NOTE: I would like to take a paragraph this week to apologize for a line in my last Op-Ed. While many of you were focused on the strange new rivalry between NARP’s and athletes, a poorly thought-out, badly phrased hypothetical appeared at the end of my piece. Had it been merely an opinion that was unpopular, which it certainly was, I would let the words speak for themselves. However, this was not the case. By simple bad writing, I expressed a sentiment I myself do not believe. I have written this column for a large part of my Middlebury career and I have to take responsibility for what appears in it. It was not my intent to belittle the cause of feminism, demean women or do any of the host of other things the line in question implied. I hope many of the readers who are familiar with this column would understand this was a blunder of carelessness, not of malice. Thank you to all the people who cared enough to contact me with some really powerful and interesting responses. I made a mistake, I am accountable for it, and I apologize if I have hurt or betrayed the trust of any friends and readers.
While many of us lamented (or praised) the string of blizzards that pounded New England over break or cheered (or cried) during the events of the Super Bowl, our peer over in the granite state made a dramatic announcement. No, they were not replacing their logo with clip art, or building more houses in the woods behind their Campus. No, no, Dartmouth was banning liquor on its campus. Yes, as of the start of their Spring term, all beverages containing over 15 percent alcohol will be banned.
Alums are debating the effects of this policy heatedly, certainly, but also, to my surprise, adults I encountered over break. I, of course, answered that we were not Dartmouth. Please, we prefer not to be associated with those across the river. This policy appears to be unique to Dartmouth as Dartmouth has its own set of issues surrounding Greek life that simply do not exist at Middlebury. Yet, issues regarding alcohol are not Dartmouth’s alone. While it may not be as heavily publicized, Middlebury is not immune to the issues surrounding alcohol consumption; hazing and sexual assault come immediately to mind. So while the consequences of Dartmouth’s policy will be endlessly debated, perhaps we have an opportunity to reflect on our own social experience and alcohol culture.
It is no secret that a large number of Middlebury students have grown discontented with social life on campus and to be honest, who can blame them? Underage students take shots so they are not caught with a beer in hand, Atwater suites pick up the slack for social houses often bogged down in administrative procedure, the closed door party has become preferable to large events. These issues are not without substance and while it may seem petty to advocate for a better “social life” of all things, we do have a vested interest in all aspects of our experience. The question at hand is whether our current predicament is a function of the College or us?
The cop-out answer is a little bit of both. To be fair, I have had a Public Safety officer mark me down for not having bags of chips accessible enough to a party. But I have also had a string of drunk individuals attempt to fight me for not allowing them into said party. So yes, neither side looks particularly good. However, there needs to be some give and take. In our heart of hearts I think we could all admit that liquor tends to do more harm than good. However, if a policy like Dartmouth’s is to be effective there needs to be reciprocity of some kind. In the perfect world this would be a leniency towards alcoholic beverages under 15 percent.
Despite its good intentions the Dartmouth policy is doomed to fail for largely the same reasons. Yes, ban liquor, liquor is bad, liquor leads to bad things. Can something be given in return though? A little discretion? Some better laws? If not, threats of punishment ring hollow. A liquor ban looks good on paper but it would only serve as a Band-Aid for issues that occur when students, a college, and alcohol intersect. Enacting policies that provoke fear of punishment will only push dangerous behavior behind closed doors. We could take a lesson from this in examining our own policies. Is it worth looking good on paper if it means pulling the blinds and locking the door to take a shot?
