Archived Edition: May 11, 2004 | Back to Current	Jul 31, 2010

Alcohol report receives mixed initial reviews
Ainsley O'Connell - Senior Writer

With the release of its report last Wednesday, the Committee on Undergraduate Life (CUL) brought to the fore its analysis of alcohol policy at the College. What remains to be seen is whether administrators take up the report as a launching pad for change or allow the proposals to fall prey to institutional inertia.

For the time being, the tone of discussion in Hopkins Hall is marked by more questions than answers. Administrators emphasize the practical considerations that will play into their evaluation of the proposals, which include the creation of a permanent task force to address issues related to alcohol, a no tolerance policy on hard alcohol in first-year dorms and a reconsideration of the Beirut ban.

Apart from the task force, there is little consensus within the administration as to the feasibility of the committee’s ideas. Doug Bazuin, director of residential life, said reactions to the proposals were “all over the map.”

Along with others in the administration, Bazuin described next fall as a time for “brainstorming,” and stressed the long-term nature of any change in alcohol policy. “It’s not going to be a quick fix, and I would dare to say that we’re not going to have a fix,” he said.

“Not a lot of revolution happens at a place like this. It’s more evolution,” said Harry Sheehy ’75, athletics director.

When Dean Roseman was asked whether the proposed task force would be assigned a timetable, she said, “I’ve decided that I can’t have one.” Roseman echoed Bazuin’s skepticism regarding a quick fix to the alcohol problem on campus, and said that broad-based policy shifts take time. She likewise argued that policy shifts require a high level of community buy-in – “If we don’t have community buy-in, it’s not going to work,” she said – a sentiment shared by several of her colleagues.

“Most solutions are going to have to have the students on board,” Sheehy said, speaking to the role of student-athletes.

“I think the bottom line is, the students have to change the culture,” said Jean Thorndike, director of campus safety. “It really has to be generated by the student body.”

In addition to the need for student-driven interest and concern, recent history also testifies to the importance of administrative buy-in. The last CUL report to discuss alcohol policy and drinking culture, released in 1998 under the leadership of Henry Art, director of the Center for Environmental Studies, had little impact on College policy. Art attributed the tepid response his report received to the climate at the College during President Hank Payne’s tenure.

“We were in effect told that the administration wasn’t going to be receptive to recommendations,” Art said. “The president told me when I checked in with him early on in the process that…he felt underage drinking was something that would always be with us, and that the College in general and the CUL in particular should not spend a lot of time or money or resources even investigating [alcohol].”

Art said he was encouraged by the College’s stated commitment to re-examining policy, and by extension culture, but cautioned, “It’s a bit like thinking of changing the course of a supertanker, it’s not going to occur overnight.”

Like Art, Sheehy said the issue of alcohol had “more teeth” in the eyes of the current administration. “I think there’s more of a sense of urgency,” he said.

As for the specifics of the report, administrators speak cautiously about the likelihood of imposing an effective ban on hard alcohol in first-year dorms. Thorndike said the increased monitoring required by such a rule would infringe upon students’ privacy and place a greater strain on Security’s resources. “In order to monitor hard alcohol, we’d have to be very active patrolling the dorms,” she said.

Further complicating the proposal, Dave Boyer, associate director of Security, said his officers were “not necessarily finding hard alcohol that often” in first-year dorms.

Administrators raised questions of equity as well as questions of enforcement. “Why are we going after the first-year students?” Roseman said. “The CUL would say because one class behaves more dangerously than the others.”

“We’re certainly going to consider everything that’s in [the report],” said Dean Dave Johnson, but added, “I can’t see it working, yet. I can’t imagine how we could segregate one part of the campus from the rest. At upperclassman house parties, the entry system is no longer an effective big brother or big sister.”

Veronica Mendiola, College Council (CC) co-president, said she did not think a hard alcohol ban would be “effective or feasible,” citing the argument that a no- tolerance policy would drive first-year drinking behind closed doors. It would be “almost impossible to control,” Mendiola said.

The idea behind the no-tolerance policy, according to Scott Grinsell ’04, a member of the CUL, was to give JAs a “license” to keep hard alcohol out of their entries without having to play the role of the policing parent.

“I think having that policy would be helpful for the JAs,” Thorndike said.

As the system stands, JAs decide individually whether or not to procure hard alcohol for their first-years, leading to inconsistencies across entries. Though he was not ready to sign on to the CUL proposal, Johnson said he would like to at least “get everyone on the same page” and construct an “even philosophical approach” for next year’s JAs.

A potential deterrent suggested by the CUL to discourage first-year violators – a housing draw penalty – raised a number of eyebrows. “It could produce some nightmares,” Bazuin said.

“If we had 20 kids who all went to the bottom of the room draw,” Boyer said, “we could end up with every problem child in a single area.” Though at least “they’d all have something in common,” he said.

Administrators also expressed some skepticism at the third of the committee’s central proposals, a review of the College’s unwritten prohibition against Beirut. Even the report itself indicates tension within the CUL regarding Beirut, which has become for students the classic symbol of the College’s misunderstanding of student drinking patterns.

“Part of me wants to say, is [the ban] so bad?” said Bazuin, who served on the committee. “I have issues when an event is so seemingly focused around alcohol, when it’s not an addition to the event or part of the event, but it is ‘The Event.’”

Roseman took issue with the logic behind the committee’s criticism of the ban. The CUL had an “incorrect sense” that Campus Safety spends a lot of time on Beirut, she said.

According to Boyer, lifting the ban “wouldn’t decrease the amount of time we spend on Beirut.” Security responds to noise complaints and reports from custodians of damaged property, he said; officers are not shutting down games so much as dealing with their aftermath.

“We’re not actively out there on Beirut patrols,” Thorndike said. And while she allowed that the ban merited reconsideration, she said she still viewed Beirut as “high-risk.”

Thorndike and Roseman were both open to the idea of a Beirut policy compromise, including the option of allowing students who are of age to register games with Housing Coordinators. Registering games, they said, would allow the College to track students responsible for property damages.

“No matter what the [Beirut] policy is, we still get to the problem of underage drinking,” Thorndike said.

As much as students may wish otherwise, the problems associated with alcohol refuse to go away.

“We have to appeal to everyone’s common sense,” Johnson said. “With the Health Center gone, we’re more vulnerable.” And even if there is limited agreement as to how to go about dangerous alcohol consumption, “Certainly the goal isn’t up in the air,” he said.