<p>Fair and balanced we are, right?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Read the entire piece. Well worth the time. </p>
<p><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>Funny you should mention Arthur Chu’s opinion piece. My daughter mentioned it, too.</p>
<p>Red Sox fans love to say, “That’s just Manny [Ramirez] being Manny”. The equivalent saying at Swarthmore would be, “That’s just Arthur [Chu] being Arthur”. He’s a well-known and distinctive campus personality, noted for his often over-the-top op-ed pieces.</p>
<p>The event that led to the editorial and watching the response to the event from the administration and the students is actually the more interesting story as it unfolds. Probably not a good time to be identified with the get drunk and act stupid crowd at Swarthmore, which is what Chu’s editorial was fundamentally directed at.</p>
<p>From my reading of the school’s history, moments when a concensus of student and adminstration opinion emerge are usually moments that shape the campus in ways that publishing a few new rules could never achieve.</p>
<p>I met Arthur when my son was spec’ing. Arthur was his host for the night. He struck me as a down-to-earth, thinking man. Arthur may be Arthur, but he accurately describes a real problem. I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss him.</p>
<p>I’m not dismissing him. I’m pointing out that his editorial is a part of a bigger picture and the bigger picture is more interesting.</p>
<p>I believe that the real power in defining acceptable and unacceptable behavior on a college campus comes from the students themselves defining what they will and will not tolerate. I think Chu represents a part of a concensus that has very little tolerance this week for what Chu describes as “random a******s getting wasted…and deciding to smash something expensive.”</p>
<p>This is really not so complicated, and Arthur essentially got it right. Like hundreds of other colleges and universities, Swarthmore, while “respecting the law” does not want to be responsible for making sure it is followed, while at the same knowing that if any “untoward” event occurs, they will be held legally (and financially) accountable for knowingly providing the premises where underage drinking takes place. As far as I am aware, not a single college or university challenged on those grounds has managed to beat the rap - it ain’t a gray area in the law anymore. </p>
<p>Swarthmore, however, has an added (and somewhat contradictory) burden that they choose for themselves, namely, operating in the Quaker tradition, they want to operate as if each member of the community will act responsibly, while at the same time wanting to attract students who are not known for lots of drinking, which would mess up the reputation. So far, they’ve done pretty well on that score, much better than lots of other places (but much of which is likely due to their admissions office rather than on-campus policy.)</p>
<p>Statistically, Arthur is correct regarding enforcement of underage drinking policies. Every college that I know of (I do this professionally) that has undertaken a policy of stricter enforcement (and they vary quite widely, both in where they start and what they do) has both its binge drinking rates and overall campus drinking rates decline. College administrations can indeed define what will and what will not be tolerated, and they do so all the time. But to do so flies in the face of treating everyone as a responsible adult (even when we know that they are not!)</p>
<p>Agreed. Arthur got it right. The the administration would be foolish if it does not take some remedial action.</p>
<p>And if this student editorial appeared in The Williams Record, some poster(s) would be singing a different tune…</p>
<p>OK. Let’s talk “remedial” action after first defining what it is that is being remedied.</p>
<p>Mr. Chu correctly points out that any Swarthmore freshman can drink at parties. But, just so we are clear, not all Swarthmore freshmen do drink at parities or anywhere else.</p>
<p>The last COFHE survey data I’ve seen published from Swarthmore showed that 30% of Swarthmore freshmen had not drank alcohol in the prior year and 43% had not consumed alcohol in the prior 30 days. So, what we are trying to “remedy” with “remedial” action does not pertain to this 43% of the freshmen.</p>
<p>I would further presume, I think reasonable, that of the 57% of the freshmen who had consumed alcohol in the prior 30 days, at least some of them did not go around breaking things or creating much of a nuisance.</p>
<p>So, logically, what needs remedying is the behavior of freshmen (and other) students who Chu quit accurately describes as acting like “random a******s” when drinking.</p>
<p>Would a strict ban on alcohol(such as Washington and Lee has) be an effective remedy?</p>
<p>Oh, there are PLENTY of things short of a strict ban that can change cultural norms. The bartender and ID thing, coupled with a strict and enforced prohibition against older students procuring hard alcohol for the younger ones can be effective against levels of dangerous drinking among first year students. Let’s not fool ourselves: RAs know where the alcohol comes from. Outside enforcement of underage drinking laws in the first 3 weeks of school can set the tone, and then it never needs to be done again - also shown to be effective. At Swarthmore, social norms marketing is likely to work, since the binge drinking level is low to begin with (doesn’t work when binge drinking rates are high.) Action around fraternities (if that’s a problem) can also work, provided it is consistent. </p>
<p>Two strike rules - get polluted and rowdy and we tell your parents - works. Or two strikes and you’re off sports teams, or ineligible for the Dean’s List, or whatever, can also do the trick.</p>
<p>I’m not suggesting Swarthmore undertake ANY of these steps. Only that they exist, they don’t involve strict bans, and have been shown to work, and can change cultural norms, if that’s a goal.</p>
<p>Ouch… It looks like Swat might have more of a drinking problem than we thought.</p>
<p>I wonder if they complain about how stressed out alcohol makes them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t know. I guess that depends what you “thought”. The drinking scene is about what I would have thought based on the survey binge drinking rates and the number of hospital transports in an average year over the last five or six years.</p>
<p>The main disruption from drinking at Swarthmore is a reasonably limited number of students who get trashed and act like idiots, whether that is vandalism, getting themselves arrested or public drunkeness, or causing general mayhem. </p>
<p>There is a pretty consistent student-driven “social norms” campaign against this sort of behavior, with Mr. Chu’s editorial following a much more effective editorial by another campus leader last year.</p>
<p>What I alluded to was the larger, more interesting story than Mr. Chu’s editorial. That being a combination of student and administration action that is about to hit an incidence of stupid drunk behavior like a ton of bricks. It’s pretty clear where the community action will start. It’s not exactly clear where it will end.</p>
<p>I wish Mr. Chu had written an editorial that served as a better rallying call for the concensus opinion on campus. Frankly, the fact that you can get a beer at a campus dance is not really the problem.</p>
<p>I find this drinking stuff interesting. What do 18 year olds do when they are first let loose from parental restrictions and they can get their hands on the demon drink? This is nothing new. What I find amazing is we can send 18 year olds off to die, they can can vote for heaven’s sake, but we don’t let them drink. Because of the law, they never have the chance at 18 and still under their parent’s roof to learn to drink responsibly. (as if they might) No, we send them off with no training and expect that they won’t get at least one hangover. Much better to have done it earlier. Then we stick our heads in the sand and think that some colleges have the problem and some don’t. That is a ridiculous notion. The colleges are full of 18 year olds who have never had the chance unless they have lived in a country where drinking laws are relaxed which is most places on the planet except for the U.S. That is not to say that the kids in these places don’t get hangovers! Look at the drinking culture in the U.k. But then there are some places where it is not such a big deal. The smaller the deal, the less they will do it since it is the norm. 18 year olds love to break out of the norm. I guess what I am trying to say is the U.S. has a major drinking problem but not just for its youth. It’s some cultural thing. It’s a people with problems thing. I don’t think prohibition fixed or can ever fix the problem. The stuff will still be made in bathtubs, the kids will break the law. So we are considering enforcement. God bless the colleges that look the other way. All 18 year olds grow up. Most know about the consequences of drinking and driving, of death by intoxication. Better to educate and continue to educate and continue to educate and talk through this mess than try to restrict something that has been here to stay since the first batch of alcohol was discovered.</p>
<p>I don’t believe that kids have their first drinking opportunity when they go away to college. Read Koren Zailckas (close but probably not correct spelling) book “Smashed” if you want an insider’s view of the drinking culture in this country. There’s no need for kids to wait until college and many don’t. I don’t see the drinking age as having much to do with it. Ms. Zailckas describes very well how insecure she felt going into college parties, wanting to fit in and using alcohol as a ‘social lubricant’. She also says they would go to Canada where the legal age is 18, but she never said she had a problem getting alcohol in this country as young as high school age. “Overseas” post just reminded me of something - we lived in Europe, and most university students lived ‘at home’. Universities didn’t have dormitories, although some students would get apartments on their own. Maybe one of the factors at play in the U.S. is that we are gathering 18 year olds en masse and relocating them without continuity of authority - colleges are quick to tell parents they have no legal right to information on their kids (but kindly remit payment in the envelope anyway). So we’ve torn kids away from everything they’ve known for 18 years and some of them respond by drinking to excess. They could be robbing banks, but that takes advance planning and they either don’t need the money or left their weapon at home. The cup of beer, on the other hand, is being offered by the college. Now I’m starting to get it. It’s not news that 18 year olds are impulsive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You are some piece of work. Why don’t you write it? Or your daughter? He’s on campus, you’re not. My “source” of information for all things Swarthmore (who is no teetotaler, himself) tells me Arthur is more right than not.</p>
<p>And from my own perspective, having the Administration supply the beer is a significant problem that, one day, will cause the College significant problems. Indeed, the Village police presence is far more significant on campus this year than in any time past, I’ve been told. It’s only a matter of time.</p>
<p>My son is not a teetotaler and is open to me about it. If I call him Friday night, he says he is going out to ‘pub nite’. I do worry about this with him. He is not the violent type and will never raise anything against anyone (my point of view, and I could be wrong). But still I worry. I tried calling him last night, no answer on his cell phone. I told him day before about this incident and he says he knows nothing about it, so he could not have been involved in any way…who knows. I am worried about this.</p>
<p>Another level of worry is, if this escalates, then what will the students do?</p>
<p>I think that this incident illustrates that no matter how hard we try, we can not categorize ANY institution as utopia, free of alcohol and drugs. Kids don’t have to be frat rats or jocks or anything else to experiment with alcohol and other deviant behavior at this age.</p>
<p>MikeyD233;
</p>
<p>No doubt that is true for 99.9% of the colleges in the US!!!</p>
<p>I feel bad for the new posters… so for their benefit, let me explain the ground rules so they can appreciate this post.</p>
<p>1- Swarthmore is the best and most exclusive school in America.
2-- The kids who go there are highly intellectual; now that the school has dumped their football team, everyone is there to study Hegel and Kant; all amusements are by definition wholesome and legal.
3- The parents of said kids are morally and intellectually superior to everyone else who might be dumb enough to think that Princeton (grade inflation) or Harvard (poor undergrad experience; it’s really just for grad school) or even your own flagship State U. can offer an intellectually rewarding experience.
4-- The only bad thing anyone on these boards is allowed to express about Swarthmore is that their neighbor/boss/guy at the gas station has never heard of it. However, if you’re too stupid to know about Swarthmore, nobody really cares what you think about higher Ed anyway since that makes you a prestige whore or ignorant.</p>
<p>See? Now you can appreciate these posts. If a kid on campus at Swarthmore identifies a problem… whether with alchohol or anything else, let’s either move into denial (he’s missing the more interesting point, whatever that is…) or discredit him for being a nut-case.</p>
<p>From TIME Magazine, August 29, 2005</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Swarthmore appears to be in good company - don’t miss the Harvard statisitc above.</p>
<p>Swarthmore is not a utopia, but does not have a HUGE drinking problem. But the administration indirectly providing the drinks (wink, wink, nod, nod) by paying for parties where they know drinks will be there and then looking the other way, might get them into trouble in the long run. So I sort of agree with Arthur Chu. I am not an expert, but I have a kid there and I worry for his safety and about his getting an arrest record inadvertently. And of course for his liver, though I think he does not binge drink.</p>
<p>I am sure that there is binge drinking at Harvard, but after two weeks there, my S has not reported one incidence of drunk behavior among his acquaintances. Of course, he himself is not a partyer and is kept busy with challenging courses that give out a lot of homework.
It is possible that there is a real spike in drinking at The Game, so the year-long statistics might not be extrapolatable from the statistics provided by Mr. Seaman; nor would my S’s experience so far be quite typical.</p>