Sub-Free Still Necessary
By Laurel McFadden
Staff Writer

Please, someone explain what the big deal is about different people using alcohol differently. There is a disturbing idea on campus that the current substance-free housing for freshmen is in various ways unacceptable. Groups of students have been meeting lately with various faculty to discuss substance-free housing, particularly regarding plans for the organization of freshmen housing next year.

The main complaint that has come up in these meetings is that the grouping of all sub-free sponsor groups in Mudd-Blaisdell significantly contributes to the ostracism of sub-free students, which is seen as an especially detrimental stigma for incoming freshmen. In response, the idea to spread sub-free halls throughout the Freshman Row dorms has been offered as a balancing factor to the perceived polarization between sub-free and non-sub-free.

The main reason that this issue is being studied is the criticism from non-sub-free students. This is a poor basis for such a decision. While one does hear of the occasional friend of a friend who had some serious problem with his or her sub-free living situation, it is actually relatively rare to hear of someone currently living in sub-free complaining about his or her situation. This is not to dismiss the fact that these problems occur, but one must look at them in their context; they are relatively rare instances in a few individual situations.

To expect any housing arrangement to be totally perfect is obviously unrealistic. There are far more complaints from students about problems caused by excessive drinking, whether property abuse or noise, than there are grievances about some abstract projection of substance use polarization. People tend to make a far bigger fuss over this perceived ostracism than over problems in the substance-use halls.

What I fail to understand is the idea that the college has some strange obligation to expose its incoming freshmen to alcohol. I don't think anyone can pretend that substance use does not exist, but to have administration moderate housing requests in order to place sub-free students in a modest alcohol presence seems an absurd dismissal of a student's acceptable preference.

There is this strange notion that sub-free freshmen are denying themselves the "proper alcohol culture" education by choosing this housing. The idea to spread sub-free halls throughout the other dorms is usually proposed on the grounds that it would correct freshmen misperceptions about usual and proper alcohol usage.

In my mind, it would be equally sensible, therefore, to encourage student participation in substance-free dorm situations to teach substance users about the options of a non-alcohol-based social life. This would undoubtedly be highly unpopular. Although I would never expect or want this kind of sub-free contingent to be pressed upon the freshman class, it is important to compare this to what we have in our situation.

What we have here is a lifestyle that ideally is perfectly acceptable when it does not infringe on the peace of surrounding students. Alcohol use in moderation is certainly no crime. It becomes unacceptable, however, when simply because it is practiced by most of the student body, it is assumed that it should be experienced by every student on campus.

When students choose sub-free housing, there is an understanding that they prefer an alcohol-free environment. To place sub-free halls in the midst of sub-free dorms defeats the purpose of having such housing. Although it is also argued that placing the groups in close proximity to each other will educate the one and moderate the usage of the other, it is equally, and to my mind even more likely, that a stronger polarization than ever will occur. If students varying greatly in their substance use preferences are put into constant contact and conflict with each other, they will only be more inclined to be uncomfortable with their living situation.

While some misconceptions about sub-free and non-sub-free lifestyles may be adjusted, there is no escaping the fact that the diffusion of sub-free halls among an intimidating majority of substance-use halls will force unwanted situations on both groups. As it is currently, the grouping of sub-free halls helps ensure that not only will students abide to keeping alcohol out of the hall, but that the minority of sub-free students will not feel a constant social pressure to get involved in substance use.

In a recent meeting on sub-free policy, it was explained that the locations for the sub-free halls in dorms other than Mudd-Blaisdell were in less public areas, where students from other halls would not be forced to carry alcohol through to get to their halls. This very admittance that the new sub-free halls will still be given a less social, back-hall status again defeats the purpose of trying to integrate the two groups.

The most alarming comment made in the discussion was the suggestion that sub-free halls be not only spread out, but also decreased in number. Not only is this totally contrary to the steadily increasing requests of incoming freshmen for sub-free housing, but it shows once again the automatic assumption that students should be placed in an alcohol-use environment.

There is no reason to limit substance-free housing, in which everyone has a right to live. There needs to be a much greater respect for the incoming freshmen's requests for substance-free living arrangements. The majority should not be impressed upon the minority, especially this case of such contrasting lifestyles. Leave substance free alone, and don't aggravate an already tender conflict.