<p>Mini:</p>
<p>The link you provided does not address enforcement of the drinking age. Instead, it talks about a specific policy of registering events where alcohol will be served:</p>
<p>"The researchers reported a decrease in heavy drinking rates at colleges where the policy was strictly enforced. The policy limited alcohol on campuses to specific locations, required advanced registration of all events involving alcohol and created new penalties for violations."</p>
<p>Also, as I read the Williams consultants' ideas, the BYOB policy was specifically offered as a way of making alcohol available (in a controlled setting) without exposing the College to the massive liability risks associated with college funded alcohol.</p>
<p>Actually, just about everything they suggested matched the reality of Swarthmore's alcohol policy:</p>
<p>a) My daughter's RA told the freshmen on the floor that she could not (by rule) and would not (by choice) procure alcohol for them.</p>
<p>b) The college (and the local police) do not attempt to "ban" underage drinking on campus. </p>
<p>c) Parties that serve alcohol must be registered with trained student Party Advisors (paid by the College) on hand.</p>
<p>d) College or student activities funds cannot be used to purchase alcohol (although there are some receipt reimbursement shenanigans that probably circumvent this). The funding mechanism for alcohol at the weekly Pub Night DJ and other campus wide parties is a cover charge ranging from $2 to $5 per person. So for $2, you can go to a campus wide party with campus funding for the DJ for dancing, or live band, and drink beer in a public setting. From talking to my daughter, it seems fairly common that her group will go to a movie or whatever and then stop by the campus wide party for an hour or two afterwards.</p>
<p>e) Punishment is focused on irresponsible behavior rather than possessing or drinking alcohol. For example, you won't be punished for drinking. You will be punished for getting drunk and smashing windows on campus.</p>