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."
Addressing the concern that eliminating alcohol from the event might extend the problem of dangerous drinking to of−age students by causing them to pregame heavily, Reitman pointed out that it was unreasonable for students to react this way.
"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," Reitman said. "That's just stupid."
He shares the worries about pre−gaming and called for students to take personal responsibility for their own and their friends' wellbeing.
"I'm always worried about dangerous drinking — I don't sleep on nights when we have events like what used to be Winter Bash, the quad run or Spring Fling, because … it's only luck that has prevented a death, not friends stopping people from dangerous drinking," Reitman said.
"I think, especially in this first year of the change, it's critical for people to realize that it's their responsibility to avoid endangering themselves or letting friends get to the point of being unconscious," he said.
Reitman added that there will be extensive outreach leading up to Spring Fling to convey this point, as well as increased patrols in areas outside of the concert on the day itself to keep an eye on students' activities.
"I understand it's not easy to create change and there will be people who make stupid decisions … I certainly hope it's not the case, but we'll be watching … to make sure we address those issues as best we can," he said.
Junior Rameen Aryanpur said he could sympathize with the committee's decision. "I think that it's unfortunate that it has to come to this, but I can understand why they would be pushed to that kind of decision after what happened in past years," he said.
Becca Citron, a junior, felt that the committee should either have provided the option of reentry into the concert or have allowed alcohol at the event for of−age students. "One of the two needs to be an option, otherwise this will be a counterproductive policy," she said.
Senior Patty Pensuwan agreed that such a stance would backfire, saying that the regulations ignore the real issue. "I think it'll just cause more problems than it'll actually solve," she said. "I don't think seniors are the problem or the cause of any ruckus."
Echoing Ratain's view that regulation was not an effective way to approach the alcohol abuse problem, senior Zach Rich felt that the policy would be limited in its reach.
"Students aren't going to stop drinking just because the university isn't allowing it to happen," he said. "It would just be safer and better if they were more relaxed."
Ratain said he would continue to push the administration to move beyond mere policy changes. "My primary concern is making sure that the administration understands that these sort of regulatory changes are not the solution," he said.
Rattiner reiterated his displeasure with the decision. "I am severely, severely disappointed in this decision, I think it was a disaster," he said.
