Banning alcohol on this campus may be the worst solution I have ever heard to dealing with what many consider an issue, even an urgent one. I cannot imagine any reasonable person actually believing that this is an even viable solution to the “problem.” It is just plain ignorant.
Even the most casual student of history knows that when a group of people that believes it has the moral and authoritative mandate to single-handedly ban a certain action, nothing good ever results. History is rife with examples, the most currently applicable of which is the prohibition of the 1920s. That period of time is known more for its ubiquitous drunkenness than for the national ban on alcohol.
Bans by definition do not include attempts to teach responsible exercise of the action being banned. Once it is implemented, we will have the same problem as before, but it will move underground and there will be more risk; people will fear to report any dangerous situations because of the possibility of severe disciplinary action.
This does not even take into account that we do not have that much of an alcohol problem on this campus. There can be no comparison made between our record of success with alcohol and the problems that are seen at other universities. It is a fact that our students are responsible with their alcohol use.
As someone who has been to these mysterious “frat parties” that are corrupting the innocent youth of this campus, I can say this first-hand. In a standard night, I’ll estimate that 500-600 people will filter through the “worst” of the parties on this campus, with three to four hundred in the house at one time at the height of it. Of those hundreds of people, there will be only a couple dozen that become one of “those people” over the course of the evening. Yes, there will be hundreds socially drinking, and many of them would qualify as intoxicated at the end of the evening, but only a handful will need to make use of the mechanisms put in place at these parties to make sure everyone leaves safely. That these mechanisms exist is the surest sign that our students are responsible, and why we have not had any persistent problems in years.
Now, the question to be posed is, does the existence of this handful of people create a situation that should preclude having this kind of event? On this campus, there is nothing that can bring so many students of various backgrounds and interests together like one of these parties, and banning them would remove this experience from the campus entirely. There are people I see at these parties that I have never seen anywhere else on campus in all my four years here. As the administration is so quick to point out, in the last few years many new opportunities have opened up to many new types of students; shouldn’t I have a chance to meet those people who have followed a different track through RPI than my own?
Nonetheless, the argument is made, “Why should alcohol be so important?” This is almost laughable. I could make the same argument about most human societies on this planet. Eating and drinking are as established a communal activity as you can find in animals. Removing alcohol removes the gathering point for the community.
My advice to those in Rensselaer County, the City of Troy, and the administration of RPI who see college drinking as a scourge on this campus is to take one look in the mirror, see that we are socializing just like everyone else—that we are all human—and get back to work fixing the real problems of this area. Stop trying to solve imaginary problems just to give yourselves good press; it will only cause more problems.
