Why You Can Drink -- Everywhere Else

Coming to the USA has been nothing less than a brutal culture shock, perhaps for one reason alone: alcohol. Of further significance is that such a statement as this seem to encourage officials into believing that I am, automatically, an alcoholic. This is simply untrue.

In the United Kingdom the drinking age sits peacefully at 18 for one unspoken reason, and that reason alone: underage drinking. In London, from my personal experiences, individuals tend to begin unsupervised drinking at around the age of 13. At this level it is a constrained and limited activity, governed entirely by the number of individuals able to attain alcohol, and of course, by the actions of parents. By age 15, individuals will have begun a drinking habit in social situations comparable to that of an average 19 year old university socialite. Finally, by age 18, detrimental drinking habits have become virtually unnoticeable. Thus, when an individual is taken into a university environment, where one is away from home and supervision, there is little fear of ignorant binge drinking.

On the other hand, in the United States, from what I gather, underage drinking generally begins at around the age of 16 or 17. It is apparent, therefore, that unsupervised underage drinking begins roughly around 5 years prior to the legal age, both in the United Kingdom and in the United States. The difference, however, is that individuals entering universities in the US are at a much higher risk of alcohol related injury. Perhaps of greater worry is that it is apparent that American students are much more open to minor drug use than those abroad. The reason? Drugs such as marijuana are significantly easier to come by than alcohol and fake identifications. I simply cannot see the logic behind such a backwards system that inadvertently increases low-class drug use over social drinking.

Programs such as AlcoholEdu, despite what the many institutions employing its services might argue, does little to stem this activity in the United States. In fact, AlcoholEdu offers an insensitive insight into the personal lives of those who are forced to use it. For instance, AlcoholEdu went as far as to suggest that I came from a background of alcoholics, and that rather than drink, I should pray. Such ignorance is infuriating.

In terms of on-campus drinking, I believe the authorities should acknowledge underage drinking, and offer helpful resources to promote responsibility, rather than sending Police through dorms and fraternity houses, and by forcing AlcoholEdu tests. Regarding the on-campus culture, I believe that is the responsibility of the administration. The student body has, and always will continue to have parties, to drink underage, and to have a genuinely good university experience. It is up to the university to acknowledge this and embrace a degree of acceptance and maturity regarding the situation.

Perhaps I spoke too soon?

In response to my last entry regarding the SMU Drug Task Force report, I find myself deeply disillusioned. Since writing, the report has become official, and is now open for the public to read online. The report contains some compelling changes, and elements of the "logic" mentioned in my prior post, however, whether it will be enforced is another thing altogether.

This weekend, like most others, SMU Police did what it does best -- it sent an overwhelmingly unnecessary amount of police into fraternity houses. It is mildly irritating that this is their action on quiet nights of the week, yet, what is truly worrying is that I cannot, in my mind, see them relaxing in this behavior, whatsoever.

The Drug Task Force report, released last week, offers an image of SMU that is significantly different than what The Daily Campus, or the Police might lead you to believe. The report highlights characteristics of a police-run student body. That is, currently students reporting to be ill from alcohol may be severely punished for drinking afterwards, thus encouraging individuals to not visit a doctor. Or, perhaps more shocking, SMU's "Passive Participation" policy. A policy that, if you have not seen it in action before, holds any individual accountable for drinking, even if they are not drinking, but merely in the viscinity of the act. Thereby rendering some forms of sociability as illegal. The report suggests that such a policy is abolished. Furthermore, the program in which SMU students are encouraged to report their fellow students to the police is suggested to be reevaluated. There is a seemingly endless list of pointless measures that have been drawn into question in the past several weeks, and I am extremely grateful for this.

SMU Police, on the other hand, seemingly relies upon such policies in order to fill their monthly arrest and violation quotas. If you don't believe me, read the police reports published in The Daily Campus.

I do not mean to utterly undermine the SMU Police Force -- they do a wonderful job maintaining a safe campus. However, it is the policies set by SMU for the police to uphold that disturb me. I feel that they are so far ingrained into the psyche of SMU students and police officers, that it would be difficult to shy away from this culture. By all means I would love for some of the measures encouraged in the report to be set in place, however, the Student Senate will not be enough to ensure that this happens, or that it is enforced correctly.

Watch out for the police reports from this past weekend -- I'm sure they'll be fun to read.

SMU Drug Task Force Report

This morning the SMU Drug Task Force report, currently under review by the President, was leaked to the public. The report had the following recommendations for the campus:

1. An on-campus bar/pub

2. Allowing fraternities to host parties in their own houses provided that they hire SMU Police and professional bartenders.

3. Medical amnesty

Now, before I continue, I must clarify that I expected the outcome of this investigation to have quite the opposite result. SMU has programs in place that encourage individuals to find out about on-campus drinking and to report it to the Police. I believed this to be a significant precursor to a negative Drug Task Force report. I was proven wrong.

SMU's policy on alcohol and parties has become unbelievably strict in recent months. Even the Daily Campus, a supposedly separate body from the University, prints distinctly biased articles. If you haven't noticed it, look up the Parent's Weekend issue of the Daily Campus (SMUDailyCampus.com). The front cover displayed a bar graph of the number of alcohol violations in each fraternity. The articles in that particular paper centered entirely around the Greek community -- including references to a sex-offender that had once been enrolled at SMU (he is now in his 30's). This is a blatant, and undeniable dig at the Greek community -- particularly as it was printed on Parent's Weekend, at the height of Rush. Such behavior by the University and The Daily Campus is, in my opinion, disgraceful.

The Drug Task Force recommendations provide a refreshing dose of logic, something that SMU and its Police Force have been sincerely lacking. I hope President Turner considers these recommendations with care and maturity. It would be great to have some sort of departure from this Police State that those of us in the Greek community live under.