New Alcohol Policy Far From Ideal
The Editorial Board

On Monday, Dean of Students Ann Quinley distributed the first public draft of a proposed alcohol policy revision, written by the Student Affairs Committee in the wake of a study conducted by the Committee for the Investigation of the Alcohol Culture at Pomona College (CIACPC). The members of the CIACPC are to be commended for their efforts in presenting a fair and thorough analysis of alcohol use at Pomona. Of considerable concern, however, is the extent to which the SAC's proposed revision further restricts and sanctions certain types of alcohol use (something the CIACPC said, and Quinley insinuated, would not be a result of the study). The revision takes non-trivial steps toward encouraging safe and smart drinking at Pomona, but in restricting certain behaviors and increasing the severity of sanctions for violators, it threatens to drive further underground-not decrease-what is really at issue: rapid consumption of hard alcohol.

Pomona College's relationship with alcohol is troubling. That the social climate at Pomona is one in which drinking takes place more often and in far greater quantities than in society at large is not a matter of debate; it is fact. Moreover, the series of alcohol poisonings, and near misses, that have plagued the college in increasing numbers are a serious concern. There is simply no way to justify any attitude of laxity or indifference with regard to alcohol use, on the part either of administration or students; as Quinley told The Student Life in November, were a student to die from alcohol poisoning, "we would be having a really different conversation."

The draft distributed this week, while it attempts to address those concerns, is the result of compromise, a product of demands and concessions from policy-makers (the faculty and student members of the Student Affairs Committee) whose opinions on alcohol use are varied and diverse. Many of its provisions constitute a major step forward in accommodating, responsibly and prudently, the alcohol use that figures so broadly in Pomona's social life. Allowing kegs in designated "residential" spaces, even conditionally (with severe restrictions and draconian sanctions against violators), is likely to meet with tremendous good-faith support among the student body. There is ample reason to hope that this aspect of the policy will successfully combat the sorts of unhealthy drinking behaviors that have led to Pomona's brushes with alcohol poisoning, provided the college will-as it must, in order for the policy to be effective-perform the tight-rope act of upholding its legal obligations while indirectly extending safer drinking options to underage students, for whom the problem of acute alcohol abuse is by far the most severe. (The administration has no intention of making any kind of committal statement that it will turn a blind eye to underage drinking; the new policy, which for private parties delegates to student "hosts" the duties currently performed by Campus Safety and the college's hired servers, is a compromise under which the college can both in effect relax its policy-by leaving distribution up to students themselves-and maintain its stated commitment to legal conduct.)

But the new policy also threatens far more rigid sanctions in response to any violation-such as unregistered kegs and, more significantly, underage consumption of hard liquor-than its predecessor. (The sanction regimen included in this week's draft is not final, and is the most likely aspect of the revision to undergo further changes before the policy's adoption.) Concerned about hard alcohol from well before the start of the CIACPC's review, Quinley and others have shaped a policy that is dangerously unrealistic about its use. Troublingly, nothing in the policy revision constitutes a compelling reason for underage students to change their drinking habits; a finite number of individually registered kegs, which under the letter of the policy are still strictly off limits to underage students, will not provide a sufficient impetus away from "frontloading" and other dangerous hard alcohol-related behaviors. Rather, the threat of sanctions will, as it has in the past, merely confine these behaviors to more hazardous quarters; students who are afraid of being discovered breaking the policy will, as they have in the past, drink more, faster, and be less likely to seek help when problems arise.

Practically, then, the net effect of the proposed revision is a more punishing sanction protocol for consumers of hard alcohol and underage drinkers, with a few concessions to students over 21 (among whom alcohol poisoning is far less of a problem-at least half of alcohol-related hospitalizations at Pomona involve freshmen) and none at all to everyone else. In November, CIACPC member Phil Kopczynski '03 told the Student Life: "The goal of the study is definitely not to tighten the policy." That is, however, precisely what has happened, and no amount of careful wording can alter the substance of the fact. Many of the most common drinking practices at Pomona now carry sanctions that, if they existed at all before, are, under the new policy, considerably more severe. Rather than increased openness and transparency, the revised policy promotes dangerous behavior and alienates the general student body from its policy-makers.

"I told the trustees that if I could ban hard alcohol on campus, I would," Quinley said in November. "I don't think I can, though." It is not unreasonable to see the revised policy as a duplicitous first step toward precisely that sort of ban. No less disturbing is the apparent cynicism of those who, seeking student input in order ostensibly to safeguard students' autonomy, have breached our trust. An adequate revision process will hold Quinley and others accountable for their agendas regarding substance use, preserve the vitality of campus life, and promote the well-being and safety of all Pomona students. A substantially stricter policy-like the one currently proposed-will accomplish none of these.