The number of alcohol violations has dropped by over 50 percent over a three-year period, a statistic the administration attributes to the stricter alcohol policies implemented in 2007, which have since been a primary complaint among students.
From January to December 2009, 334 alcohol violations were reported to the Department of Public Safety, representing a 63 percent drop from the 903 violations reported in 2006.
“This downward trend may be attributed to measures that the university has taken to curtail excessive drinking, such as party registration and keg limitations,” Joseph Smith, associate director of DPS, wrote in an email.
Amendments to the alcohol policy were proposed in 2006 and went into effect in fall 2007. Students wishing to hold parties on the weekend were required to undergo mandatory training and register them by Thursday evening. Parties in townhouses and apartments were also limited to 25 to 35 people. After hefty student protests, a working group was formed and the alcohol policy was again amended in fall 2008. The current policy allows for beer pong tables, maintains the one-keg limit, facilitates party registration, clarifies the Code of Student Conduct and maintains the two-empty-container limit in alcohol-free dorms.
According to Judy Johnson, director of the Office of Student Conduct, the university makes great efforts to ensure that the campus alcohol policy is in the best interests of students.
“Over [the] years we have consulted with the community at large. We had committees that looked at the alcohol policy and [Vice President of Student Affairs] Todd Olson had town hall meetings regarding the alcohol policy,” Johnson said.
“We look at the information gathered and what other schools have. And we look at how can we match the community’s issues and preferences with a reasonable policy and then the committee members vote,” she added.
Despite the university’s efforts toward community engagement, some students who have been written up for alcohol violations have expressed dissatisfaction with the university’s current policy.
“I have a couple problems with the process, the first being that in the student code of conduct the measure for determining responsibility is `more likely than not,'” Andrew Blay (SFS ’14) said. “[It] leaves a lot of room for interpretation and bias that is present among a lot of administrators and residence hall directors, which I think is unfair to students.”
Blay was written up for an alcohol infraction on Sept. 16 when DPS knocked on his door and discovered a party inside his room. Blay is now in the process of meeting with the Office of Student Conduct and with his residence hall director to deal with the infraction.
Although he described the disciplinary process as fairly easy, Blay said he felt that administrators were often inclined to mistrust students. Students face an additional challenge this year as the Residential Judicial Council, a disciplinary body composed of students, has been put on hiatus. Students who commit violations now have to deal directly with hall directors. Blay said that this puts students at a disadvantage.
“There’s a bias and a perception that a red solo cup automatically means that you have alcohol,” he said.
The policy requires resident assistants and DPS to issue citations if students are seen in association with alcohol, even if it is clear that the students had not been drinking. The protocol can be problematic for students like Ciara Foldenauer (SFS ’14), who said she found herself in the wrong place at the wrong time.
“I walked into a room with my friends . and they had been drinking and smoking in there,” Foldenauer said. “A little while later the RA knocked on the door, came in and asked us all to turn in our GOCards. It was frustrating because I was clearly sober, but the RA is obligated to write everyone up.”
Category A violations to the Student Code of Conduct include excessive noise, possession or consumption of alcohol and possession of an unauthorized keg or alcohol related paraphernalia. These are categorized as minor infractions and are punishable by fines, work sanction hours, referral to a community resource, party restriction and possible housing relocation. Category B violations include illegal purchase of alcohol, providing alcohol to a minor and providing alcohol to an intoxicated person. These are punishable by housing relocation, housing probation or suspension and disciplinary probation or a suspension of up to two years.
“I got class A citations for alcohol in a dry dorm, possession of alcohol, consumption of alcohol, smoking indoors and a violation of quiet hours, and I had probably been there a total of 10 minutes. And that was just their policy,” Foldenauer said.
In order to clear her record, Foldenauer had to meet with her residence hall director and submit evidence and witnesses to attest to the fact that she was not drinking.
Johnson said that she did believe there has been an increase in violations this year, though she does not have statistics. The reason is unclear, as resident assistants have not increased patrols, according to Stephanie Lynch, director of residence life.
“The RAs are performing their duties and have been trained in a similar fashion to last year. They have not been asked nor are they conducting any additional rounds,” Lynch said.
