Making Alcohol Policy Stricter to Protect Against Liability May Endanger Students
By Peter Douglas
Opinions Staff Writer


Ah, the perks of being a Pomona College student: swimming pools, beautiful weather, beautiful people, corn dogs at snack, and green grass no matter how much or how little it rains. And, of course, free beer with a minimum of hassle, whether you are 21 or not. This last perk, however, might be on its way out. In response to recent incidents of alcohol poisoning, the Board of Trustees has asked the Student Affairs Committee to evaluate, and possibly reform, the college’s alcohol policy. This process has just begun, and there is no way of knowing how, if at all, the policy will be changed. But there has been a trend across the country for schools in this position to severely restrict alcohol, with many universities becoming strictly “dry” campuses.

There are two major reasons for this trend. First, like Pomona, other colleges are becoming concerned with an increasing incidence of alcohol poisoning. Students at several schools have died from immoderate drinking. Some of the parents of these students, as is to be expected in our litigation-crazy country, sued the colleges for negligence, and won a lot of money. This is the second reason colleges and universities have tended toward more restrictive alcohol policies. They are much less likely to be held accountable for alcohol-related problems if there is no alcohol allowed on their campus. While instituting a “dry campus” policy might be great for avoiding liability, it makes no sense in terms of keeping students safe.

The major problem with these policies is that they don’t stop students from drinking. If there is any method that truly stops students from drinking it hasn’t yet been discovered. If IDs are checked at parties, people will make fake IDs. If no alcohol is served at parties, people will drink in their rooms before they go to parties. If alcohol is completely banned on campus, and this is truly enforced, with Campus Safety entering suspicious rooms and the like, students will leave campus to get drunk. This was made obvious when substance-free opening was extended this year. Students who wanted to respect the sub-free campus but drink anyway just left, heading to Harvey Mudd or Mount Baldy to have their fun.

All this is fine from a liability point of view, since it’s not the school’s problem if students get in trouble off campus. Restricting alcohol, however, actually makes alcohol much more dangerous. The more Pomona or another school distances itself from alcohol, the less control it has over what happens when students drink. When beer is being served by college employees at Eversole, with Campus Safety officers nearby, the consequences of drinking too much can both be minimized and dealt with immediately. A sober graduate student running a keg is much less likely to spike a drink with a date-rape drug than a drunk and horny student. If someone does drink too much and passes out, there is going to be someone who can treat him or her at a college party, but that is not at all certain in someone’s dorm room. Beer lines, as annoying as they might be, serve an important purpose since they slow the rate of drinking considerably.

When drinking is completely pushed off campus the problems get even worse, since driving suddenly becomes a factor, and drunk driving is much more likely to kill you than alcohol poisoning. Other problems can ensue as well. The University of Colorado, in Boulder, decided to institute much stricter alcohol laws a few years ago. The campus is much calmer now, but riots occur regularly in a neighborhood nearby; when couches start burning, the Boulder Police respond, and soon there are beer bottles and tear gas flying through the air. It’s hard to imagine this happening in Claremont, but if enough students leave campus to drink, college relationships with the town, and especially the Claremont Police Department, could sour quickly.

Like it or not, imbibing large quantities of alcohol has become an integral part of the American college culture. Maybe this can be changed, but it isn’t going to happen through Pomona College policy. Certainly something should be done about alcohol poisoning, but the idea that more restrictions mean fewer poisonings is flawed. One way to deal with the problem might be not to require ID for beer at parties, since basic economics tells us that if a student knows he can get free beer at a party he is much less likely to buy a handle of vodka to pound in his room. This might be tricky to do legally, but more subtle approaches toward controlling alcohol are going to have a much more positive effect than simply banning it. If the Student Affairs Committee and the trustees are truly concerned with students’ safety, and not just staying out of court, I strongly urge them to avoid further restricting alcohol on campus.