Seinfeld episode where Newman avoids the cop and getting/paying parking tickets...

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

By the way... the word "scofflaw" always makes me think of that one Seinfeld episode where Newman avoids the cop and getting/paying parking tickets...D

It's a great word, isn't it?

Please understand, I'm not trying to attack or criticise you or AST. You just provided a handy example of what I'd wager can be found in most any organization -- Greek or otherwise. I know I've seen it in organizations I belong to: The words of a rule a rule or policy say one thing, but the practical day-to-day interpretation and application of it differs in some way. What (we hope) keeps it from being a problem is that people are generally more aware of the interpretation/traditional application of the rule than they are of the actual words themselves, or at worst, there is a general understanding that "yes, we know the rule says this way, but what it really means is that way." I guess it's a professional hazard for me that when I've seen instances of this, my reaction is to suggest that we change the wording of the rule so that the wording is consistent with the actual application. Otherwise, I think what we're really doing is operating with two rules: a de jure rule that we ignore and a de facto rule that we follow.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

It's a great word, isn't it?

Please understand, I'm not trying to attack or criticise you or AST. You just provided a handy example of what I'd wager can be found in most any organization -- Greek or otherwise. I know I've seen it in organizations I belong to: The words of a rule a rule or policy say one thing, but the practical day-to-day interpretation and application of it differs in some way. What (we hope) keeps it from being a problem is that people are generally more aware of the interpretation/traditional application of the rule than they are of the actual words themselves, or at worst, there is a general understanding that "yes, we know the rule says this way, but what it really means is that way." I guess it's a professional hazard for me that when I've seen instances of this, my reaction is to suggest that we change the wording of the rule so that the wording is consistent with the actual application. Otherwise, I think what we're really doing is operating with two rules: a de jure rule that we ignore and a de facto rule that we follow.

I completely understand where you're coming from. And the problems lie in what we've both stated.

The "hope" (and I hate using that word) is that the intention of our members is not to try and work around such policies and bend the rules, but instead, is to use a good level of judgment when dealing with such situations.