Don’t Get Drunk, or They’ll Call a Meeting!

(My latest op-ed for the King’s Chronicle, published Nov. 7, 2011)

 

On Tuesday, October 25^th, all residence students were cordially required to attend a mandatory lecture (masquerading as a “forum”) on alcohol. The evening’s entertainment consisted of two main parts: a reiteration of King’s’ alcohol policy for the illiterate, followed by an explanation of the new “Party Safe” program for parties hosted by off-campus students.

 

Call me sensitive, but I found the whole exercise more than a little offensive.

 

As far as could be discerned from notices about the forum, it was prompted by “several alcohol-related incidents on campus.” Presumably some students were being drunk and obnoxious in residence.

 

Now, drunks are certainly annoying. They tend to be loud and obnoxious, and I have no problem with Student Life dealing harshly with disruptive and, frankly, stupid behavior.

 

Yet this forum represents the exact opposite of that.

 

First of all, if certain students are being disruptive or destructive on campus, what logical reason is there for assuming that the problem could be solved by telling every residence student what they already know? While the intricacies of the alcohol policy may escape most students, every student knows liquor is not allowed on campus. Neither are disruption or destruction (whether they are the result of drunkenness or not). Beyond that, there is nothing that requires explanation.

 

Had the forum given students any new information, it would at least have been useful. Had the forum stated, for instance, “these behaviours have occurred – do not engage in them,” or “if you are caught drinking, disturbing or destroying on campus, you will be disciplined in this way,” these would have been things worth hearing.

But telling students information they not only already know, but already agreed to by signing the residence agreement, is a waste of everyone’s time.

 

The real issue is enforcement, not information. If some students are defying the rules, they should be punished (or disciplined, for the politically correct). If the problem persists, they should be punished much more severely the next time. If the problem continues still, the students involved should be evicted. Either the offenders will cease breaking the rules, or they will be removed. In both cases, the problem will be solved. Best of all, this approach won’t punish the vast majority of students in residence, who are obeying the rules, by needlessly wasting their time.

 

Second of all, let us consider the utterly baffling Party Safe program: this program will either be totally impotent or else completely overbearing.

 

So far, all students have been told about Party Safe is that is an information program for those who host off-campus parties. For now, we will overlook that, once again, the problem is not information or the lack thereof. We will overlook further the absurdity of forcing residence students to learn about a program which meaningfully applies only to non-residence students. (“We’ve called this forum to tell you that we’re planning on telling some other people some stuff”).

 

Consider instead the practical application of such a program, especially as it relates to informing Student Life about off-campus parties. What incentive is there for any party host to comply with this? Or for any residence student who attends a party off-campus? Unless someone labours under the delusion that on-campus rules can be used to control off-campus behaviour, the correct answer is, approximately none.

 

And rightly so. As much as some may try to deny it, Student Life has neither the ability, nor the responsibility, nor the authority to control off-campus behaviour. As soon as any students leaves King’s’ property, King’s has no more authority over them than Colonel Sanders.

 

Now, some might say, “but once a student returns to King’s’ property, don’t they again fall again under King’s’ authority?” The answer is, yes and no. Yes, King’s once again has authority over certain aspects of their behaviour. But, those aspects are limited to what they do on-campus. Meaning off-campus drunkenness, underage drinking, hazing, or every other ugly behaviour imaginable cannot be legitimately punished by King’s. BUT if anyone causes any disturbance or destruction on campus, whether it came as a result of off-campus drinking or not, those actions can and should be punished, swiftly and harshly.

 

The problem is that King’s is asserting too little authority where they have it, and too much where they don’t. Campus policy should allow students maximal freedom to act as stupidly as they please off-campus. Yet if students decide to act stupidly on campus, Student Life should dust off the rod of iron and deliver a swift blow to the rear.

 

This will accomplish two things. First, it will affirm that the authority which King’s has over students is contractual, not paternal: King’s can only restrict certain unhealthy behaviours, it cannot force students into living a healthy lifestyle. Second, it will encourage students to take responsibility for regulating their own actions, rather than be told what is good and what is bad by their university. Part of being an adult is doing what is right on your own initiative, not simply because Mommy or Daddy or a nannying university tell you to.

 

Party Safe amounts to nothing more than evading the real problem by trying to solve a false one. Surely we can do better.