I went to school in Evanston, Illinois, which was a dry town as well, and no alcohol allowed on campus. It didn’t stop anyone. Liquor stores delivered to campus. I doubt it was really harder for students to get booze easily.
From the article:
Uhhhh… You would think Stanford students were good enough at math to do without the example, wouldn’t you? 
I was in college at an interesting time. The drinking age was 18 when I turned 18, so I’ve been able to drink legally everywhere I lived (home in MA, summer jobs in NH, college in CT) since I turned 18. Connecticut started raising the drinking age, one year at a time, the summer before my junior year. I was an RA on a freshman hall and suddenly the freshmen couldn’t drink.
From everything I’ve read, the change in the law did exactly what it was intended to, reduced drunk driving deaths involving people under 21. But the law of unintended consequences works, too and the school saw an increase in alcohol poisoning problems because freshman who used to be able to go to a bar were now drinking in their dorms. It’s more expensive to drink in a bar than sitting in your dorm room with liquor someone bought for you at the liquor store and at a bar the bartender might cut you off when you were too drunk. I don’t know what the answer is.
I find the different rules for beer and wine vs hard liquor kind of silly. The idiots who were so drunk they were throwing up in the bushes or talking the next morning about how they must have had fun the night before because they couldn’t remember it, seemed to generally have been getting stupid with the kegs at frat parties. My friends and I, while not necessarily sober, weren’t anywhere near close to that. We often drank beer at the bar, but we also used to really like frozen margaritas when we were having a party or hanging out in someone’s room. I don’t think the good vs bad choices are about the kind of alcohol available, I think it’s about whether people want to get pleasantly silly or happy and then stop vs whether people have decided the goal of the evening is getting completely wasted.
" Better alcohol education as freshmen, ongoing alcohol education/refresher courses, addressing underlying issues of over-drinking (i.e. better addressing mental health issues of students), working with the students instead of alienating them by ignoring their concerns." Do you really think that colleges haven’t been trying to educate and change the culture? My kid had to do all kinds of alcohol education activities when starting college. This has been going on for decades and it hasn’t worked.
Current education hasn’t worked but neither has banning alcohol. If alcohol prohibition in the 1920s was a failure then it stands to reason that banning alcohol will just drive it underground at colleges. Not all alcohol education programs are created equal. Some are more effective than others and we should be researching effective programs rather than implementing a ban which we know wont work.
Additionally I do think a lot of binge drinking is driven by stresses of college and coping with other mental issues. By having inadequate counseling for students schools are limiting themselves in addressing the problem. I don’t claim to have the answers, but a ban is the easy way to make it look like you’re “cracking down” without addressing the main issue.
I went to school when beer was legal at 18 but liquor was not legal until 21. Honestly, most of us were pretty happy with beer. The problem for me arose when my friends all turned 21 and I was still 20 (or even 19). Then I needed a fake ID so I could go into the bars they went into.
Stanford could take the position that no alcohol is allowed at any function where the majority of the students are likely to be under 21 (gee, like enforcing the law) but are allowing this compromise. I think it is worth a shot at dealing with a problem.
This could have been done with Scandinavian-style drunk driving laws and enforcement instead of a second Prohibition which has caused a frenzy of campus drinking that you don’t see in countries where the drinking age is 18.
Stanford are putting the cart before the horse. First off lets have a zero tolerance regarding sexual assault on campus. All cases should be referred to and investigated by the local police department, not the college police. If there is a case to answer the student should be suspended, if subsequently found guilty they should be expelled. There are far too many instances when colleges try to brush the issue under the carpet in order to protect their reputations rather than doing the right thing and protecting their students. Secondly the answer is not banning alcohol but rather educating kids on the dangers of alcohol, I am British, the legal age for UK citizens is 18. UK kids are fully aware of alcohol by the time they reach college. Do UK kids get drunk of course they do, but the “red cup dorm room speed drinking because I don’t know when the next opportunity will be” culture doesnt exist. A sensible approach to alcohol and drinking is required, not a ban on liquor which under 21 is illegal anyway, what do they think they are going to achieve? If they think its going to stop students drinking hard liquor they need to think again.
Stanford’s “college police” are part of the county sheriff’s department (which is the department that would normally cover the campus, which is mostly in unincorporated parts of the county).
http://web.stanford.edu/group/SUDPS/faq.shtml#1
However, there are colleges where the “campus safety department” is not an actual police department or part of one. Students should know the difference, in case they need to call the actual police for some criminal incident.
@ucbalumnus … They are still Stanford Police are they not, no doubt funded by the university, affiliated with the County Sheriffs Dept. Let the Palo Alto city police investigate, then there can be absolutely no doubt of impartiality which will protect the students, the university and the police dept themselves.
Most of the Stanford campus is not actually in the city of Palo Alto.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Palo+Alto,+CA/@37.4256448,-122.1704553,13z/
MOST of Stanford’s lands are comprised of open space.
is this a surprise to you ucb?
Any new construction on the main campus, which IS in PA,
has to be within the 10 year general plan guidleines approved by PA and Santa Clara county.
Compare:
https://campus-map.stanford.edu/
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Palo+Alto,+CA/@37.4256448,-122.1704553,13z/
If the “main campus” is defined as that which is enclosed by Campus Drive, then it is not in the city of Palo Alto. The football stadium is also not in the city of Palo Alto. The hospital and medical center is the part of the campus that is within the city of Palo Alto.
“From everything I’ve read, the change in the law did exactly what it was intended to, reduced drunk driving deaths involving people under 21.”
The data from Canada on this is very interesting. Canada and the U.S. both achieved similar decreases in drunk driving over roughly the same period. But Canada maintained its legal age at 18/19. The DD reductions, therefore, came from other initiatives (education, public awareness, enforcement, etc.).
“Prohibition didn’t work in 1920.”
The data shows that Prohibition did cause a meaningful reduction in drinking, so there was some effectiveness. Also, many scholars theorize that it would have worked much better had Congress not over-reached in the adoption of the Volstead Act.
The 18th Amendment restricted “intoxicating liquors” but did not define the term. Many who voted for the 18th Amendment reasonably believed that beer and wine would not be restricted. But when Congress passed the Volstead Act as enabling legislation, the definition was set at one proof (0.5% alcohol content) and thus wine and beer were (to some) surprisingly made illegal.
That surprise significantly undercut the support for Prohibition (especially in immigrant communities) and also greatly expanded the market opportunities for illegal bootleggers.
Stanford’s policy makes a lot of intuitive sense to me and is certainly worth a try. TBD how it will actually work in practice.
Also let me be clear the evidence suggests the Stanford police did an excellent job in investigating the case in question, my suggestion is aimed more at universities and colleges as a whole. As for Stanford’s policy on alcohol, it seems to me not a very well thought out response, rather just a knee jerk reaction.
re post # 34
oh for gods sake ucb.
I have lived here on the Peninsula all my life, we LIVE on Stanford lands, and have for 33 years even though we live in Menlo Park, my hubby went to Stanford, is a long time Real Estate Broker here on the Peninsula and served on the MP planning commission where there were and still are many battles with Palo Alto AND Stanford over many Stanford development plans that affected MP traffic patterns, thus I THINK I know better than you which city Stanford Stadium is located in!! Hint, its NOT in Menlo Park, Los Altos, Portola Valley or any other of the adjacent cities. -gosh what city is left? Oh right - Palo Alto!
If you need to rely on google maps in order to visualize or define your version of “main campus”, you go right ahead…
sheesh… 8-| (
A place can be not in any city if it is in unincorporated parts of the county. Much of Stanford’s campus (i.e. the “main campus” other than the hospital and medical center area) is such a place (located in a part of Santa Clara County that is not in any city).
Here is a map from the city of Palo Alto itself: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/csd/parks/map.asp . Note the green lines showing the city border which excludes much of Stanford’s campus.
(
Isn’t there a City named Stanford?