Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Spring Fling made dry event

Published: Friday, March 12, 2010

Updated: Friday, March 12, 2010 08:03

spring fling

Jenna Liang / Tufts Daily

Students at this year’s Spring Fling will not be allowed to have any alcohol at the event.


Spring Fling this year will a be completely dry event as the steering committee, after extensive deliberation, has decided to eliminate alcohol from the annual concert in the hopes of making a statement that the drinking culture on campus needs to change.

This decision comes after a long discussion about possible policy changes to Spring Fling, partially prompted by last year's event, which was declared a mass−casualty incident due to the high number of students requiring medical attention for alcohol poisoning.

The process started with the Alcohol Task Force, chartered by Dean of Student Affairs Bruce Reitman, which produced a report for the steering committee that included a suggestion that students be barred from bringing alcohol into the event entirely.

The task force proposed simultaneously establishing a separate 21−plus pub area where of−age students would be able to purchase and consume alcohol.

Reitman explained that while the steering committee seriously considered this proposal and recognized its many benefits, the logistical difficulties that arose prompted a re−evaluation of the very nature of the event.

These difficulties were centered on creating the pub area, the cost of which would have been prohibitive, according to Reitman.

"One of the [factors was] the cost of setting up a pub area, which proved to be exorbitant and probably an expense that … the [Tufts Community Union (TCU)] Senate may not be able to afford or choose to afford," Reitman said.

Additionally, the pub area would require applying to the city for a one−day alcohol sales license that was unlikely to have been granted.

"This is the city where there was a mass−casualty incident declared last year … so the likelihood was low," Reitman said. "We struggled back and forth with whether to even try that and see if it could be afforded."

TCU President Brandon Rattiner, a senior and member of the steering committee, strongly disagreed with the decision.

"I think it was one of the most irresponsible and worst decisions I've ever seen the administration make at Tufts," he said. "This is not addressing the problem. The problem is pre−gaming and the lack of control by students who don't … handle their alcohol appropriately."

Rattiner also felt that more of an effort should have been made to see if the funds for the pub area would be available. "The cost argument is nonsense because they didn't even vote to give Senate the opportunity to see if they could rally the funds," he said.

Reitman acknowledged that the decision was not arrived at easily and was not unanimous, but eventually hinged on the message that the decision would be conveying.

"The discussions all came down to — this is a four−and−a−half hour concert … do we really need to make a statement that says you need to have alcohol in order for it to be successful?" Reitman said. "There was the thought that … the benefits of a possible pub area if it would have been possible to obtain it … were outweighed by saying you just don't need alcohol to be a successful event."

Rattiner disagreed, however, saying it was merely indicative of the administration's disregard for students' opinions.

"I think they're punishing half the school that hasn't done anything wrong just to be sending a message that I don't think will be particularly well received," he said. "I don't think it conveys any message besides the fact that the administration is really unwilling to compromise with students."

Making Spring Fling an alcohol−free event is a long−term investment in the process of shaping the drinking culture on campus to be less dangerous and pervasive, according to Reitman.

"This is not going to be a one−year or two−year … turnaround if we are going to be successful in changing attitudes about alcohol use, what role alcohol plays in campus social life and taking the idea that good friends call [Tufts Emergency Medical Services (TEMS)] for drunk friends and change that to good friends prevent TEMS from needing to be called," he said. "That's going to take a number of years to be accomplished."

Reitman said that members of the committee felt this was a particularly appropriate time to begin enacting this change.

"Each year has produced more and more medical emergencies because of alcohol poisoning," he said. "The steering committee saw this as a time to say that this is enough, you don't need alcohol to enjoy this concert … we need to begin the cultural change."

Research conducted by the Concert Board and The Office for Campus Life has also shown that Tufts is almost alone among colleges in permitting alcohol at a public school−wide concert, Reitman added.

Junior Bruce Ratain, the chair of the TCU Senate's Administration and Policy Committee and the author of the Senate's November alcohol resolution, agreed with Reitman on the need for a cultural change but felt this decision would not serve that goal.

"I'm very concerned about this decision because to me, this seems to be another attempt to enact a culture change through a policy change," Ratain said.

The Senate's resolution, while not specifically addressing Spring Fling, contained proposals for crafting a broader healthy alcohol strategy and centered on preventive and educational measures to reduce alcohol abuse.

The Spring Fling decision, Ratain said, was contrary to the intention of the resolution, as well as the Alcohol Task Force's broader recommendations on the campus alcohol policy.

"All the research I've done on this issue suggests that reducing dangerous drinking will come through extensive social norms marketing and not a punitive regulatory focus," he said. "I simply don't think that disallowing of−age students from drinking is likely to change the social norms about drinking by underage students."

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

Anonymous
Sun Mar 21 2010 02:42
I'm surprised that no Tufts feel-good activist has attempted to label this policy as bias for some misconstrued reason. Are you too busy arguing against the "disfranchisement of OneSource workers" or did you finally realize you were just wasting everybody's time?
Recent Grad
Sun Mar 21 2010 02:38
Again Reitman shows his myopic views of social life at Tufts. If he were to really look into the incidents at last years Spring Fling he would realize two things:

1) It was declared a mass casualty incident in part due to new policies in place dictating that if TEMS is called for an alcohol related incident, a local ambulance must be dispatched -- look at the numbers and see how many people were actually taken to the hospital for "alcohol poisoning" versus how many ambulances were dispatched

2) Of these people who did require/receive EMS attention, how many were of age and became intoxicated to the point of needing help as a result of the 6 beers they brought in. Let's be ho nest here, underage kids were getting TEMSed indicating either your security staff is doing a piss poor job at checking ID's etc, or people are getting drunk before coming in; which do you think it is?

Imposing these new regulations is going to do little aside from alienate the minority of students who are 21 and would like to be able to responsibly enjoy a concert everybody looks forward to.

Anonymous
Thu Mar 18 2010 20:37
To the Alum from the early 2000s who said their night usually ended in Kee Kar Lau - Props. When you're drunk, Keeks is just so good. Number 21, that's right.
Anonymous
Wed Mar 17 2010 23:21
So.... when is the spring fling again?
Rum Runner
Wed Mar 17 2010 02:38
Damn it bootlegger, you took my idea!
Anonymous
Tue Mar 16 2010 19:42
If you kids just snorted more coke or ritalin while drinking like we did back in the late 90's you wouldn't be passing out so easily.
Anonymous
Tue Mar 16 2010 16:44
Elite?
Bootlegger
Tue Mar 16 2010 02:34
I will be selling moonshine at Spring Fling this year. Come find me by the water table. $5 for a cup of something that will really put some hair on your chest (I'm talking to you, ladies!).
Anonymous
Tue Mar 16 2010 01:00
In response to the donation talk. The reason people won't be donating is because this is yet another ridiculous policy that people don't want to support. When Tufts starts enacting policies that reflect it is an elite institution with elite faculty and administrators, I will re-start my donations. Until that day, I cannot in good conscience give money that supports this.
JumboSenior
Mon Mar 15 2010 22:12
To those who threaten withholding donations to the university based on this policy, I must say that this is ridiculous. If this is the case, then you were not going to give anything substantial to the university anyway because inevitably something would crop up that you disliked about the institution. You are free to use your salary as you wish, I do not intend to tell you otherwise. But, the fact of the matter is that Tufts provided you with a fantastic education, and you are benefiting from both the knowledge you gained, and the name on your diploma.

Giving back to your alma mater should not be a question of scrutinizing your experience. If you do not like something about the Institution, why should you feel that your opinion should have a voice at the table if you deliberately choose not to support all the good things the university does? If you only comment about Tufts when the going is tough, and do not support the financial aid initiatives that made it possible for you (or some of your friends or some of your classmates that MADE your college experience to attend here) or funds that allow for visiting scholars to teach and research at Tufts, or a whole host of issues that alumni donations support, you do no one a service.

If you are so concerned about the current students suffering from draconian policies, how will not donating improve their lives or yours? Again, I do not try to tell someone what they ought to spend their money on - that's none of my business. But, if you enter a public forum and spew your business, expect it to be responded to in like manner. Even if you give $1 a year, the fact that you give is important for the Institution, and for the reputation that Tufts has (and deserves) - all reasons why you probably chose to get your degree from Tufts and not elsewhere.

If you determine to whom you give donations based on single issues that you perceive as faults, I guarantee you that you will not donate money ANYWHERE. If that is the case, well, good for you, but then I would be glad you didn't want to associate with Tufts anyway.

Matt
Mon Mar 15 2010 20:11
Let's see if I'm getting this straight... Undergrads threatening to get themselves 'TEMS'd' en masse? For no other reason that they can say: 'I told you so?'
First: Go ahead. Free country.
Second: No care ever.
Anonymous
Mon Mar 15 2010 17:41
I blame the students. You force the administration’s hand when you get yourselves TEMS’d in record numbers. I graduated in the early 2000s and we used to get good and f*cked up all the time. But, for the most part, our nights ended with Kee Kar Lau, not the hospital. If you learned to handle your alcohol and drugs like the rest of us, the administration wouldn’t feel it had to make a choice between cracking down and letting the school get totally out of control.
Anonymous
Mon Mar 15 2010 17:25
08 Alum,
I'm sure Tufts will be just fine without your $10 donation. Seriously, you and all the other misers on this thread threatening to withhold future donations are what is wrong with the Tufts alumni network. As soon as the administration does something to upset you, you use this as a justification for why you won't be donating to Tufts. Be honest with yourself and admit that you won't be donating to Tufts because you're cheap and lazy.
Anon
Mon Mar 15 2010 16:54
I'm thinking we're going to see a bunch of people shifting from booze to drugs. Pot has been decriminalized. They should just invite Phish and let us get stoned.
08 Alum
Mon Mar 15 2010 14:36
As an alumni who is planning on attending the event, I'm insulted. If Tufts thought they were getting any of my money (and I've debated donating several times, even though I make only $30,000/yr right now), they're not unless this policy changes. It will go to the grad school I'll be attending in the fall. Way to alienate me, Reitman. I used to like you.
Anonymous
Mon Mar 15 2010 14:10
The administration could have consulted with the student body when making this decision. The efforts by Dean Reitman to curb drinking are commendable but demonstrate a blatant disrespect for the students he is trying to help. He expects us to act like responsible adults yet assumes that we are not thinking individuals who would listen to reason. As a recent graduate the single greatest factor that will discourage me from giving back to an institution that gave me many great opportunities and a great education would be the Tufts administration. Beyond employing embezzlers and pedophiles in OCL and Reslife they enact policies from on high assuming that they are in touch when in reality demonstrate their short sighted and narrowminded mentality. How about work with the student body to curb underage drinking and medical calls at spring fling instead of alienating the senior class that will soon be alumni's that the University without a doubt will be asking for donations before next fall. Overall poor form Dean Reitman, in my conversations with you as a student you seemed to be a compassionate dean who truly had the student's best interests at heart. Your recent actions seem to suggest that you are answering either to the general council of the university, pressure by the surrounding community, or simply your insurance brokers. While risk management and being a good member of a community is crucial why alienate the student body from the administration in the process? This should have been decided by bringing your concerns up with the community of both local residents and Tufts students to address the problem as opposed to taking away a privilege that many students look forward to.
Anonymous
Mon Mar 15 2010 13:01
Dear JumboSenior, The point that EVERYONE is arguing is that this will NOT make this a more enjoyable event and will NOT make it a safer event. It's a lose lose. No benefit, all cost. Is that hard to understand?
JumboSenior
Mon Mar 15 2010 10:21
To the commenter below, it is pretty clearly stated in the article that this measure is being taken as one of a number of steps to be enacted in the future to change the reckless (yes, reckless) drinking culture at Tufts. This is not about drinking or not drinking alcohol - it is about controlling the behavior of individuals who clearly are not able to do so themselves. AND, though it was not mentioned, it is about the university avoiding a lawsuit if, god forbid, someone were to die of an alcohol overdose at a PUBLIC, university-hosted event. This is serious stuff.

Laws and rules are enacted because of a small group of reckless individuals. Someone else mentioned an apt example - taking our shoes off at the airport. Regardless of opinion on alcohol, I think everyone accepts to a certain extent that drinking IS a part of the culture at universities in the US. One university cannot completely change a culture, and Dean Reitman knows this. But, it can behave more responsibly in a culture, and Reitman should be applauded for making this happen.

The debate around whether 'regulation' is an effective means of curbing excess (read: financial markets) is a complex one, and no one should try and simplify it on here.

IMO, the root of the uproar is the inability of individuals under 21 to drink (i.e. The Law) and the fact that most Boston-area establishments ban under 21 patrons. Students who like to drink feel confined to rooms and undesirable frat houses so that when an event like Spring Fling comes up, they want to revel in the fact that their drinking can be brought out in the open ALL DAY LONG. Fine. But dispute the root cause of your ills, and don't blame the responsible party (those putting on the event & the Administration) for being responsible. Your parents, who for most are shelling out the cash, wouldn't ask any less of them.

Anonymous
Sun Mar 14 2010 23:53
the post "you are all entitled pretentious individuals" is insulting and hypocritical. the author sounds both pompous and incredibly entitled. The accusation to "all you who believe you can't go without alcohol for 5 hours" to join AA is quite out of touch with reality, and it significantly decreases the credibility of your post. While I do not condone the excessively irresponsible drinking and behavior of the students that resulted in the "mass casualty" last year (or ruin other opportunities for students, like senior pub night), Alcoholics Anonymous is not the place for these students - but perhaps a lesson in consideration of others and of moderation is. You are also silly to think that this policy change is going to teach anyone lesson, or change the behavior of anyone, which is its greatest flaw. Preventing drinking at the event does not change the actions of students before they arrive. Perhaps making sobriety or at least lack of excessive inebriation would be a more successful method to reach the desired goal, without punishing responsible drinkers of legal drinking age. The policy must be attacked for its flawed logic and likely ineffectiveness, and frankly, shame on you for writing such an arrogant post yourself and not being in touch enough with reality to see how incredibly wrong you are.

And for goodness sake (to a different post)- stop harping on the extra building in NH - hundreds of different people use the Loj EVERY YEAR, YEAR ROUND, and I have never met a person who hasn't loved going up there and appreciated it - in fact most people tell me they wish that had started going up sooner and more often.

but back the point, this policy is not going to solve the problem. If they administration actually wants to prevent and MCI, the police at entrances should be checking for sobriety more stringently, and adequate water, food, and shade should be provided.

Anonymous
Sun Mar 14 2010 21:15
Great, now instead of happily sipping a (legally-purchased) a can or two of PBR during sets, I'll have to smuggle nips in my bra like a freshman. We keep it classy at Tufts.

Sure, I could just go sober, but you know what? I go to Tufts for God's sake. Even if the new regulations would work, which they won't, we're hardly the party capital of the country. Tufts has, what, two crazy weekends out of the entire year? Our "party culture" is a joke compared to a lot of schools. As a senior, I should be allowed to split a six pack with my of-age friends and not have the university crap itself. I

You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now

Log In