The New York Times did not arrive at any phenomenal breakthroughs in discovering that a majority of students engage in drinking games - students know this already.
Drinking games have existed as long as there has been alcohol. Our generation has simply taken this leisure activity and found numerous permutations involving wit, chance and skill. Developed to serve a social purpose, drinking games merely combine two aspects of any successful party, entertainment and beverages.
Director of Drug and Alcohol Education Services Margot Abels suggests that the number one problem with drinking games is that they encourage students to consume alcohol faster than they would otherwise. The simple fallacy in this argument is that there is no control, no 'otherwise'. There is no way to determine the effect of drinking games on alcohol consumption without first knowing the characteristics of the drinkers involved.
The culture of drinking games at Tufts is one that is more social than viscous. In most cases, any student that declines to drink will not be forced to and the game will continue unimpeded. Most people who engage in drinking games are planning to consume moderate amounts of alcohol in the first place, otherwise there would be no motivation for entering into the game. The rules are transparent and the amount of alcohol to be consumed is often known in advance.
One of the other alleged problems with drinking games is that they create a self reinforcing cycle of drinking (i.e. losing entails drinking) and drinking further increases the chances of losing. While true in theory, it is impractical in reality, as most drinking games - particularly at events - require rotation of losing players out of the game.
This makes the most persecuted of all drinking games, Beirut, actually one of the safest. Games in which players are constantly playing, and repeatedly punished for losing are the most dangerous. In order to drink in Beirut, for example, players must wait for their opponents to sink ping pong balls into their own cups filled with beer. But for obvious and practical reasons, the more "dangerous" games are not the types of games played at large gatherings.
The social function of party oriented drinking games is more of a help than harm. In team games, there is a sense of unity fostered among players. Not only do teamates naturally develop a relationship in which one will watch out for the other, but even competitors cultivate bonds which can help prevent dangerous situations such as binge drinking to the point of illness or sexual assault from developing.
Denoting drinking games as a mechanism for forced drinking is erroneously placing the blame on the game. The problems which arise from drinking games are the same ones which arise from drinking heavily, and drinking games can even help combat some of these negative effects. Humans naturally empathize with whom they interact.
Drinking games are not the anonymous mechanisms for forced consumption they appear to be. Games are essentially created by people, for people, in order to have a good time. Properly devised games can provide an interactive form of friendly, competitive entertainment.
If the New York Times is correct and 50 to 80 percent of college students are involved in drinking games and there are only a few cases a year reported to Judicial Affairs, then the conclusions drawn are inherently weak. Conclusions drawn only from anecdotal evidence when drinking games go awry are bound to be suspect.
