<p>Yes, but this particular incident, the OPs opinion and Arthur Chu (a Swat student's) opinion should be discussed somewhere else. What policy Swat should have regarding drinking are nobody else's concern. I do understand Driver's point about allowing drinking by the administration and that was something that contributed positively to the discussion. Everything else sounds like old animosities brought up here.</p>
<p>marite- The game is being held in New Haven this year since it was at Harvard last year. Also not a single person arrested was a Harvard student. One was an alumna. The police made a big deal but it wasn't even Harvard students, and the newspapers blew it up because they don't want Harvard expanding into Allston.</p>
<p>Thanks, EAS. I thought I had read it was going to be at Harvard again this year, which indeed was surprising.<br>
I would distinguish between arrests and people getting drunk and needing to be hospitalized.<br>
I know that deans have expressed concern about drunkenness; I do not dispute Mr. Seaman's statistics of 70 students needing a stay in the infirmary by Thanksgiving when he conducted his research (presumably before the link between alcohol and sexual harassment was documented).<br>
I agree with you about the police making a big fuss because of Harvard's expansion into Allston.</p>
<p>ACHAT - no clue as to why you are inferring that this is a discussion for another forum - but YES folks do have to have a good understanding of the policies at Swat - if they are considering letting their kiddos attend there - as at any other school as well - students applying to any school should have that understanding - especially when they sign on the dotted line - and agree to abide by the schools standards and policies! If a school has policies that are offensive to someone - maybe they should not be applying there.</p>
<p>How far do colleges need to go? Here's a story about one New York college that realized they were carrying things too far.</p>
<p>Yesterday's Albany Times Union reported: </p>
<p>
[quote]
There's a new drinking policy at Siena College.</p>
<p>No drinking.</p>
<p>Of anything.</p>
<p>Even water. Or iced tea. Or coffee, Red Bull or lemonade. Or vodka or beer, for that matter, in case anybody gets any bright ideas.</p>
<p>According to a policy dated Sept. 17, students are "no longer allowed to consume alcohol or any other beverage in any type of container outside of their townhouse or in any public area on campus."</p>
<p>"Safety first, that's what it's all about," Siena spokeswoman Janet Gianopoulos said.</p>
<p>But does the new policy also mean a person who buys a Pepsi in a vending machine on the Loudonville campus and opens it on one of the lush quads is breaking the rules?</p>
<p>Yes, Gianopoulos said. But they can crack open that drink once they reach their residence, she added.</p>
<p>...</p>
<p>Interviews with Siena students indicated that not everybody was familiar with the policy. A handful of students walking around campus with drinks either hadn't heard of the new rule or said they weren't afraid of it; some said they knew of others forced to dump beverages by authorities, but hadn't lost liquids themselves.</p>
<p>One, who requested anonymity for fear of reprisal, said his residence assistant announced the changes during a dorm meeting and pointed to people holding colas and water. They're verboten outside of dorm rooms, he was told, and would result in getting written up.</p>
<p>Another, sophomore Michael Carr, said he saw somebody told to empty a Starbucks coffee outside a dorm.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Today's Times Union reports that they've rethought their policy:</p>
<p>
[quote]
</p>
<p>Siena reverses ban on drinks
Students are free again to have non-alcoholic beverages on campus </p>
<p>One day after the Times Union wrote about a new policy designed to restrict consumption of all drinks, alcoholic or not, in public places on campus, the school went back to its original policy: No open containers of alcohol.</p>
<p>The revised rules were distributed in an e-mail sent by Maryellen Gilroy, the school's vice president for student affairs. The policy does assume any open container contains alcohol if the seal is broken. However, college officials will only target people who are acting up. And they'll dispense open-container violations only when students are actually carrying containers marked as holding alcoholic beverages.</p>
<p>"Students will be addressed when their behavior warrants it, whether alcohol related or not," Gilroy's e-mail said. "Staff will focus on the conduct."
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Jeepmom, I can't discuss this here; that would give away of the identities of the people involved and I really can't. I am inferring that because
1) Swat does not really having a drinking problem. I know this has a bearing on decisions by future prospects. But if they are interested, they could ask around.
2) What policy Swarthmore sets is for the students and administration to decide.</p>
<p>Sorry I can't be of more help...</p>
<p>Jeepmom,
My main point is, people chose to throw slings and arrows at ID and also to other parents (like me for example) and that could only be because of old animosities. I don't see that being productive.
Thanks,
Achat</p>
<p>ACHAT well - actually it is a public problem/concern - and please do not tell me that SWAT does NOT have an alcohol problem - or kids would NOT be getting arrested or written up or going to the hospital - or leaving parties/events where it is KNOWN that alcohol is being served and then being under observation by a cruiser sitting at the corner - watching - and only applying the law to the unruly!! If students under 21 are drinking at all - anywhere on campus - then there IS a problem - we/I are/am not that ignorant or stupid enough to believe that there is NO problem there - sorry! </p>
<p>The public does have the right of concern as far as a schools policies go - especially as they relate to upholding of state and federal laws - take a good look at the policies relating to alcohol at any school - to see how they should be '' really reading'' their policies - in fact that should be considered when applying to ANY school.</p>
<p>Not throwing any arrows here - I could actually care less - but as a parent - I am very tuned in to the policies and how they are/may be applied where my kiddo goes to school - as all parents should be as well - so no surprises come our way. This should apply to every school - not just at Swart.</p>
<p>Jeepmom,
What Driver said about the administration's policy of allowing underage drinking is up for discussion now at Swat. Parents like us could get involved in it. I think she (Driver) and Arthur Chu brought up a good point. But there is another personal viewpoint about Arthur Chu that I can't mention here...and that has a bearing on the discussion as well. I did not know that as well.</p>
<p>p.s - And sorry let us agree to disagree with Swat does not have a prevalent drinking culture as some have implied. There aren't too many 'kids' getting arrested. What happened at ML was, from my son's viewpoint, a chase given or stampede because he and his friends were scared. Not drunk but scared.
I know you don't care...but my son was simply scared **** of getting arrested.</p>
<p>ACHAT if alcohol was involved in any way - then your ds should have been scared!!! especially if he is underage. I don't need the details of what happened or about Arthur Chu - doesn't matter or apply. The issue in general is underage drinking. If the administration is allowing/condoning underage drinking in any way - they are in for a real eye opening - I do realize that there are occassions at schools where alcohol is served in ''school social situations'' - but their own policies - in print - had better be applied - heavily and to the letter. The administration is not immune to the fed/state laws regarding alcohol and underage - so I sure don't see what the problem is in regards to the school being held to the standard that they themselves have set - there should be NO question at all.</p>
<p>And of course I care - I have an underage college student myself - who actually was written up just for being in the presence of alcohol - not drinking it - but hey - thems is the rules!!!!! Follow them/respect them - or go elsewhere.</p>
<p>Jeepmom, perhaps you are right. It's been a long day. I wasn't referring to you throwing slings and arrows. Let's leave it at that, ok? :)</p>
<p>
[quote]
1) Swat does not really having a drinking problem. I know this has a bearing on decisions by future prospects. But if they are interested, they could ask around.
2) What policy Swarthmore sets is for the students and administration to decide.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It seems to me that Swarthmore's policy is, legally, for the administration to decide. </p>
<p>Students, parents, AND the public at large should properly express their opinions, because all are affected, but it is the administration who will ultimately bear the legal liability for the consequences of the decisions that are made.</p>
<p>And I would argue strongly that the public at large should indeed be involved in alcohol policy discussions, because all of us are affected by campus drinking. </p>
<p>If students are staggering drunk in the streets after getting drunk on campus, they could be the cause of accidents.</p>
<p>If campuses implement draconian policies and drive drinking to distant offcampus bars (since Swarthmore is a dry town), then student drunk driving may be more prevalent.</p>
<p>And, even just among college students, Swarthmore's policies affect far more than just Swarthmore students. After all it is part of a tri-college consortium. Athletic and social events may draw students from other nearby colleges as well (Ursinus, Drexel, Temple, Villanova, Rosemont, Penn.) </p>
<p>As someone who attended a high school near a college campus, I can also say that on-campus parties often draw nearby high school students as well. (This was back in the days when the drinking age was 18 in some places and, as far as I could tell, colleges had no policies restricting alcohol use on campus. By the time I got to college, I had seen enough unattractive behavior at such events that I was NOT interested in attending a college with such activities. I went to a women's college in another state--with a drinking age of 21 and I can honestly say that I never encountered alcohol at parties on my campus, nor did I miss it. Anybody who wanted such things could easily travel to a nearby men's college.)</p>
<p>It is interesting to note, by the way, that the impetus for the Siena College's draconian "no open beverages on campus, even non-alcoholic" (which I posted above) was due to outsiders who invaded the Siena campus.</p>
<p>Campuses are not cloistered monasteries---they impact their surrounding communities and vice versa.</p>
<p>And all of us have an interest in learning what policies work well (or not so well) on different college campuses, so that we can encourage the colleges our children attend to adopt successful policies.</p>
<p>On another tangent, is it so bad if IDad is a Swat proponent? Byerly is a Harvard proponent, I'm a Princeton proponent etc etc. One can be a proponent without becomin Darth Vader.</p>
<p>
[quote]
But this does not belong here
[/quote]
<br>
Where does it belong? This is the parents forum. What could be a more relevant issue? </p>
<p>
[quote]
people chose to throw slings and arrows at ID and also to other parents (like me for example) and that could only be because of old animosities
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Where does this come from? The issue has nothing to do with any particular poster. And to what animosities do you refer? That said, those who paint an artificial picture of Swarthmore seem to take it personally. Why? The point is, Swarthmore has a problem. Deny it if you want. Parents should have the facts, especially if they are considering sending their kids to the school.</p>
<p>Swarthmore is a fine school, but not a perfect school. Room for improvement is apparent. That some do not want to admit this is really of no moment to me.</p>
<p>As to a drinking problem, I imagine Swarthmore has less of one than most other schools. But that doesnt mean no problem exists.</p>
<p>Deny if you wish the problems are escalating. I will not read through eight years of back issues of the Phoenix (as some parents might) to arrive at a conclusion contrary to what I have heard from students and administrators. I have neither the time nor the inclination. The Village police are on a mission. This weeks issue of the Phoenix, in describing the little fracas over the weekend, even mentions the back exit was closed to students because the Village police were waiting for students.</p>
<p>The Administration has a problem. I hope they step up to the plate (baseball analogies forgiven, I hope, especially on this weekend). But to keep denying a problem exits smacks of elitism.</p>
<p>I look forward to reading additional meaningful comments.</p>
<p>A ways back - Washington & Lee - a very highly regarded institution as well - was mentioned - regarding their strict policies relating to alcohol and substance abuse - one thing I will have to say in support of W&L - there policies and handling of abuses - are right out there - real easy to find - are very complete and concise - no nonsense approach to the application of said policies - there is no student or parent in doubt of the repercussions that will be applied when the code of conduct and honor code is violated!!! </p>
<p>It will be interesting to see how their system really works over time. I know it has been in the making for several years there - they are taking a real pro-active approach to this problem - sure wish other schools would do the same.</p>
<p>Not to say that drinking does not occur at W&L - but at least the students know up front EXACTLY what is going on - and when parents are notified of a problem with their student - there is no doubt that the schools 'code' has been breached. I have to applaud W&L for taking such a strong stand on this issue.</p>
<p>EDDY - the article - well enuf said - proof in the pudding - problem for sure!!!!! No ostriches here. Just love the way this is seemingly soft peddled. Sure is a mystery to me why 911 was not called for the injured student in the first place!!!!!!!!! OR why the police are not mentioned as being involved either!!!!! Obviously the 'system' here does not work.</p>
<p>And YES - parents and administration sure better be worried!!!!!!!!!</p>
<p>EDDY - I totally agree with your post above - as this was a school organization supported party - they could be in alot of hot water because of this - or it will be swept under the carpet to maintain an image - which is very unfair to the students, parents and future applicants.</p>
<p>Certainly will be interesting to see how this situation falls into place - or what will it take for them to wake up!??!?!? - a student disabled or worse - a student death - in something related to alcohol!!!!!</p>
<p>Marite, if the wine is good enough that it's "ruined" after being oxidized from being left out, they have these nifty inexpensive little cannisters of inert heavier-than-air gas that you can "spray" into the bottle and "protect" the wine. Got one at the local wine house. </p>
<p>Of course, keep "forgetting" to use it when we have a partial bottle. Like you, when it's the two of us we seldom finish the bottle and a third- to a half-bottle left is common. Lightweights 'R Us.</p>
<p>I first mentioned the party incident here on Monday night -- three days before The Phoenix article. I mentioned in this thread that the Chu op-ed piece was not really the big, or interesting, story.</p>
<p>In reading a few of the comments, it might help if I point you in the right direction:</p>
<p>a) As to why the injured woman walked rather than calling an ambulance: look at the proximity of the 24/7 campus health care facility to the party location in Sharples.</p>
<p>b) Why would a disorderly student insist on using the back exit of the building instead of the main exit that leads to campus? Hint: identify the only two buildings near the back exit.</p>
<p>c) Were there other events that night at either of these two buildings that could be relevant?</p>
<p>d) Note the implied potential connection between the three incidents described in the article. Here's a clue: The location of the destroyed swipe card reader is immediately adjacent to table that was thrown. Here's another clue: a student would pass both just a few feet before exiting the front of the building, (just hypothetically, if he or she had been escorted to the stairs leading out of the party).</p>
<p>e) The article quotes the Dean about referal to the College Judiciary Committee for these incidents. I would recommend looking up usual sanctions following a referral. The College handbook clearly defines the dividing line between a disciplinary action handled by a Dean and a referral to the CJC as follows: "The formal judicial system at Swarthmore College has two main components: (1) adjudication by individual deans of minor infractions of College regulations, where a finding of guilt would result in a sanction less severe than suspension; and (2) adjudication by the CJC of serious infractions of College regulations."</p>
<p>f) As for sanctions against the party hosts, that is unlikely in this case. The trouble arrived at the party drunk and disorderly from a private unsanctioned event and it's not clear that he was even served alcohol at the SASS party, which was staffed by the head of the Party Associates program.</p>
<p>As a final comment to JeepMOM: Nothing is being "swept under the carpet" about this incident. As I have mentioned, the school's policy is to hold students responsible for their actions.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have to applaud W&L for taking such a strong stand on this issue.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, you'll have to send your applause to South Bend, because Pres. Burish, who implemented the new alcohol policy at W&L, resigned last summer after just three years on the job.</p>
<p>With the highest frat membership in the country, I don't envy Burish's task. His alcohol policy produced an incredible level of vitriol among students and alumni. Read the editorials in the Trident applauding his departure, including the editor of the paper who proposed a closing toast, "I'll binge drink to that."</p>
<p>The prime consequence of his alcohol ban has been to drive frat parties to off campus locations with an increase in DUI arrests and auto accidents. I don't think anyone in the W&L community believes the alcohol policy is working.</p>
<p>I'm not sure what would work when the drinking culture is such an integral part of the school's identity.</p>
<p>carolyn: I don't get it. What's funny here? Clue the rest of us in.</p>
<p>As I see it, too many parents who are sending their kids to supposedly TOP schools are in denial of the fact that this drinking problem crosses all barriers - even economic ones. Also, too many parents (I see this among my peers) are in complete denial that their little Johnny would ever drink. He's too busy studying!</p>
<p>It does seem like a really tough problem to tackle. It's been going on a long time (although maybe not to this extent) and kids bypass numerous other entertainment venues to drink. </p>
<p>I think the most helpful thing is for everyome to admit what a serious problem we have here. 300 students a year dead from alcohol poisoning? Outrageous. One would be outrageous! </p>
<p>It's more than just non-drinking kids sitting in dorms bored. It's about good kids doing dumb stuff. And it happens everywhere and it happens to good boys and girls. And it is really a bad thing.</p>
<p>Sorry, I'll get off my podium now. It's just an issue that really concerns me.</p>