Nearly two years after Georgetown liberalized its campus alcohol policies, a university committee is considering rolling back some of the changes and tightening student drinking regulations, according to committee members.
The Disciplinary Review Committee, which proposed the revisions to the university’s alcohol policies made in 2004, has been debating changes to the current regulations since late last fall, members said. Committee discussions have focused on what some members said is the ineffectiveness of the current policies and potential modifications – including new restrictions on kegs and increased disciplinary sanctions – that could alleviate problems such as binge drinking.
“According to the data that’s been presented to the Disciplinary Review Committee, there are still issues that need to be addressed,” said Gwen Owens, head librarian at Blommer Science Library and a faculty member of the DRC. “The feeling in general is that the change in the policies did not address the problems. . We haven’t seen any lessening of violations.”
If approved, the changes being considered by the DRC would bring the university’s policies closer to those of many other Catholic and Jesuit universities, such as nearby Catholic University, which have more restrictive alcohol policies, including keg bans.
The changes to the alcohol disciplinary policies in 2004 included new rules making it easier for students to register campus parties and eliminating sanctions for underage students found at parties with alcohol present or discovered with empty alcohol containers.
Committee members said that they were now seriously considering both increasing sanctions for alcohol use and placing new restrictions on the use of kegs on campus.
“There’s serious discussion about increasing sanction levels or making the sanctions meaningful,” said Owens, who served on the DRC when it made its policy recommendations in 2004. If students won’t be more responsible, “What can you do but make stricter rules?” she added.
The committee can only issue recommendations, which have to be approved by Todd Olson, vice president for student affairs, before going into effect. In 2004 the committee asked Olson to completely ban kegs, but he declined, saying more student input was necessary before making such a decision.
Olson, who does not sit on the DRC, declined to comment on the deliberations, saying that he had not yet been presented with any specific proposals for policy changes.
DRC member Slade Smith (MSB ’06) said that Olson had asked the committee to look into the issue after concerns were raised that the 2004 policies had not solved some problems related to campus alcohol use. He said that although there is still debate in the committee on whether the alcohol policies need to be revised at all, there is a sense among administrators and Student Affairs staff that changes are necessary.
“I got that feeling from the beginning, that they wanted something changed, that they weren’t content with it as it is,” Smith said. “It was very clear, in my opinion, that they wanted to see changes enacted.
“I think from the beginning there’s kind of this implicit push to have a proposal on Dr. Olson’s desk by the end of the [academic] year,” he added.
Smith said that one suggestion made during deliberations was to reduce the number of kegs that students can have in their university apartments or townhouses rather than banning them entirely.
The Student Code of Conduct currently permits two kegs per townhouse or apartment per event.
DRC members said that while there is no specific timetable, it is likely that the committee will send Olson its recommendations for policy revisions by the end of the semester.
Stephanie Lynch, director of residence life, referred questions to Jeanne Lord, DRC chair and associate vice president for student affairs, and Judy Johnson, a DRC member and director of student conduct. Lord and Johnson did not respond to telephone and e-mail requests for comment yesterday.
Samantha Williams (COL ’06), a student member of the DRC, said that the committee had begun to discuss the problems with the current alcohol policies last semester, including continued messes in Village A, overdrinking among students and safety concerns about drunk students walking home at night.
“We talked about why alcohol abuse on campus is still a problem,” Williams said. “We knew that whatever we’d decided was going to be submitted … for policy change. . We knew that alcohol was going to take the most time.”
Smith said that he hoped committee members would press for more data about alcohol abuse on campus before making any decisions regarding policy recommendations.
“What I would like is to see more facts and figures about how common these issues are on campus,” he said. “It’s not realistic to think we can restrain all students from binge drinking or students under 21 from drinking at all.”