New alcohol policy misses the point
By Editorial
At a Neighborhood University Relations Committee meeting in 2004, university administrators unveiled a tougher, more uniform alcohol policy. Fines were introduced for first-time drug and alcohol offenders. Windows for leniency were closed. And parental notifications and higher fines were set for students with off-campus alcohol violations that involved Santa Clara police.
The idea was that tougher sanctions, combined with alcohol education programs, would deter underage students from drinking.
That hasn't happened.
In a mass e-mail sent out last week, University President Paul Locatelli S.J., said that 34 students received medical attention for alcohol related illnesses during fall quarter, 17 of which were sent to the hospital. This is an increase from the 13 people who were hospitalized during Fall Quarter 2005.
In the same e-mail, Locatelli chastised Santa Clara students for "bold and reckless disregard for the law and university common standards," before announcing that, yet again, sanctions for alcohol violations would be increased.
An actual review of the new alcohol policy shows that no dramatic changes have been made. What this e-mail and "new" policy will bring, however, is more scare tactics that may drive students to even more high risk drinking.
This new policy ignores a truth that is neither unique to Santa Clara nor to this generation: College students like to drink. No amount of restrictive policies or administrative crack-down will stop students from drinking. They will only find more creative -- and possibly more dangerous -- ways to do it.
These policies will only lead students to drink more behind closed doors and off campus, or take shots and chug beers faster before community facilitators come through their dorm on rounds.
What is perhaps most worrisome about all of this is the very real concern that students, for fear of disciplinary action from the university, could choose not to get help for a drinking problem, or even worse, hesitate to call for medical help when one of their friends needs it.
If just one of those 17 students who were transported to the hospital had not received the help they needed, the effects could have been disastrous, and even fatal. However, when students fear parental notification, disciplinary probation that restricts them from joining student organizations or being kicked out of housing, some could hesitate to make the call. This is unacceptable.
Instead of fighting the inevitable fact that college students will choose to drink, the university should focus more on strengthening education and counseling, and creating a more open culture surrounding issues related to alcohol. Its entirely possible that some of the high-risk drinking at Santa Clara is due to the way that alcohol is stigmatized and made to be taboo.
If the administration is truly concerned about students health and safety, other steps could be taken. Santa Clara's dorms remain far too easy for unwanted visitors to enter. And the Cowell Student Health Center, in addition to having limited staff and resources, is closed on the weekends.
This should in no way be taken as an endorsement for high-risk, dangerous drinking. But the university's new, aggressive policies toward students that abuse alcohol are not the way to remedy this problem. In the end, they will only make the situation worse.