The Fed

Fight for Your Rights

(To drink so much you pass out and piss yourself)

Jail Gee Run & Jenga Master

While the consumption of alcoholic beverages by persons under the age of 21 is illegal in the United States, it is something that occurs on a daily basis at colleges and universities all across the nation. Here at Columbia, we also do our fair share of underage drinking, much to the dismay of the administration. We have all been at an EC party only to be booted out at midnight by an RA. But what happens to those residents after we head out to 1020? Many of them receive verbal warnings, but often they are required to appear in front of a dean and, at times, are subjected to disciplinary action. It can range from a written warning to an expulsion from campus housing.

The question on everyone's mind is: is this fair? Columbia has legal obligations to uphold national laws, but there are times when the University is not taking the correct measures to regulate drinking. According to Go Ask Alice!, Columbia University’s Health Question & Answer Internet Service, approximately 86 percent of all college students drink, which means most of those drinkers are underage. The point is that, despite national laws, people under the age of 21 drink. While the University is under a legal obligation to prohibit underage drinking, shouldn’t they do so in a fashion that encourages safe habits?

Obviously, the university cannot sanction underage drinking, and we do not make such demands. However, in an article published by the Department of Education, George Kuh stated that "the policies and programs designed to reduce alcohol use by college students have generally been ineffective and incoherent," clearly articulated and

consistently expressed philosophy about alcohol and other drug use, can encourage responsible, health-enhancing behavior." For example, here at Columbia, a student who is over 21 and of sound mental health (admittedly, a rarity) would be disciplined for having a glass of wine with dinner in a lounge or common area. On the other hand, that student is free to enjoy a fifth of whiskey in the isolation of his own room. Furthermore, a study done by Harvard University showed that between the years of 1993 and 1997, the rates of abstention as well as frequent binge drinking rose amongst college students, demonstrating that campus policies polarize the community rather than dealing with the problem. If the university were more open and consistent with its policies concerning alcohol, it could create a safer and more accepting environment in which students felt inclined to enjoy alcohol in moderation.

Recently, a staff member at The Fed spoke with the night manager at the West End who related the following story: a dean at Columbia University had contacted the owner and operator of The West End (whose slogan is "where Columbia had its first beer") to inform her that if her establishment was not more stringent in its efforts to distinguish between underage drinkers and those of age, there would be legal action taken. The result? How many of you have gotten rejected at the West End lately with that Times Square fake ID that worked many a Saturday night before? While this may appear to reduce underage drinking, it does not. Every Columbia student knows that beer can be purchased easily either at Rite Aid or West Side Market (and often on early Sunday mornings, when supposedly the blue laws of New York prohibit the sale of alcohol).

At the same time, Columbia has stepped up the enforcement of its drinking policies on campus. (Insert party-gone-awry story here). These tactics show that the University is more adept at dealing with the outcome of events, that is, doling out punishment, than it is at trying to avoid situations in which dangerous drinking occurs. The University’s policies are counterproductive: we're going to drink. Why not try to create a safe environment instead of stepping up penalties and polarizing the situation further? Furthermore, the illegality of drinking makes it a more attractive option: as kids (which we still are), we’re only interested in things we are prohibited from doing.

Last year, beer was available at Ferris Booth Commons. IDs were checked and the message was that, when dealt with responsibly, alcohol is not taboo. By moderating its availability but not restricting it completely, alcohol became less politicized. However, the University changed their policy about serving beer at FBC, perhaps because they did not want to portray an image of condoning excessive alcohol intake. In addition, those who are most concerned with and aware of the University’s policies and stances vis-a-vis alcohol are Columbia parents. Perhaps the administration decided that too many parents were asking about kids drinking beer in the student center as they were guided through on an admissions tour. Above all, what the University does not want is bad press. It is this vain reason that keeps Columbia University from making the best choices for its students.