This article serves the purpose of discussing a recent and relevant college struggle while breaking down round table discussions held last week and clearing the air about the new Social Host Policy. The improved consistency regarding open container violations will not be addressed. With that being said, please read with an open mind.
The new Social Host Policy we’ve been presented with this year has caused more than a stir and created a divide between those who embrace it, those who resent it and those remaining indifferent. Despite this, the reality is that the new policy is here to stay for the rest of this year and until students try it, provide feedback to the administration and work towards improving or changing it, it will remain.
Recently, The Stanford Review published an article regarding the struggle that colleges are facing when it comes to handling drinking. It’s the double-edged sword, no-right answer-question and involves one group ultimately losing a bit of power or freedom- the students or the administration. Allowing students to do as they please when it comes to drinking creates a liability for the administration but allows the students to feel as though their liberties are being respected. On the other hand, strict policies go hand in hand with an increase in student binge-drinking. Strict policies also come hand in hand with some simple psychology and reactance motivation, when taking something away causes that person to become more likely to do it.
The article, which goes so far as to compare Middlebury’s policies to prohibition, highlights both possibilities focusing on Middlebury and Stanford. Middlebury, which recently banned alcohol consumption at tailgates is facing an increase in unsafe drinking habits.
Stanford, on the other hand, is more lenient, taking an “open-door” policy approach, allowing students to drink socially in their rooms with the doors open, and RAs only intervening when they feel a student’s health or safety is at risk. While there’s no correct scenario to choose or magic policy that balances the best of both worlds, the Social Host Policy falls somewhere in the middle and is moving closer to the right answer.
The Social Host Policy was created deliberately, idealistically and after many conversations with students and staff alike. The idea the policy is founded on is to protect students from getting in trouble when hosting parties. This protection is not only from the state, but also the school itself. In registering a party in Winch or Ridge, trust is established between students and campus safety. Rather than using rounds a method to detect problems and distribute citations, they can serve as more of a “check-in” to a legitimized event.
Although it may seem like all that’s necessary is to simply register, there are stipulations in place. The Social Host Policy only allows students above the legal drinking age to serve as hosts, and again this was done with good intentions. While only of-age students can host events, underage students are allowed to attend. A keg in the common room is just a social crutch to the larger social gathering.
The rules regarding capacity that exist within this policy are what most have viewed as especially problematic. Most common among these is the 25-person cap for a Ridge apartment. While many students know that a Ridge can easily hold more than 25 students, the reality is the structure of the building itself can’t. The school brought in structural engineers hoping they would be able to increase that number, but unfortunately they confirmed this capacity limit. Despite this, certified social hosts can host parties up to 50 people but have to be creative about using other campus spaces. This can be seen as the most off-putting piece to the policy. Those upset about the capacity rule are over-looking another vital part of the policy.
While a Ridge apartment can only hold 25 students, rooms such as Cro’s Nest, J.A. Common Room and even the Fishbowl can hold many more. Additionally, student organizations can hold events. When student organizations host private parties, they can have upwards of 100 guests if the space allows it. They’ll most certainly need a server if they’re providing alcohol because 100 people is a large number to control. But if students take advantage of this and gave things a chance, they could host the private parties they envision. Not only that, but it establishes practice for life after college, creating a skill-set for hosting parties and knowing what comes with the responsibility.
Although reading the whole four page policy is recommended, this article thus far outlines its main points. Last week the administraton held several round-table events to open a dialogue about the policy. These discussions were held by the administration wanting to hear students concerns and gather some constructive criticism in hopes to further develop the current policy for the future. While this was an open invitation to air some grievances and hear the complaints, which have been so rampant around campus, the attendance was shockingly low.
With so much complaining, it was expected that the discussions would be embraced as students could finally speak with someone in charge. At SGA, a similar discussion was held. Senators, Executive Board members and Class Councils voiced their concerns and held a constructive conversation that will hopefully result in a positive change.
SGA spent extensive time learning about the capacity limits and how they were decided upon, how the number of drinks was determined as well as the campus safety check-ins. Whether or not we like it, there was a basis and logical reason for every decision that was made. The discussion also focused around positive pieces of the policy, such as the flexibility to decide if you want to register a party until noon of that day. What made this conversation so constructive was that students shared their concerns and received answers; the administration was finally able to hear what we were thinking and take it into consideration. We could finally listen to their reasoning in a very transparent way. While it’s easy to complain and plot sit-ins on Tempel Green, it’s harder to do something about it. The roundtable discussions were just attempt at making action more plausible.
We’ve found ourselves smack dab in the middle of Middlebury and Stanford. Now that the policy has been made more clear, it’s important to remember something: “If you don’t like something change it; if you can’t change it, change the way you think about it.” The policy is here to stay this year. Give it a chance. •
