The dry policy at Spring Fling is full of flaws

Since March 12, when it was announced in The Tufts Daily that Spring Fling would be dry, I have been reading a lot about the issue. And I must say that, once again, the members of the administration have astounded me with their ill−founded policies. The alcohol policy in general at this school is so misguided — with the added problem of alcohol culture spiraling out of control — that I will not possibly be able to address all of the issues within one op−ed piece, but I will give it a shot.

There are two incidents of policy that I think are relevant here, and I will go in reverse chronological order. The first, obviously, is making Spring Fling dry. I am a bit surprised that there has not yet been an op−ed specifically focusing on the faults of the policy, so I will summarize them. It is completely amazing that, in response to last year's catastrophe, this is all the administration can think of to do. Last year, from what I understand (I was abroad at the time), was complete chaos. In addition to some dehydration issues, there were a huge number of people that were far too drunk to function, and obviously this did not sit well with the bigwigs. Their response, though, is ineffective at best, counterproductive at worst. They have enacted a policy that punishes most juniors and seniors — less than half of the population at Tufts. What is more, not only were a significant number of those punished not even here last year (myself included), but they are also, by virtue of being older, largely more experienced with drinking and thus less likely to cause problems.

It seems apparent that Dean of Student Affairs Bruce Reitman and his cohorts simply do not understand how a college−aged brain works. I think this is best exemplified by his quotation in the Daily from March 12, "The fact that there won't be alcohol for five hours … does not mean that therefore people should drink more in the neighborhood or dormitories. That's just stupid." I almost couldn't believe this when I read it the first time. Has working as the Dean of Student Affairs at Tufts not taught Reitman that college students will drink and will risk being punished, regardless of the punitive policies enacted upon them? I wonder if it is even worth writing this piece based on the blindness of this statement. The basis for this kind of thought completely eludes me.

This new policy, regardless of what should or should not happen, will do nothing but worsen the problems. Essentially the entire 21−plus population that wants to get drunk is now being forced to pre−game heavily, adding to the already heavy pre−gaming being undertaken by those under 21. What's more, the vast number of perpetrators from last year along with the new freshmen will go completely unaffected. To them, this year will be exactly the same. Where is the change in that? No one drinks in an attempt to get seen to by Tufts Emergency Medical Services (TEMS), so calls for people to do so to prove the administration wrong are silly. However, it obviously does happen, and is more likely to happen, the more pre−gaming takes place. This policy was supposed to make Spring Fling an alcohol−free event, but instead it will make it one marred by alcohol poisoning.

The second incident of policy is from September and has to do with the immediate level−one disciplinary probation status of anyone caught drinking underage (the most common cause of which is TEMS−ing). I suppose I should not have been as baffled at the administration's draconian policies regarding Spring Fling with this previous policy as background. It really seems the only thing that they are creative enough to come up with are punitive measures. I guess we are heading back to the Middle Ages. This goes back to what I said above, which the administration needs to learn: No one drinks in order to get TEMS'd. Quite the contrary, most people believe they can avoid getting TEMS'd if they drink and, especially the inexperienced drinkers, have a vastly inflated perception of their alcohol limits. So punishing someone for calling for help when sick, which is in effect what this policy does, seems completely ridiculous when getting sick never happens on purpose.

What is more, this policy endangers students themselves. I know that the administration says that numbers of TEMS calls have not gone down since the policy has been enacted, but to me that does not matter at all. What matters is that someone, when dealing with a potentially alcohol−poisoned friend, should never hesitate to call help based on potential punitive consequences. I fear that it will take a real alcohol−related catastrophe involving a student unwilling to call TEMS before this policy is changed. It's just more punishments being added on.

What needs to happen is the creation of a safe environment for drinking so kids can actually learn how to drink without killing themselves — because those kids will drink regardless of the policies surrounding them. There are surely alternatives to the ineffective and misguided policies here.

Another problem that arises from these policies is the alienation of the student body. It gives the impression that the administration is simply too lazy to really address our concerns. Honestly, I don't really care that much about drinking at Spring Fling. But these policies are on the level of abstinence−only education. It doesn't work to not give kids all the resources that should be available to them regarding safe sex, and the same holds with safe drinking.

If no one drinks trying to get TEMS'd, but will drink regardless of what policies are in place (have I said that enough times yet?), wouldn't it make most sense to enact policies to teach people how to drink safely, rather than trying in vain to stop drinking altogether? Karl Lindemann is a senior majoring in psychology and Arabic.

--

Karl Lindemann is a senior majoring in psychology and Arabic.