<p>UMass Amherst has announced a change in its good samitaritan policy and will no longer have blanket immunity for anyone who calls for help for a student who needs aid (we’re likely talking about substance abuse).</p>
<p>I think this is so wrong. If a 19 YO student who has had one drink hesitates to call 911 if he sees another student in need of aid – all I can say is this is heartless and wrong.</p>
<p>What’s the rationale here? I know Tufts said that they weren’t going to give immunity to the student who had had too much to drink, but for the person who called in the problem?</p>
<p>At Dartmouth the Hanover Police recently charged a fraternity for serving alcohol to a minor after a Good Sam call. They face the possibility of a fine up to $100K because they are viewed as a “corporation.”</p>
<p>Before this, the police charged several other houses with the same thing–sororities and a coed house included–but not after a Good Sam call. </p>
<p>The houses can respond by either not serving the underaged at all–not likely–or by paying more attention to cutting off those who are overdoing it, which would be good. Of course, if they cut off a student, and that student goes elsewhere and drinks more, and is taken to the hospital and there questioned by the police and says that s/he drank at the house in the course of the evening, the house can still be charged. Houses can also respond by closing their doors to non-members, which in the case of D would be a shame since their complete and unusual openness is at the heart of student social life.</p>
<p>Of course, not all drinking takes place at houses. This policy will probably result in more consumption of hard liquor in dorms, which may well be more likely to result in a death due to the comparative privacy. Someone who reels off to their bed and collapses on it, apparently asleep, is less likely to be found in time. </p>
<p>The binge drinking culture these days is horrific, but prosecuting Good Sam callers is not the way to attack the problem.</p>
<p>There seems to be a lot of confusion over what was changed or not, but apparently the original policy (which may or may not have ever been changed, or maybe only the name was changed, or maybe only some people were wrongly told there was a change, or maybe there is a cover-up going on to protect an incompetent underling who bungled the original change) has been restored.</p>
<p>This article from the school’s newspaper tries to explain it all: [‘Good</a> Samaritan’ policy is altered|The Daily Collegian](<a href=“http://dailycollegian.com/2010/11/03/46447/]‘Good”>http://dailycollegian.com/2010/11/03/46447/)</p>