<p>AlwaysAMom, I agree with all you’ve written. As I said, I do NOT agree with our school’s policy as far as jurisdiction for ANY kid 24/7 when not involved on school property or school sponsored events at those times and locations. I think they should then come under parental and police jurisdiction. As well, ONLY those kids who are participants in any of the school EC endeavors are the ones who have this policy. For instance, some years ago, before my kids got to go to high school, there was a party that involved drinking on a Sat. night at a home. Police were notified and all kids at the party who were in ECs got the substance abuse consequences (let’s not forget simply being there got you in trouble as they do not know which kids drank and which did not). So, it was almost spring vacation and many at the party were signed up and paid to go on the school trip to Greece and were not allowed to go (that’s an EC activity). I do not condone that party. I think those kids should be in trouble with the law and with their parents, however, not the school. It was not on school property, time, or associated with school.</p>
<p>"
I think this epitomizes compassion…Enabling is NOT compassionate."</p>
<p>I agree with berurah’s above statement. Too many people try to help problem drinkers by protecting them from their behavior’s consequences. That’s the worst thing that one can do.</p>
<p>“I think it’s crystal clear that the current way of doing things, by just stating that it’s forbidden and illegal, isn’t working, or we wouldn’t be having this discussion.”</p>
<p>Excuse me, but I believe the data indicate just the opposite. Drunk driving deaths are way down from where they were 25 years ago. Per capita alcohol consumption is at its lowest point in 50 years. What has been done has been extraordinarily successful, even if less so for (usually wealthier, usually white) students attending a small number of prestige institutions and state flagship universities, and those who seek to join 'em.</p>
<p>Idad - I think what you have is a reasonable hypothesis, and with these colleges having 7 or 8 fine applicants for every place (and they could have more if they wanted), I wish they would go about testing it. The tipping point theory suggests that somewhere there is a point where numbers become culture - where (as for example College #1), binge and heavy drinking overwhelms the possibility of a moderate drinking culture. They don’t need a culture of abstinence to make the school both a safer and better place for everyone, including those who drink. </p>
<p>But I don’t think they even raise your hypothesis, mostly because they haven’t the nerve. (At some point, the trustees are going to run out of patience, I would think - but now that they’re sinking almost $5 mil. into testing their “thinning” hypothesis, I think it will take awhile. If anything, I would have thought they’d be better off with fraternities, located three miles out of town. ;))</p>
<p>Soozie-Our school operates the same way and the kids in ECs all sign a contract.</p>
<p>mini, my comment was referring to the discussion at hand which is about college kids drinking. The discussion has not been about drunk driving or per capita alcohol consumption. And if it’s been so successful on the issue of college kids drinking, you’d never know it from the posts in this thread.</p>
<p>I can’t think of a single college in this state- big, small, public, private- that doesn’t have a significant drinking culture. During my daughter’s first week at Rice (after O Week, which is substance-free), someone threw up on her room’s entryway from a upstairs landing. SMU- well, just read Sorority or Pledge, or whatever that book was called. Baylor? All those good little Baptists can really put the booze away.
Back to high school- our local public schools also have the suspension for alcohol violations outside of school if you are in an EC. It has been challenged legally. I don’t know the outcome.
Mini- it is NOT just the rich white kids who abuse alcohol. They might get more attention when they do it, but just look at the Dallas papers sometime and see all the alcohol-related violence that happens in the less affluent schools and neighborhoods (teenagers).</p>
<p>“Mini- it is NOT just the rich white kids who abuse alcohol.”</p>
<p>Of course not! Who would ever suggest it us? But at “College #1”, rates are roughly 60% higher for the white students (they actually have data on this.) Wechsler’s studies show clear associations with both race and wealth. It is NOT a matter of them getting more attention. (By the way, the association between race and alcohol "need for treatment’ among adults is also well documented.) </p>
<p>“mini, my comment was referring to the discussion at hand which is about college kids drinking.” College drinking is also lower than it as 25 years ago, though not by as nearly as much as it is for general population. The shape of the college population has changed rather radically since then, with a major expansion in college attendance by working adults, the number of community colleges, on-line colleges, and commuter colleges, where (relative to the residential 4-year ones), heavy alcohol use rates are relatively low.</p>
<p>One of the things which is attractive about I-Dad’s hypothesis is that it acknowledges that a large proportion of campuses have drinking “subcultures”. That’s all well and good. The question then is how to limit its range, so the school doesn’t simply have a heavy drinking culture. It does schools a grave disservice to even begin to suggest in any way that they are “all the same” - colleges with similar student bodies and similar levels of academic rigor can have quite different cultures around drinking (that show up in the data), often depending heavily on what steps administrations have taken to control it. They CAN make changes, but takes guts and money to do so.</p>
<p>The “thinning” approach can be beneficial, but probably only when you already are below critical mass. It is a beneficial at Swarthmore where the housing lottery regulations (and tradeoffs in room selection) make it virtually impossible for a group of students to “take-over” a dorm. But, it works because you have relatively even distributions of students (a third abstainers, a third moderate drinkers, a third binge drinkers). Thus, after “thinning”, there are few dorm environments where any one group has critical mass to dictate social behavior – all three groups are served by reasonable accomodation. Or, to put it more bluntly, the drunks are outnumbered.</p>
<p>I don’t know how it would work where the results of “thinning” leave a majority or near majority of binge drinkers in EVERY dorm. Seems to me that would make life pretty uncomfortable for the abstainers, who were probably better served in the old system where at least they had their own corner of campus.</p>
<p>As for Trustees, I don’t anticipate any real help there. Unfortunately, the board of trustees at most of these schools has its own critical mass of enablers, alumni who remember their own frat days. Legal risk is becoming a driving force, but it seems to translate into the sort of “risk management” charade that fraternity organizations are implementing these days – not designed to reduce drunkeness, but rather designed to shield the organizations through “plausible deniability”.</p>
<p>What may force colleges to get up off their hands is the marketplace. It seems that the number of high-school abstainers and likely moderate drinkers is increasing and increasingly basing their college selection on these issues. For example, the Davidson president refused to allow the formation of sororities on the grounds that sororities are perceived as a negative in their pool of highly-qualified female applicants. </p>
<p>We know that strong applicants occasionally reject College #1 specifically because of the over-heated drinking scene. Not enough to hurt, apparently. But, if trends continue, it is possible to project a point in the future where having a “party-hard” reputation is not an attractive brand image. It is possible, for example, that exactly this dynamic explains why Asian-American enrollment at College #1 has declined by 18% over the last ten years, while continuing to grow from the same starting point a decade ago at immediate peer colleges. Given that College #1 was College #3 a decade ago, it seems counterintuitive that a decline in Asian American interest would accompany an increase in published prestige ranking, all things being equal. But, a strengthening jock, party brand identity over that same period of time could be a plausible explanation, given the low binge drinking rates among that segment of the customer base. Colleges are aware that their potential customer base in the decades to come will be less white and less concentrated in the northeast, so economics may gradually force them to tailor the product accordingly.</p>
<p>My3Sons…yes, the kids in our HS who are in ECs are held to a higher standard. What is kinda odd here, is that the kids who are more involved in these worthwhile activities sometimes are the ones who are not out hanging out and drinking. We have lots of uninvolved students in our school and lots who are not college bound. Many of those have lots of free time compared to the kids in heavy duty EC committments. In a way, don’t those kids at least as much need to have to be held to the 24/7 standard? I really still think that the school can and should only discipline for infractions on school grounds, school time, school sponsored activities. If they are going to make it a 24/7 rule which means evenings and weekends at home, apply it to the whole school population. It really is just my view and wasn’t an issue for me or my family personally but I just don’t agree with it. I think an after prom party at a parents’s house…the parents and kids involved need to be in trouble with authorities, not necessarily the school.</p>
<p>I’ve been away for a while, and it’s truly eerie to come back and read about Lucifer–who at times sounded so off-base that I thought he was a ■■■■■. So sad. But I’m also concerned about how wide-spread this alcohol abuse seems to be. I live on the Main Line–suburban Philadelphia. I’m from a Quaker family that first set foot here from Wales in the 1670s. I was married at Swarthmore Friends Meeting, on the campus of the college attended by my husband, my grandparents, and several of my grandparents’ siblings. My great-uncle was a professor there, and I spent many happy afternoons as a child treating the campus as my personal playground. In fact, Swarthmore has always struck me as pretty much the ultimate, perfect campus…“Lake Wobegone College,” if you will, where all the students and their parents are better than average. </p>
<p>Well, if the tragedy that befell “Lucifer” of CC fame can happen at Cornell, it seems that the same problem has begun to permeate Swarthmore. I was troubled by what I read in The Phoenix just before the holiday break last year, but hearing about this latest incident makes me think that even this little Eden may be heading for trouble as well. Something we all should think about.</p>
<p>Among the things that have arisen at my husband’s alma mater: </p>
<p>“Several incidents of alcohol-related misconduct this semester and the potential financial liability related to the current alcohol policy have led the college to tighten its enforcement of school rules.”</p>
<p>"Myrt Westphal, dean of student life, said the fact that students were turning in false receipts to the Social Affairs Committee and using party funds for unsanctioned purchases of alcohol forced the college to act. ‘What are we teaching our students? To be Enron executives?’ "</p>
<p>“Students have been falsifying receipts for a long time. However, several incidents over the past year, including broken dormitory windows, destroyed trash cans, lampposts and park benches, have caused thousands of dollars in damage and have forced the college to confront the potential financial liability of its alcohol policy and its practical implementation.”</p>
<p>"In June, a Wallingford high school student filed suit after allegedly being beaten up by Swarthmore students.</p>
<p>14 Swarthmore students were arrested by township police for alchol-related incidents over the last three years, despite the fact that “Swarthmore police rarely if ever enter Swarthmore dormitories in search of violators of state drinking laws. Furthermore, many other small colleges, such as Skidmore, Colgate, Vassar and Hamilton reported no on-campus alcohol-related arrests.”</p>
<p>If this can happen at Swat, it can happen anywhere. Food for thought…
<a href=“The Phoenix - The Independent Campus Newspaper of Swarthmore College since 1881”>The Phoenix - The Independent Campus Newspaper of Swarthmore College since 1881;
<p>Very worthwhile idea, interesteddad (#179), imo.</p>
<p>alwaysamom and soozievt - our PHS has a similar policy to soozie’s. It used to be a contract signed by participants in athletics only. Ridiculous. Now it is a policy applying to all co-curriculars. There are lesser consequences (but there are still consequences) depending on whether the kid/kid’s own parents report the infraction vs. if it is discovered some other way. I support this policy. It’s not a cure-all. But it has worked. Kids suspended from a game/season, for example.</p>
<p>Jmmom, I’m all for additional consequences for those in ECs because participating in those is a priviledge, not a right. But I’m NOT into that only those kids have the 24/7 rule about no drinking. I think if they are going to impose that (though I still do not think it is the school’s issue what is done on parent time), then it should apply to everyone. For those in ECs, yes, they get additional consequences on top of the usual ones like suspension and have to sit out games and performances.</p>
<p>Aren’t the zero-tolerance type rules counterproductive in the sense that they do nothing to help anyone distinguish between moderate social drinking and problem drinking? </p>
<p>I’m struck by the number of posts here, pro-and-con, that do not seem to be able to see a very clear difference between the kid who has an occasional beer and the binge drinkers – and I wonder how we can possibly expect kids to get that message. As long as alcohol is legal for adults, and readily accessible to minors, then every person who is likely to drink ought to have a sense as to what is considered to be a safe and appropriate level for social drinking, and what is out of line.</p>
<p>One of the problems I saw in Lucifer’s posts was that he opined anyone with a reasonable tolerance for alcohol could easily down 12 beers or 12 shots of liquor. I once saw my son have 4 beers at home - and I was rather appalled and I said something - “I think you’ve had enough.” (He disagreed with me, but he also stopped at that point). But I certainly would have no problem at all seeing him with a beer in hand, drinking one or two. (Note: My son is over 21). My kids have always been around adults drinking moderately on occassion – my ex husband always serves wine with dinner when he has guests, I serve wine on special occasions. So whether they were allowed to drink or not, my kids were accustomed to seeing people drink one or two glasses of wine at the dinner table. </p>
<p>That is simply a far cry from binge drinking, and very different from the situation where a kid drinks enough to require a trip to a hospital emergency room. If anything ever like that happened to one of my kids, I would view it as a very big red flag and not as a one-time lapse. I would also be very hesitant to send a kid with that experience in high school away to college, unless there had been some sort of intervention or therapy and I had seen a clear change in behavior. Of course my son drank when he was in college at age 18, and I assume my daughter will do the same – but I also expect that by that age they have a clear sense of where to draw the line. </p>
<p>If we take an all-or-nothing approach to enforcement, how can we expect the kids to know the difference, or draw their own line? This problem cuts both ways – not only have I noticed some posts here extolling the virtue of having extended, no-tolerance policies; I have noticed other parents who seem to prone to excuse very serious incidents under the rationale, not every kid who gets caught has a drinking problem. True: but the point is, we ought to know the difference. Parents ought to be alert to patterns of behavior that signal a serious problem, and schools ought to be able to make inquiries and make decisions based on drawing those distinctions.</p>
<p>I suppose that this is as good a place as any to post this link as well:
Source: <a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/23/aruba.missing.ap/index.html[/url]”>http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/23/aruba.missing.ap/index.html</a></p>
<p>calmom- that is the point I’ve been trying to make. However, there is a lot of disagreement here about drinking AT ALL until you are of legal age. I agree with you- my son is 19 and he drinks. I hope he drinks responsibly. I observed him on a family reunion/cruise and saw very acceptable levels of drinking- even on New Year’s Eve. This does not appear to be a popular position, however, since the legal age is 21.</p>
<p>
Yes, calmom–this is the crux of it all. No one here supports true “binge” drinking, but that term has been rendered nearly meaningless by the lemming-like reverence for the so-called “Wechsler” studies. But he’s effectively rebutted here: <a href=“http://www.alcoholfacts.org/Wechsler.html[/url]”>http://www.alcoholfacts.org/Wechsler.html</a></p>
<p>Wechsler’s studies (the basis for all of the “expert tag-team” alcohol pontificating here on CC) assert that any man who has consumed 5 drinks of inderminate size or content (4 for women–no allowance for height or weight for either sex) at any time over an inderminate “single sitting” within 2 weeks prior to an anonymously administered mail-in survey, is a binge drinker. You have to understand that this is religion to those who believe in Wechsler, despite the Wechlser studies manifold deficiencies. There is an entire industry based on Wechsler, and they will not go out quietly.</p>
<p>One of the major problems of the Wechlser doctrine is that it creates the false impression that true “binge” drinking is the norm on campus i.e., normal freshman students arrive on campus and assume that true binging behavior is the norm–thanks, in large part, to these “studies”–when in fact, most of the new students are looking for cues as to what their normal drinking behavior (should they decide to indulge) should be.</p>
<p>Given that the legal drinking age is 21 and most students graduate from high school 3 full years short of that mark, I don’t see any alternative to a zero-tolerance approach to high school drinking.</p>
<p>College presents a more complex set of challenges because you have a mixed group of ages that is, practically speaking, difficult to segregate. There are two different schools of thought: strict enforcement of the 21 year old limit or focusing enforcement on behaviors.</p>
<p>My personal opinion is that a enforcing a strict prohibition policy on a college campus is a difficult, if not unrealistic, challenge. But, on the other hand, there are schools that are so out of control, I don’t know that you can leave any option off the table. Do a Google on the binge drinking rate at Penn State.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, the “industry” support is for the gentleman you cite, David J. Hansen, who receives grant funding from the alcohol manufactures to support his attacks on the Harvard School of Public Health college alcohol surveys.</p>
<p>The alcohol companies are a big part of the problem as they target college age students in their advertising and promotion, especially around colleges and universities.</p>
<p>The gentleman that you cite, ID, makes his living selling books by going on morning TV shows and upsetting well-meaning parents who don’t take the time to look into his lame methodology (rote genuflection to Harvard, here). His methodology wouldn’t get an honorable mention in a high school science fair. But, believe what you will. As I said, this is more like a religion, for those who choose it.</p>