Campus Hard Liquor Ban?
Over on One Dean’s View, Tim Spears writes that he and President of Middlebury College Ron Liebowitz “held a candid conversation with res life staff, deans, and Commons Heads about how best to address the damaging effects of irresponsible drinking in student life.” But what exactly was brought up at that candid conversation?
RAs around campus report that the possibility of a hard-liquor ban on campus was brought up at that meeting. As a way to curb irresponsible drinking, a hard liquor ban would mean that anyone caught with hard-liquor on campus would be at least cited, if not subject to further punishment. The loose idea/proposal ultimately falls to Dean of the College Gus Jordan to follow-up this year. But will he? And how will he go about proposing such a ban when there could be a quite an uproar or even backlash among students?
The pressure is certainly on. Middlebury College President Ronald Liebowitz spoke at the First-year Convocation just over a week ago saying, “The irresponsible use of alcohol, though committed by a relatively small minority of students, is by far the greatest cause of disrespectful behavior toward the community here at Middlebury. I should point out that I am not suggesting, or even advocating, that students should not drink. I know better… I am, however, saying that those who do drink irresponsibly need to understand how their behavior often results in disrespect toward their fellow students, staff, and, in indirect ways, their faculty, and that they are diminishing the quality of life and education not only for themselves, but for many others.” This follows his speech last spring at baccalaureate, which made for an interesting topic choice for a celebratory event. Associate Dean of the College Karen Guttentag confirmed that a non-judicial set of community standards may be on its way. Growing out of the student life division, a group “has been working on an initiative to define more clearly and accessibly the guiding principles of living, working and studying at Middlebury.” This falls directly in line the “community” theme that Liebowitz has set out.
According to several sources, a movement for a hard-liquor ban was attempted many years ago under the reign of Ann Hanson but was quickly challenged by students who vehemently opposed such a ban.
Interestingly enough, 51 Main, which opened this summer, has become the first college establishment to have a full bar (with hard alcohol).
MiddBlog wants to know: Do you support a campus-wide hard-liquor ban? What should the rules for such a ban look like? How should we look at this proposal in light of the Amethyst Initiative and 51 Main?
EDIT 9/17/08: Associate Dean of the College Karen Guttentag statements have been altered to reflect her comments more accurately.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
Comments are closed.
I thought a hard liquor ban was a bad idea a few years ago, and I continue to think that a hard liquor ban is a bad idea.
First, I think that 21+ students should be allowed to consume responsibly whatever type of alcohol they so choose. If the Choose Responsibility/Amethyst Initiative argument goes that “if you treat adults like children, then they are going to act like children,” then the college must regard its 21+ students adult enough to consume hard liquor. (Granted, I also believe 18+ adults should be allowed to consume whatever alcohol they so choose, but the law being what it is, that’s not really an option right now.)
Second, if college presidents and administrators are aware that drinking is going on “behind closed doors” and “in dark corners” by the under 21 crowd, then surely they must realize that a ban would encourage students of any age to consume hard liquor in the same fashion.
Third, for those students who insist on consuming mass quantities of alcohol and then behaving like foolish baboons and barfing all over the place (surely such a ban is directed at them), is a hard liquor ban really going to be a deterrent? If they can’t have a few shots of their preferred poison, then certainly they will have a few more bottles of beer or a few more glasses of wine to achieve optimal baboonery.
Personally, I would like to see the college come up with a better alcohol education program and develop tougher punishments for students who drink irresponsibly and are thus disrespectful to their fellow students, as well as staff, faculty, and college property. There are many students who do drink–hard liquor, even– responsibly and behave in an appropriate manner; the majority should not be punished at the hands of the few.
The questions at the end of this post ignore the most important question raised at the discussion that President Liebowitz and I had with res life staff two weeks ago—and that is how can we work together to curtail the amount of dangerous drinking and irresponsible behavior that takes place on this campus every weekend. Yes, we talked about the possibility of banning hard alcohol—all options should be on the table—but as President Liebowitz stressed at res life orientation, this problem cannot be solved by administrative fiat. It must be addressed within the student community, by students looking after one another and reinforcing community standards.
So let’s talk about the real issues, and put the matter of drinking rights to the side for the time being. Given the questions raised in President Liebowitz’s baccalaureate speech and the speculation around Nick Garza’s tragic death last spring—see MiddBlog on this: http://midd-blog.com/2008/08/28/no-criminal-charges-to-be-filed-in-garza-case/ —the need for such a discussion could not be more urgent. This is not a problem unique to Middlebury. Indeed, that is why 130 college presidents signed the Amethyst Initiative; they are not pushing for a change in the drinking age—Amethyst is not Choose Responsibility—rather, they want to discuss what they see is a national crisis in binge drinking.
The presidents have put their neck out by signing on to the Amethyst Initiative. Perhaps it’s time now for students to step up, and discuss how they plan to address the alcohol problem. And why not? Shouldn’t students take some responsibility for governing their community? Why must the solution come in the form of some new administrative policy, protocol, or “crackdown”? Let’s move beyond entrenched assumptions, and find some fresh approaches to a familiar problem.
As a res life staff member present at the discussion in question, I thought it important to debunk the statement that, “President Liebowitz stressed at res life orientation, this problem cannot be solved by administrative fiat.” He did mention it in the talk he made to introduce the topic, however it was the res life staff that stressed the importance that a top-down edict would never work. That President Liebowitz and Mr. Spears agree is encouraging.
But Dean Spears may reject my analysis of the situation. My question, then, is why introduce this topic at all? That is, if both President Liebowitz and Dean Spears acknowledge the unfeasability of such an edict.
Another thing that res life staff stressed at this orientation meeting was the fact that it’s time for students to step up and take responsibility for governing our community, as Dean Spears encourages (admonishes?) students to do in his post. The leadership of the group of students who led Feb orientation last year was an example one student gave of the fact that this is happening on campus.
If, Dean Spears, we need to talk about the real issues, let’s do it. The real issues are that students use excessive drinking as an alternative to genuine fun. As far as edicts go, I doubt the college can do much. As far as alcohol training and education, the college can do a lot. For instance, the statistics President Liebowitz shared about hard alcohol-related incidents vs beer and wine alcohol-related incidents was eye-opening. If women on campus were made more aware of how drastically instances of acquaintance rape increase with the imbibing of alcohol, maybe we would become more mindful. These are seminars that only happens for people who happen to get into special committees (ie the student wellness leaders or the community judicial board) who–shoot me for this generalization–probably don’t really need it.
As far as facilitating cross-commons social interaction, the college can also do a lot. With the new 4/2 commons system, the potential is huge for this to happen (especially since we are CLEARLY in a transition period where many new ideas can be implemented), but it won’t happen unless there are some more frank discussions like the one res life staff was fortunate enough to have with you both. Perhaps these haven’t been well-attended historically, but isn’t the input students provide at these meetings typically helpful? They are certainly more helpful than vague demands to rally the troupes and control our crazy selves.