Before you're absolutely tired of these in April-- X vs. Z (for me)

curmudgeon · March 31, 2005, 1:53am

If I had to bet, and I’m pretty confident on this one-I’d bet she wanted the dope smoking beer drinking dorm party, that was in violation of every university rule on Swat’s website-to end, forthwith and with great haste. To cease and desist from bonging and belching beer. Finito. Done. Stopped and over. That’s my bet. To alter the status quo. But,yes it could have been a jilted lover or maybe a clinical research trial of a particular behavior modification technique-arrest and incarceration.

interesteddad · March 31, 2005, 3:03am

Actually, four guys in a dorm room smoking pot and drinking beer does not technically violate any Swarthmore-specific rules or regulations.

The possession of marijuana and drinking beer under 21 violates two state statutes, which of course apply to the college. Since these are governed by state law, additional regulations would be superfulous. Swarthmore makes it quite clear to their students that they are subject to the laws of the state just like everyone else in Pennsylvania, that the college does not provide a shield, and that they should take that into consideration in whatever choices they make as legal adults.

Smoking in a smoking dorm with the door closed is in keeping with the school regulations.

Swarthmore does not ban alcohol from dorms so drinking beer is not in violation of any rule above and beyond the state age limits.

If the party is ten people or more, there are party rules that regulate the distribution of alcohol – fairly standard stuff like college paid non-drinking party advisors to keep tabs on the party, checking of IDs for Swarthmore students and their guests, food requirements, and so on and so forth. However, a gathering of four guys in a dorm room does not fall under those regulations.

There are regulations against public drunkenness, rowdy disruptive behavior, destruction of property, etc. These regulations are enforced pretty stringently. But, there are no indications that this was a particulary rowdy group, although one would presume they had a stereo playing.

The complaint, at least as described by the police, seemed to relate exclusively to the smell of smoke and the girl’s asthma.

curmudgeon · March 31, 2005, 3:39am

I’dad. Please go to the Swat site. On the search function type “substance+policy+dorm”. Then scroll down to the Department of Public safety report 04. Go to page 10. Read. Swat’s policy is clear and as I stated.

I don’t know how to post links,sorry but the address could be <a href=“http://www.swarthmore.edu/Admin/publicsafety/pdfs/safetyreport04.pdf[/url]”>www.swarthmore.edu/Admin/publicsafety/pdfs/safetyreport04.pdf</a>. Amazingly -it works hallelujah! Just click on it. You should find a Policy on Individual Behavior.

curmudgeon · March 31, 2005, 3:44am

Policy on Individual Behavior: The following are violations which may result in disciplinary
action, including warnings, fines, probation, suspension, or expulsion:
*The possession or consumption of alcoholic beverages by anyone under 21 on property
owned, leased, or controlled by Swarthmore College.
*The furnishing of alcoholic beverages to individuals under the age of 21.
*The sale, possession, production, purchase, or use of any controlled substance or illegal
drug on College premises or at College sponsored activities.
*Violent acts against persons or property
*Drunkenness and disorderly conduct
*Driving under the influence
*In addition, violation of the rules governing the permitted use of alcohol at parties may
result in sanctions against the individual and organizational hosts, as well as guests.

Any questions remaining as to whether or not they were violating every rule Swat had in place on drinking and doping? I don’t often post without knowing the facts.

curmudgeon · March 31, 2005, 3:55am

LOL.Yep. It do.

This is what immediately proceeds the material in my last post , in case anyone doubts these are specific Swarthmore rules or regulations.

SWARTHMORE COLLEGE STANDARDS OF CONDUCT
The presence of alcoholic beverages on campus is limited in two ways. First, it is limited
by federal, state, and borough laws, including those summarized above, that prescribe how
individuals may use alcohol. In particular, in certain cases, college rules recapitulate state laws.
Second, college rules specify the circumstances under which alcohol may legitimately be served
on campus.

curmudgeon · March 31, 2005, 4:29am

More Swat rules y’all might find apropos to the discussion of who did right, the convict or the nerd-y snitch, and interesting- but maybe not. LOL.

“We strongly encourage everyone to promptly report all criminal activity and suspicious persons…Swarthmore Borough Police Department is
contacted on a daily basis and provides a similar accounting of arrests and crimes they have been involved with either on or in close proximity to the campus…Local jurisdiction is shared with Swarthmore Borough
Police Department with whom a close working relationship is maintained…The information received by the Communications staff is immediately broadcast to on duty patrol officers who respond to the problem. Swarthmore Borough Police vehicles are equipped with transceivers and may also respond.”

POLICY ON ALCOHOL AND OTHER DRUGS
Local, State, and Federal Legal Sanctions
The Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act: In 1989 the federal government adopted the Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act. As a condition of receiving federal grants the College must certify that it is in compliance with this law. Among its provisions is a requirement that underage drinking must be seen not only as a violation of state law, but must also be explicitly
against College policy and sanctioned under our judicial system…Swarthmore Borough has recently adopted a policy on underage drinking. In situations where a variety of charges might be considered, Borough police are encouraged not to drop an underage drinking charge in lieu of other charges. When an underage drinker is caught and
cited, Borough police are encouraged to take appropriate legal action against the server whenever possible.

Dang, I’m having trouble seeing what the girl did wrong. Seems like she followed ALL the rules to me.She reported it to law enforcement with co-jurisdiction that the college has a close working relationship with and reports all crime to ,has transceiver continuous contact with, what could possibly be wrong with what she did? I certainly wouldn’t want to believe Swat was just paying lip service to the Federal Law requiring these policies just to get federal funds. I much prefer to believe they mean exactly what they say in this report that the kids get and are expected to follow. Report crime to lawful authorities. Stamp out drug use and underage drinking.

P.S. Please. I’dad. Let’s end this. We are boring even to each other. I’ll try again to leave,again. Please don’t bring me back in. Respond as you wish, but don’t ask me a question after I signal I’m gone. I don’t have crap for willpower. I know. One of my many horrible traits.

SBmom · March 31, 2005, 11:51am

cur,

I am sure you can recognize that there are laws prohibiting illegal immigration in the US. Yet very few Americans would phone up INS to report an illegal alien washing their car or picking their fruit. In real life there are frequently two levels of a “rule”-- the technical and legal level, and the practical expectation level.

Virtually every college in the country-- save a few “dry” campuses-- has the same drinking/drug policy: it’s against the law, don’t do it. Yet people are getting wasted left and right anyhow. At the practical level, the drinking laws are ignored somewhat if the activity does not cross into danger or draw attention.

My point is not that the girl did something technically wrong, it is that she did something that would be culturally unusual at many, many schools. If students are angry it is probably because she has violated a social norm common to 90% of colleges.

Right or wrong, there is an expectation on campus that private, quiet, discrete gatherings will be ignored, and big bashes or destruction of property, or selling drugs is where the invisible line is crossed. As I’dad pointed out, many schools with such “don’t ask don’t tell” alcohol policies have less abuse than the ones with stricter rules.

Are you telling us that if, on your evening walk, you whiffed pot coming from your neighbor’s home, the thing to do would be to phone the police? Would you call 911 to report every driver who paused & ‘california rolled’ through a stopsign?

Most of us do not break the law but have a discomfort blowing the whistle on such actions.

I would like to know more about the chain of events leading up to the call to the police. If the girl did indeed report the asthma/smoke problems and get no action, I could understand a desperation call to the cops. On the other hand, it seems very unlikely a school would not address such a health situation immediately if the appropriate efforts were made internally.

interesteddad · March 31, 2005, 1:09pm

Many college administrators, including those at Swarthmore, believe that the recent legislative efforts to mandate prohibition for college age young adults is counter-productive. That it is like squeezing a water balloon in the hopes that the water will magically disappear, when all you are really doing is applying pressure, distorting the balloon, and increasing the chances of breaking the balloon and getting wet.

For example, ban alcohol at college parties and students drink heavily beforehand in a practice universally known as “pre-gaming”. Exactly the opposite of responsible drinking, which would, as most adults know, require spreading the consumption of drinks out over time. Or, mandate a “dry” campus accompanied by draconian enforcement. Great, now you’ve just sent your students off in cars to drink and drive.

I think the former Dean of Admissions at Swarthmore probably said it best back in 1995, quoted in Reason Magazine article, “It’s hard to teach people how to do something responsibly if it’s illegal to do it at all.” The required language in the federal mandates makes it impossible for colleges to make real-world distinctions between responsible and irresponsible drinking in their alcohol policies. Legally, all they can say is “Don’t Drink” to which college students respond, “Yeah, right…fool.”

Imagine the folly of sitting down with your own 18 year old before heading of the college and saying, “Now look, I’m going to lay down the law. You are not allowed to drink a beer for the next three years and I mean it!” It seems to me that a much more productive use of precious parental-advisor capital would be conversations about the real-world, drinking lessons learned the hard way and how to avoid them, especially discussions of situations that result in consuming alcohol at a rate faster than the body can process it, alternating a drink with a Coke throughout the evening, etc. When this conversation took place in our house (with both parents sharing our own hard-lessons learned), the questions indicated D was at least processing information.

There are situtations, when a campus alcohol problem has gotten out-of-control, that prohibition-style edicts can lower the binge drinking rate. Mini has cited data that suggests that. However, when you have a campus where heavy drinking is not the social norm, making alcohol a “forbidden fruit” may be exactly the wrong thing to do. When heavy binge drinking is not the norm, it’s almost certainly not because the students don’t drink, but because, for whatever reason, they have learned and/or feel peer group pressure to drink within some bounds of moderation and be responsibile for their behavior.

mini · March 31, 2005, 1:28pm

I agree with your last paragraph…except…

There is another “Quaker” college (I know, Swarthmore isn’t, but it has traditions.) Earlham. Even stronger tradition of community service than Swarthmore. Student body quirky like Swarthmore’s, maybe quirkier, but less “academic”. It’s a dry campus. If campus security finds booze, they pour it down the drain, and report it to administrators.

Yes, students DO drink at Earlham. But the policy has NOT driven drinking off campus. It has NOT resulted in students getting into cars and driving elsewhere to drink. It has NOT resulted in heavy pre-gaming. They’ve simply created a community expectation that drinking – even social drinking – isn’t the norm, and they’ve communicated that to students – very liberal students, I might add – before they get there, or even before they’ve applied.

Swarthmore - like most of the northeastern colleges – has ducked the issue, but they do well for other reasons. They are not rural and isolated, and there is, at least in theory, access to a major city. Students are often too busy studying to drink 3-4 times a week. While there is plenty of athletics (more percentagewise than Dartmouth), there are no spectator sports. Hardly any frats. Percentage of private school students is lower. Put these all together and Swarthmore has escaped the alcoholic haze that one can find at our common alma mater, and which the administration there is so concerned about. But it isn’t because of Swat’s alcohol policy.

interesteddad · March 31, 2005, 3:31pm

For the most part, I don’t think the drinking culture on a campus is ever really “because of the alcohol policy”. It’s a bigger, more long-term issue that isn’t going to change with on a dime with administrative policy.

Even using Earlham as an example, is it really the administrative policy or is it the fact that the campus culture tends to attract students who choose it because they don’t want to drink? It’s really just a more extreme version of the Swarthmore situation. Prospects are told that Swarthmore is not a “party” school, so the big boozers tend to self-select vice versa and the students for whom “not a big party school” is a positive attribute tend to self-select to Swarthmore.

Does Earlham’s strict dry campus regulation really work? Here are two excerpts from a 2002 issue of their school paper:

“From January 2001 until February 2002, 20 students have been transported to Reid Hospital by ambulance because of alcohol intoxication. That represents a little more than 2 percent of the Earlham student body on campus. At least one student was put on a respirator for life support.”

“However, at the end of February, Counseling Services conducted a survey on Earlham students’ participation in binge drinking. Out of 113 completed surveys, 30 percent of male students and 30 percent of female students were documented as having met or exceeded the criteria for binge drinking.”

It’s hard to compare the ambulance transports because Earlham does not have night time health services on campus, but that’s a high number for a “dry” campus. I think Swarthmore has had three this year; one last year. The 20 transports at Earlham is not far off the number of students treated for alcohol intoxication at the campus health center at Swarthmore (conscious, walking, not beligerent, not a health threat to warrant hospitalization, but sufficient to put them in one of the rooms to sleep it off). I think they average about 1 per weekend, which would be somewhere between 25 and 30 per year. I cannot find any evidence that Swat has transported an unconscious student or life-threatening alcohol poisoning case in recent history.

The 30% binge drinker rate at Earlham is well below the national average of 44%. But, I would guess that Swarthmore (with open availability of alcohol) is below the national average, too. You probably have the “stats”; I’ve never seen them published.

I do agree with all of the factors you have cited, but I do think some aspects of Swat’s alcohol (and larger campus life) policies contribute to the drinking culture. Among policies, I would include:

a) housing freshmen with upperclassmen. I think this one policy and the peer role-modeling that results has wide-ranging implications on every aspect of campus culture, especially the positive influence on the drinking scene. (this is a policy in common with Earlham).

b) By college policy, dorm RAs are prohibited from buying alcohol for their flocks. I don’t know if it’s universal, but the RAs in my daughter’s dorm told the frosh, upfront, during orientation, that they would NOT supply alcohol so don’t bother asking. The same kind of willingness to abide by college policy generally applies to rules such as prohibiting taking specs to parties where alcohol is served.

c) I don’t know if that willingness is bolstered by the perceived “reasonableness” of the overall alcohol policy or not, but it might be. The prevailing peer pressure at Swat seems to be, “we’ve got a pretty sweet deal here, don’t screw it up.” That peer pressure is strong enough that when there is an arrest for public intoxication, there is almost inevitably an editorial in the paper from an upperclass student asking, “What are you doing? Quit behaving like morons. Start acting like adults and you won’t get arrested. Don’t screw it up for the rest of us.” The key, I think, is that the pressure comes from the students. The students appreciate there is a responsibility associated with having readily available alcohol.

c) Irresponsible alcohol related behavior is punished, such as paying for destruction, organizations hosting a party where there have been problems get sanctioned, etc. I don’t think that Swat’s Building and Grounds crew complains about having to clean up feces spread on the walls. I think that would probably get you suspended much quicker than getting caught with a six-pack in your dorm fridge.

There are other external factors that contribute to Swat’s “luck” with drinking culture. Pennsylvania, in general, has always had strict alcohol distribution laws. The clubs where underage drinking might occur use electronic barcode scanners linked to the drivers license registry, so fake IDs don’t work. The immediate area surrounding Swarthmore is a dry township. You have to drive five miles to even get to a place where you can buy beer. I couldn’t get a cold beer with dinner after a hot, sweaty day of carrying junk from the car up to a dorm room.

mini · March 31, 2005, 4:11pm

“The 30% binge drinker rate at Earlham is well below the national average of 44%. But, I would guess that Swarthmore (with open availability of alcohol) is below the national average, too. You probably have the “stats”; I’ve never seen them published.”

They’re about the same. Which is exactly my point. There are campus policies, but it is campus culture that holds sway. As I said, “Yes, students DO drink at Earlham. But the policy has NOT driven drinking off campus. It has NOT resulted in students getting into cars and driving elsewhere to drink. It has NOT resulted in heavy pre-gaming.”

Your assumption was that strict alcohol control does all three of these. The data don’t show it.

As for our alma mater, the combination of rural isolation, overheated athletics, freshmen ghetto (and, apparently, a cliqueishness among upper classfolks that has gotten under the administration’s skin), high private school admit rates, and money have gotten them into trouble (and yes, some 50%+ higher binge drinking rates than at the two Friendly palces.)

cangel · April 1, 2005, 2:32pm

Hope you find this WW - I resurrected the thread, hoping to catch your eye.

Congrats on W&L and Dartmouth. I have to put in a plug for Dartmouth to be in DD’s class. She needs some nice young men to meet, who are not all into partying ;)!

I’m not going to jump headlong into the Dart vs W&L fray. Two members of her HS class are headed to W&L (ED admits), a boy and a girl. Both great kids, honor students, top 10% definitely, probably on the cusp of top 5%. Both are traditional Southerners.

DD did not really consider W&L (she did look at Davidson) because 3 or 4 of her classmates really wanted to go, and she was a little concerned that it would be too much like high school (not that she didn’t like these kids, some were good friends, she wanted to make a new start, and wanted more geographic diversity).
Also she really liked the D-plan, she wants to study abroad, but didn’t want to spend a whole semester away, especially in 1 country, she felt it would work better for her.
There are some solid differences - the size, the weather, the D-plan, the Moms in the frat houses, and of course cost. You’ve got some great choices - good luck!

marite · April 1, 2005, 3:07pm

WW:

I see you got into Harvard, so you’ll have the luxury of turning it down. Congrats!
BTW, I also liked the D-plan. In the end, my older S did not apply to Dartmouth because he was afraid of the cold, but he really really liked the college and the town.

sybbie719 · April 1, 2005, 3:10pm

WW reported on the Dartmouth board that he got an unexpected surprise with his aid package from Dartmouth that puts it back in the mix. So it ain’t over yet.

Cangel welcome back. I missed you. I hear you if there is a chance that D may end up bringing home some one from school, it is good to get your choice and dibs in early :)

achat · April 1, 2005, 3:12pm

Wo, WW (Bobby), congratulations on Harvard!!!

ariesathena · April 1, 2005, 7:23pm

CONGRATULATIONS!

Looks like you’ll have some hard choices to make - which puts you in the best possible position. YAY!

You aren’t going to go wrong with any of those schools. You might LIKE one more than the other, or you might not completely LOVE the one you go to, you’ll get a great education and have a great time at any of them.

08swattie · April 3, 2005, 12:33am

“It seems to me that a much more productive use of precious parental-advisor capital would be conversations about the real-world, drinking lessons learned the hard way and how to avoid them, especially discussions of situations that result in consuming alcohol at a rate faster than the body can process it, alternating a drink with a Coke throughout the evening, etc.”

Don’t forget that there were drugs involved too, not just alcohol. Is it responsible to use drugs in any capacity?

I’ll add, if only to shed light on the “snitch” girl’s motivations, that alternating drinks with coke is not an unheard-of behavior with this particular group of Swatties. Not Coca-Cola. Lowercase, coke. Catch my drift?

I don’t think that Swat should encourage kids like these, who are unresponsive to their neighbors’ preferences and irresponsible in their own personal/academic lives, to learn to do hard drugs “responsibly.”

Okay, so on the particular night that the cops busted them, the door was closed and the substances being used were fairly benign. That doesn’t mean that they are always that way. That also doesn’t mean that people in the hall aren’t affected by the behavior (door or no door). I imagine that the girl was sick of her loud, mean, high and generally sketchy neighbors and wanted something very serious done.

Wrong though she might be, I don’t blame her for suspecting that the institution might be unresponsive to her complaint. Maybe asthma was a BS excuse, but that doesn’t mean she didn’t feel legitimately threatened by the situation. I know I do.

In defense of the college community, (which I think is wonderful): I think if a majority of Swatties knew the details of the situation, they would side with the “snitch.” The so-called palpable anger that I’Dad describes is not palpable at all outside of that student’s friends and, eh, clients. Generally, people who think she was acting unreasonably don’t know the details of the situation.

interesteddad · April 3, 2005, 2:35pm

Why had she not gone to Myrt Westphal or Dean Gross? Neither of these people is that hard to track down. Students walk right by their offices everyday to check their mail.

It just doesn’t make sense. If I perceive a major problem with residential life on campus, I’m certainly not going to stop short of the top-dog deans in airing my concerns.

Had she done that, she might have learned that Dean Gross had already met with the kid and maybe learned something from his decades of experience in the most effective way to bring such a situation to a win-win conclusion. It’s not like Dean Gross is off in some ivory tower, not knowing the students from a hole in the ground. When we met him at orientation, he rattled off both of my D’s application essays.

Nobody is supporting the kid who got busted. From what I can tell, most Swatties think he was stupid. It’s the choice of action that is puzzling. The anger/frustration is over the whole situation.

curmudgeon · April 3, 2005, 2:42pm

08swattie, it sounds as if you may have personal knowledge of the situation. Can we assume from your name that you are a student presently at Swarthmore? And if so do you have personal knowledge of how the “snitch” freshman girl has been treated by the “convict” and his/her friends? or the student body at large? I’dad’s posts have raised concerns of social ostracism , at least to me, whether that was intended or not.

08swattie · April 3, 2005, 3:54pm

Yes, I am a Swattie who has become inadvertently involved in this situation. (Despite, I might add, checking and circling the substance-free box on my housing application.)

I’dad: I’m not trying to say that she made the wisest choice possible, but only that her choice is completely understandable without assuming some kind of malicious ulterior motives. I would guess that this situation was the straw that broke the camels back. I, certainly, have never spoken to anyone but my RA about this situation, because I dont want to make waves. Maybe she thought that going through the generally permissive college authorities would be like grabbing a tiger by the ears.

Cur: The only real anger against this girl that Ive seen came directly from the student in the article. Aside from that, a couple of people (who knew nothing about the situation outside of that article) suggested that she might have acted unreasonably. I, for one, think she was pretty courageous.

Before you're absolutely tired of these in April-- X vs. Z (for me)

CONNECT WITH US