[Treebound]

My rising sophomore son told me last night that he received an official email from the University yesterday on this topic.  He said that the various social channels were exploding and that the students and especially the RA's were extremely upset with this new rule.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/St...178599.php

I'm not a fan of having RA's police this ban, as I think it puts them in an awkward position with fellow students and will drive the drinking behind closed doors.  As my son stated, it will come down to how focused the University will be on enforcement.    This is the pendulum swinging too far in my humble opinion.

[Treebound]

My rising sophomore son told me last night that he received an official email from the University yesterday on this topic.  He said that the various social channels were exploding and that the students and especially the RA's were extremely upset with this new rule.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/St...178599.php

I'm not a fan of having RA's police this ban, as I think it puts them in an awkward position with fellow students and will drive the drinking behind closed doors.  As my son stated, it will come down to how focused the University will be on enforcement.    This is the pendulum swinging too far in my humble opinion.

[stupac2]

Yeah I don't think this is going to go so well. What's weird to me is this hardly affects the actual problems (you can still get ragingly drunk on beer and wine at some frat party) while banning things that were completely fine (like my friend's margarita parties). I think the administration was put in a tough spot where they felt like they had to do something, but all the options are bad, so they chose the one that's the most defensible though clearly useless. Do they actually think they're accomplishing this?

“We must create a campus community that allows for alcohol to be a part of the social lives of some of our students, but not to define the social and communal lives of all of our students,” Greg Boardman, vice provost for student affairs, wrote to all incoming students.

Laudable goal, but how does this policy do that? People will either break the rule (because it's stupid and probably impossible to enforce) or drink other equally intoxicating things. You can't change a culture by fiat.

[stupac2]

Yeah I don't think this is going to go so well. What's weird to me is this hardly affects the actual problems (you can still get ragingly drunk on beer and wine at some frat party) while banning things that were completely fine (like my friend's margarita parties). I think the administration was put in a tough spot where they felt like they had to do something, but all the options are bad, so they chose the one that's the most defensible though clearly useless. Do they actually think they're accomplishing this?

“We must create a campus community that allows for alcohol to be a part of the social lives of some of our students, but not to define the social and communal lives of all of our students,” Greg Boardman, vice provost for student affairs, wrote to all incoming students.

Laudable goal, but how does this policy do that? People will either break the rule (because it's stupid and probably impossible to enforce) or drink other equally intoxicating things. You can't change a culture by fiat.

[Mick]

My rising sophomore son told me last night that he received an official email from the University yesterday on this topic.  He said that the various social channels were exploding and that the students and especially the RA's were extremely upset with this new rule.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/St...178599.php

I'm not a fan of having RA's police this ban, as I think it puts them in an awkward position with fellow students and will drive the drinking behind closed doors.  As my son stated, it will come down to how focused the University will be on enforcement.    This is the pendulum swinging too far in my humble opinion.

Perhaps that's what they want.  My frosh year at SCU that became the rule, drinking behind closed doors only.  See no drinking, know no drinking.

[Mick]

My rising sophomore son told me last night that he received an official email from the University yesterday on this topic.  He said that the various social channels were exploding and that the students and especially the RA's were extremely upset with this new rule.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/St...178599.php

I'm not a fan of having RA's police this ban, as I think it puts them in an awkward position with fellow students and will drive the drinking behind closed doors.  As my son stated, it will come down to how focused the University will be on enforcement.    This is the pendulum swinging too far in my humble opinion.

Perhaps that's what they want.  My frosh year at SCU that became the rule, drinking behind closed doors only.  See no drinking, know no drinking.

[gocard14]

This is purely an a** covering move by the university that IMO reduces student safety. As a former dorm staffer, we had an open door policy where residents knew that we weren't there to police them. It was requested that residents leave their doors open when drinking so that people would know if they were having too much. While we certainly had problems with people drinking too much, most of these cases were identified relatively early and managed appropriately, with 1-2 going to the ER.

As everyone else has noted, banning certain forms of alcohol will only drive it behind closed doors and make people less likely to come forward to get help if a friend is in trouble. I can understand the idea behind it. While you can get too drunk on anything, it is tougher (though certainly not impossible) to get to life threatening levels on 4% keystone light. However a rule like this is completely unenforcable, and thus is unlikely to actually reduce hard alcohol consumption, and may promote more binge drinking behavior, where students take multiple shots quickly behind closed doors to avoid being caught.

The only real benefit to this move comes from the University legal department. In the prior situation, if a student died of alcohol poisoning it wouldn't be too hard to point to the university's policy as tacit condoning of drinking, even if it created a safer environment. 

[gocard14]

This is purely an a** covering move by the university that IMO reduces student safety. As a former dorm staffer, we had an open door policy where residents knew that we weren't there to police them. It was requested that residents leave their doors open when drinking so that people would know if they were having too much. While we certainly had problems with people drinking too much, most of these cases were identified relatively early and managed appropriately, with 1-2 going to the ER.

As everyone else has noted, banning certain forms of alcohol will only drive it behind closed doors and make people less likely to come forward to get help if a friend is in trouble. I can understand the idea behind it. While you can get too drunk on anything, it is tougher (though certainly not impossible) to get to life threatening levels on 4% keystone light. However a rule like this is completely unenforcable, and thus is unlikely to actually reduce hard alcohol consumption, and may promote more binge drinking behavior, where students take multiple shots quickly behind closed doors to avoid being caught.

The only real benefit to this move comes from the University legal department. In the prior situation, if a student died of alcohol poisoning it wouldn't be too hard to point to the university's policy as tacit condoning of drinking, even if it created a safer environment. 

[stupac2]

While you can get too drunk on anything, it is tougher (though certainly not impossible) to get to life threatening levels on 4% keystone light.

The thing is that this isn't the state of beer any more. The safeway/bevmo down El Camino will sell any number of different high-ABV beers, and while it's more expensive it's not prohibitively expensive to switch to something like cans of Torpedo that are 7-8% and plenty easy to get drunk on. Hell, there are triple IPAs pushing 12% on shelves in grocery stores now. This isn't 1980, beer isn't exclusively piss-water any more. The super-cheap stuff still is, and for pure "getting wasted" power liquor is still king, but I don't think the difference is large enough to make this ban effective, especially when subverting it won't be hard at all.

[stupac2]

While you can get too drunk on anything, it is tougher (though certainly not impossible) to get to life threatening levels on 4% keystone light.

The thing is that this isn't the state of beer any more. The safeway/bevmo down El Camino will sell any number of different high-ABV beers, and while it's more expensive it's not prohibitively expensive to switch to something like cans of Torpedo that are 7-8% and plenty easy to get drunk on. Hell, there are triple IPAs pushing 12% on shelves in grocery stores now. This isn't 1980, beer isn't exclusively piss-water any more. The super-cheap stuff still is, and for pure "getting wasted" power liquor is still king, but I don't think the difference is large enough to make this ban effective, especially when subverting it won't be hard at all.

[amartinsu13]

This is making its rounds around Facebook: http://hardforcard.com

[amartinsu13]

This is making its rounds around Facebook: http://hardforcard.com

[washingtonismoney]

I could see the policy reducing student health in another way -- consumption of alcohol involves a lot of calories. Could push up weight for many students, which is not great.

[washingtonismoney]

I could see the policy reducing student health in another way -- consumption of alcohol involves a lot of calories. Could push up weight for many students, which is not great.

[winflop]

My rising sophomore son told me last night that he received an official email from the University yesterday on this topic.  He said that the various social channels were exploding and that the students and especially the RA's were extremely upset with this new rule.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/St...178599.php

I'm not a fan of having RA's police this ban, as I think it puts them in an awkward position with fellow students and will drive the drinking behind closed doors.  As my son stated, it will come down to how focused the University will be on enforcement.    This is the pendulum swinging too far in my humble opinion.

It's not so much how far the pendulum is swinging, it the direction in which it's being re-routed.  Maybe they should start by actually enforcing the rules already on the books - especially underage drinking.  Tell the houses & dorms (greek and non-greek) that parties with alcohol will be monitored more aggressively and up the punishments significantly beginning with the first offense - banning alcohol, leaders put on probation/suspension, and potential to lose your house for multiple violations.

[winflop]

My rising sophomore son told me last night that he received an official email from the University yesterday on this topic.  He said that the various social channels were exploding and that the students and especially the RA's were extremely upset with this new rule.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/St...178599.php

I'm not a fan of having RA's police this ban, as I think it puts them in an awkward position with fellow students and will drive the drinking behind closed doors.  As my son stated, it will come down to how focused the University will be on enforcement.    This is the pendulum swinging too far in my humble opinion.

It's not so much how far the pendulum is swinging, it the direction in which it's being re-routed.  Maybe they should start by actually enforcing the rules already on the books - especially underage drinking.  Tell the houses & dorms (greek and non-greek) that parties with alcohol will be monitored more aggressively and up the punishments significantly beginning with the first offense - banning alcohol, leaders put on probation/suspension, and potential to lose your house for multiple violations.

[stupac2]

I could see the policy reducing student health in another way -- consumption of alcohol involves a lot of calories. Could push up weight for many students, which is not great.

It depends a lot on what you're doing with the hard alcohol. Sure, vodka on its own has a lower calories/drunkenness ratio, but I doubt much of the hard alcohol consumption was straight shots. Most likely it's mixed with soda/juice, and replacing that with beer/wine might actually improve caloric consumption.

Regardless, unless things have changed since our time, I think the alcohol policy is not the most meaningful way Stanford influences student weight, the dining halls are certainly where the most potential for gain lies.

[stupac2]

I could see the policy reducing student health in another way -- consumption of alcohol involves a lot of calories. Could push up weight for many students, which is not great.

It depends a lot on what you're doing with the hard alcohol. Sure, vodka on its own has a lower calories/drunkenness ratio, but I doubt much of the hard alcohol consumption was straight shots. Most likely it's mixed with soda/juice, and replacing that with beer/wine might actually improve caloric consumption.

Regardless, unless things have changed since our time, I think the alcohol policy is not the most meaningful way Stanford influences student weight, the dining halls are certainly where the most potential for gain lies.

[FrankO]

Maybe hard to enforce, but needed.
For limiting legal liability, if for no other.

They have been duly noticed

[FrankO]

Maybe hard to enforce, but needed.
For limiting legal liability, if for no other.

They have been duly noticed

[CTcard]

Maybe hard to enforce, but needed.
For limiting legal liability, if for no other.

They have been duly noticed

Is it really a big deal for liability?
Does having such a nominal policy help in any legal case?

Stanford hasn't had such a policy for at least 40 years, probably closer to 50. Has it lost any big alcohol-related suits over that time?

[CTcard]

Maybe hard to enforce, but needed.
For limiting legal liability, if for no other.

They have been duly noticed

Is it really a big deal for liability?
Does having such a nominal policy help in any legal case?

Stanford hasn't had such a policy for at least 40 years, probably closer to 50. Has it lost any big alcohol-related suits over that time?

[TreesAndBirds]

I think the Brock Turner case was a significant  loss to the university brand, regardless of whether they had any legal or financial liability. And it also put them on notice that excessive alcohol consumption by underclassmen was a problem. Especially given some quotes I think I remember reading where Turner tried to blame an alcohol culture on campus.

It is of course an imperfect solution, and could lead to worse problems like forcing drinking off campus or behind closed doors, but I think they had to do something and this was clearly a middle ground. I also think Hennessey likely wanted to do something before he left, to not force the new Pres to deal with this early in his tenure.

[TreesAndBirds]

I think the Brock Turner case was a significant  loss to the university brand, regardless of whether they had any legal or financial liability. And it also put them on notice that excessive alcohol consumption by underclassmen was a problem. Especially given some quotes I think I remember reading where Turner tried to blame an alcohol culture on campus.

It is of course an imperfect solution, and could lead to worse problems like forcing drinking off campus or behind closed doors, but I think they had to do something and this was clearly a middle ground. I also think Hennessey likely wanted to do something before he left, to not force the new Pres to deal with this early in his tenure.

[CTcard]

I think the Brock Turner case was a significant  loss to the university brand, regardless of whether they had any legal or financial liability. And it also put them on notice that excessive alcohol consumption by underclassmen was a problem. Especially given some quotes I think I remember reading where Turner tried to blame an alcohol culture on campus.

Yeah, I suppose this is probably a reaction to the Brock Turner case, though it doesn't appear to be a particularly helpful or logical reaction. Of course this would be far from the first time that "doing something" won out over doing something useful.


And exactly when did the cheesy marketing phrase "brand" start substituting for ... well most everything under the sun?  In this case a substitute for the word "reputation" it would seem.

[CTcard]

I think the Brock Turner case was a significant  loss to the university brand, regardless of whether they had any legal or financial liability. And it also put them on notice that excessive alcohol consumption by underclassmen was a problem. Especially given some quotes I think I remember reading where Turner tried to blame an alcohol culture on campus.

Yeah, I suppose this is probably a reaction to the Brock Turner case, though it doesn't appear to be a particularly helpful or logical reaction. Of course this would be far from the first time that "doing something" won out over doing something useful.


And exactly when did the cheesy marketing phrase "brand" start substituting for ... well most everything under the sun?  In this case a substitute for the word "reputation" it would seem.

[stupac2]

A friend of mine who works for the university doing... something insists that this was not a reaction to the Turner case. He claims that the Provost notified students in March that it could be coming, which was before the case became a social media shitstorm. He said the main goal was to bring down trips to the ER and they've been trying to come up with ways to do it for a while. I find it sort of hard to believe that there's no connection whatsoever with the Turner situation, but who knows?

[stupac2]

A friend of mine who works for the university doing... something insists that this was not a reaction to the Turner case. He claims that the Provost notified students in March that it could be coming, which was before the case became a social media shitstorm. He said the main goal was to bring down trips to the ER and they've been trying to come up with ways to do it for a while. I find it sort of hard to believe that there's no connection whatsoever with the Turner situation, but who knows?

[BostonCard]

Yeah, I suppose this is probably a reaction to the Brock Turner case, though it doesn't appear to be a particularly helpful or logical reaction. Of course this would be far from the first time that "doing something" won out over doing something useful.

You suppose?  I think the whole point of this thread is calling Stanford out for "doing something" over doing something useful.

That being said, I think it would be more constructive if people suggested what "something useful" would be, instead of criticizing the University for doing something.  I agree with whoever suggested that the University could start with enforcing the laws against underage drinking that already exist.

I would add that it is important to remember that the Brock Turner case was a rape case, not an alcohol case, and the university is treading dangerous waters by implicitly endorsing Turner's defense that the alcohol was the problem, and not his raping a woman.  Alcohol was a contributing factor, yes, but plenty of people manage to get horribly drunk without raping women.

At the time, I think I wrote that it was critically important that the university foster an atmosphere of respect for onseself and respect and support for others.  That means taking responsibility for making sure that people are safe, whether they have been drinking or not.  The reason that I think the new policy is not only "not helpful" but actually counterproductive is that it places the university and its agents (RA's, etc.) in an adversarial position, when they should be placed in a supportive position.  If students look at RA's and the University as people out to ensure they have no fun, they are less likely to seek help for problems like binge drinking, depression, or to help resolve issues like harassment and the sort of "creepy" behavior that, if I recall correctly, the women swimmers at Stanford endured without telling anyone.  I wonder, for example, if someone had been aware of the behavior, if they could have talked to Turner (especially if it was some of the more senior members of his team) and let him know that his behavior, whether intended or not, was not welcome and that there are more appropriate ways to interact with his female classmates.  I am not so naive as to think it would have averted the rape, but I think if you have a culture of respect and support that indicates that the sort of lower level harassment and "creepiness" that he had been engaging in was not acceptable that it sends a much more powerful message to people than "don't drink heavy alcohol".

Likewise, with drinking, the problem is not with what people are drinking, or even the age at which they drink (though I think that is a contributing factor), but with a culture that encourages drinking to excess instead of drinking responsibly, and that finds people who have had too much to drink as a source of amusement, and not as a responsibility (to make sure they are safe, to make sure that they don't do anything stupid, and, later, to make sure they drink more responsibly in the future).

BC

[BostonCard]

Yeah, I suppose this is probably a reaction to the Brock Turner case, though it doesn't appear to be a particularly helpful or logical reaction. Of course this would be far from the first time that "doing something" won out over doing something useful.

You suppose?  I think the whole point of this thread is calling Stanford out for "doing something" over doing something useful.

That being said, I think it would be more constructive if people suggested what "something useful" would be, instead of criticizing the University for doing something.  I agree with whoever suggested that the University could start with enforcing the laws against underage drinking that already exist.

I would add that it is important to remember that the Brock Turner case was a rape case, not an alcohol case, and the university is treading dangerous waters by implicitly endorsing Turner's defense that the alcohol was the problem, and not his raping a woman.  Alcohol was a contributing factor, yes, but plenty of people manage to get horribly drunk without raping women.

At the time, I think I wrote that it was critically important that the university foster an atmosphere of respect for onseself and respect and support for others.  That means taking responsibility for making sure that people are safe, whether they have been drinking or not.  The reason that I think the new policy is not only "not helpful" but actually counterproductive is that it places the university and its agents (RA's, etc.) in an adversarial position, when they should be placed in a supportive position.  If students look at RA's and the University as people out to ensure they have no fun, they are less likely to seek help for problems like binge drinking, depression, or to help resolve issues like harassment and the sort of "creepy" behavior that, if I recall correctly, the women swimmers at Stanford endured without telling anyone.  I wonder, for example, if someone had been aware of the behavior, if they could have talked to Turner (especially if it was some of the more senior members of his team) and let him know that his behavior, whether intended or not, was not welcome and that there are more appropriate ways to interact with his female classmates.  I am not so naive as to think it would have averted the rape, but I think if you have a culture of respect and support that indicates that the sort of lower level harassment and "creepiness" that he had been engaging in was not acceptable that it sends a much more powerful message to people than "don't drink heavy alcohol".

Likewise, with drinking, the problem is not with what people are drinking, or even the age at which they drink (though I think that is a contributing factor), but with a culture that encourages drinking to excess instead of drinking responsibly, and that finds people who have had too much to drink as a source of amusement, and not as a responsibility (to make sure they are safe, to make sure that they don't do anything stupid, and, later, to make sure they drink more responsibly in the future).

BC

[winflop]

My understanding - could be wrong - is that underage drinking is already banned on campus.  If true, then this only punishes people of legal drinking age and does so because the University cannot effectively enforce already-existing policy.

[winflop]

My understanding - could be wrong - is that underage drinking is already banned on campus.  If true, then this only punishes people of legal drinking age and does so because the University cannot effectively enforce already-existing policy.

[81alum]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=15473.msg168257#msg168257 date=1472003970]
Yeah, I suppose this is probably a reaction to the Brock Turner case, though it doesn't appear to be a particularly helpful or logical reaction. Of course this would be far from the first time that "doing something" won out over doing something useful.

You suppose?  I think the whole point of this thread is calling Stanford out for "doing something" over doing something useful.

That being said, I think it would be more constructive if people suggested what "something useful" would be, instead of criticizing the University for doing something.  I agree with whoever suggested that the University could start with enforcing the laws against underage drinking that already exist.

I would add that it is important to remember that the Brock Turner case was a rape case, not an alcohol case, and the university is treading dangerous waters by implicitly endorsing Turner's defense that the alcohol was the problem, and not his raping a woman.  Alcohol was a contributing factor, yes, but plenty of people manage to get horribly drunk without raping women.

At the time, I think I wrote that it was critically important that the university foster an atmosphere of respect for onseself and respect and support for others.  That means taking responsibility for making sure that people are safe, whether they have been drinking or not.  The reason that I think the new policy is not only "not helpful" but actually counterproductive is that it places the university and its agents (RA's, etc.) in an adversarial position, when they should be placed in a supportive position.  If students look at RA's and the University as people out to ensure they have no fun, they are less likely to seek help for problems like binge drinking, depression, or to help resolve issues like harassment and the sort of "creepy" behavior that, if I recall correctly, the women swimmers at Stanford endured without telling anyone.  I wonder, for example, if someone had been aware of the behavior, if they could have talked to Turner (especially if it was some of the more senior members of his team) and let him know that his behavior, whether intended or not, was not welcome and that there are more appropriate ways to interact with his female classmates.  I am not so naive as to think it would have averted the rape, but I think if you have a culture of respect and support that indicates that the sort of lower level harassment and "creepiness" that he had been engaging in was not acceptable that it sends a much more powerful message to people than "don't drink heavy alcohol".

Likewise, with drinking, the problem is not with what people are drinking, or even the age at which they drink (though I think that is a contributing factor), but with a culture that encourages drinking to excess instead of drinking responsibly, and that finds people who have had too much to drink as a source of amusement, and not as a responsibility (to make sure they are safe, to make sure that they don't do anything stupid, and, later, to make sure they drink more responsibly in the future).

BC
[/quote]
^^^ I miss the up arrow. 

Stanford should not take a laissez-faire attitude to the problem of underage drinking and alcohol abuse.  Drinking among college students is a worse problem than drinking in the population as a whole.  38% of college students engage in binge drinking each month.  696,000 students are assaulted by other students who have been drinking each year. 
https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health...statistics
I'd like to think a renewed emphasis on alcohol education as part of the res ed programs would help.  I'm not sure if a hard liquor ban should or should not be part of the solution, but I hope that Stanford is consulting with the bevy of experts that reside there on drug treatment and substance education.  I suppose it could  work as a symbol that universities are beginning to show more concern about the problem, and that it could begin a shift in culture.  That would be the optimistic view, to be sure, but like BC I'd like to hear more about constructive alternatives. 

[81alum]

[quote author=CTcard link=topic=15473.msg168257#msg168257 date=1472003970]
Yeah, I suppose this is probably a reaction to the Brock Turner case, though it doesn't appear to be a particularly helpful or logical reaction. Of course this would be far from the first time that "doing something" won out over doing something useful.

You suppose?  I think the whole point of this thread is calling Stanford out for "doing something" over doing something useful.

That being said, I think it would be more constructive if people suggested what "something useful" would be, instead of criticizing the University for doing something.  I agree with whoever suggested that the University could start with enforcing the laws against underage drinking that already exist.

I would add that it is important to remember that the Brock Turner case was a rape case, not an alcohol case, and the university is treading dangerous waters by implicitly endorsing Turner's defense that the alcohol was the problem, and not his raping a woman.  Alcohol was a contributing factor, yes, but plenty of people manage to get horribly drunk without raping women.

At the time, I think I wrote that it was critically important that the university foster an atmosphere of respect for onseself and respect and support for others.  That means taking responsibility for making sure that people are safe, whether they have been drinking or not.  The reason that I think the new policy is not only "not helpful" but actually counterproductive is that it places the university and its agents (RA's, etc.) in an adversarial position, when they should be placed in a supportive position.  If students look at RA's and the University as people out to ensure they have no fun, they are less likely to seek help for problems like binge drinking, depression, or to help resolve issues like harassment and the sort of "creepy" behavior that, if I recall correctly, the women swimmers at Stanford endured without telling anyone.  I wonder, for example, if someone had been aware of the behavior, if they could have talked to Turner (especially if it was some of the more senior members of his team) and let him know that his behavior, whether intended or not, was not welcome and that there are more appropriate ways to interact with his female classmates.  I am not so naive as to think it would have averted the rape, but I think if you have a culture of respect and support that indicates that the sort of lower level harassment and "creepiness" that he had been engaging in was not acceptable that it sends a much more powerful message to people than "don't drink heavy alcohol".

Likewise, with drinking, the problem is not with what people are drinking, or even the age at which they drink (though I think that is a contributing factor), but with a culture that encourages drinking to excess instead of drinking responsibly, and that finds people who have had too much to drink as a source of amusement, and not as a responsibility (to make sure they are safe, to make sure that they don't do anything stupid, and, later, to make sure they drink more responsibly in the future).

BC
[/quote]
^^^ I miss the up arrow. 

Stanford should not take a laissez-faire attitude to the problem of underage drinking and alcohol abuse.  Drinking among college students is a worse problem than drinking in the population as a whole.  38% of college students engage in binge drinking each month.  696,000 students are assaulted by other students who have been drinking each year. 
https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health...statistics
I'd like to think a renewed emphasis on alcohol education as part of the res ed programs would help.  I'm not sure if a hard liquor ban should or should not be part of the solution, but I hope that Stanford is consulting with the bevy of experts that reside there on drug treatment and substance education.  I suppose it could  work as a symbol that universities are beginning to show more concern about the problem, and that it could begin a shift in culture.  That would be the optimistic view, to be sure, but like BC I'd like to hear more about constructive alternatives. 

[amartinsu13]

Is the answer really "more alcohol education"?  I highly doubt that.

I remember taking Stanford's required alcohol.edu online class before coming to Stanford in 2009.  It was one of those things that felt like a 9th grade required class that is brain-numbingly stupid to the smart kids in class.  The fact is, that's just how these alcohol education efforts always come off. 

So, WHY are 38% of college students engaging in binge drinking?  Obviously there are many different reasons people choose to drink, but one of the obvious ones is that it is the SOCIAL NORM in college to drink excessively.  Especially during freshman year, in the row houses, and in the Greek scene.  Honestly outside of those 3 social groups/periods, there isn't a big social norm to drink at Stanford.  (Although, those 3 social groups/periods encompasses a large part of campus at any time, probably 30-50% of the undergrad population.) 

So really the problem is: how do we change the social norm in freshman year, the row houses, and the Greek scene?  How do we make it NOT COOL to drink excessively?  If you get shunned by your peer group when you get black out drunk, you're going to stop doing that behavior. 

This is a very 'behavioralism' POV: http://bcotb.com/blog/2013/02/05/the-dif...unishment/

How do we reinforce the behaviors we want to happen (like only drinking 1 drink a night, or not drinking at all, or choosing beer instead of vodka)?
How do we punish the behavior we don't want to happen (like playing drinking games with shots, like getting black out drunk, like getting transported to the hospital)? 

I looked up how the university is going to penalize noncompliance: "Consistent with current practice, failure to comply with alcohol policies will be referred to residence deans and OAPE for administrative action. Continued or concerning behavior may result in removal from university housing or referral to the Office of Community Standards."

So on one hand, the university is going to punish the bad behaviors. 

But are they reinforcing the good behaviors?  When students are forced to only drink beer + wine at parties, are they going to feel 'reinforced' by a positive stimuli?  Or are they going to feel like "this is BS", and sneak hard alcohol anyway?  Let's be real, we were all undergrads once, we all know how we would respond...

So, is the answer more education?  No.  That may be a small part of the solution, but it definitely will not be the end all be all solution to this problem. 

What do I think could move the needle?
1) Remove this new policy.  Adding new restrictions only makes undergrads feel like the administration doesn't trust them to be adults, and creates an "us vs them" mentality.  Not a "we are all on the same page" mentality.  This new policy will lead to behaviors the university really doesn't want (like people hiding their excessive drinking behavior by doing it behind closed doors). 
2) Punishing bad behaviors.  Actually enforce the alcohol rules that already existed.  If you do it, you will get caught, and you will get punished.  If you continue to do it, you'll get kicked out of housing. 
3) Reinforcing good behaviors.  This is the hardest part.  It's not like giving people a sticker for choosing beer over vodka will be a positive, reinforcing stimuli to them.  What would be positive reinforcement?  Looking cool in front of your peers.  Being accepted by your peers.  "Fitting in" with the group. 

How do we make it cool to drink beer/wine instead of vodka?  That's the million dollar question.

If I could do anything, with no regard for the actual context of the college environment or laws:
1) I'd ban hard alcohol, and be extremely harsh with the punishment.  If you get caught with a hard alcohol bottle, you lose housing immediately.  No second chances.  + If you remove hard alcohol from the environment completely, you're defaulting students to choose beer/wine.  You're making the choice for them.
2) I'd give dorms + frats a free "slush fund" that they are only allowed to spend on beer/wine.  Make it a lot more cost effective to have beer/wine at your parties instead of hard alcohol.

But like I explained above, banning hard alcohol is just going to make an us vs. them mentality, and would cause bad behavior behind closed doors.  And obviously the university can't give under-21s money to pay for alcohol.   

I'm thinking the answer lies in:
1) Starting freshman year.  One of the key times new habits are built are when a person enters a new environment.  All my old cues for behavior are gone, and now I need to build new habits + models of how to act.  So I look to others (my peers + influencers) to decide how to act. 
2) Starting at the beginning of each new year, for all students.  Same as above per habits.  One of my most memorable experiences with alcohol happened at the start of my senior year.  My girlfriend moved into her room in French House with her best friend.  Her best friend was never a big drinker, but they both decided to go on band run.  Her friend drank 5-10 shots at a French House pre-game right before she left for the run, and barely made it a mile before collapsing and needing an ambulance.  Why did she drink outside of her norms?  Because she's in a new environment, with new peers, and she's trying to be cool/be accepted by her new peers. 
3) Starting with the 'influencers'.  Who are people looking to model their behavior after?  The cool kids in the freshman dorm.  The cool kids in frats/sororities.  People in their direct friend group.  How can we get these people to choose beer/wine over hard alcohol? 

[amartinsu13]

Is the answer really "more alcohol education"?  I highly doubt that.

I remember taking Stanford's required alcohol.edu online class before coming to Stanford in 2009.  It was one of those things that felt like a 9th grade required class that is brain-numbingly stupid to the smart kids in class.  The fact is, that's just how these alcohol education efforts always come off. 

So, WHY are 38% of college students engaging in binge drinking?  Obviously there are many different reasons people choose to drink, but one of the obvious ones is that it is the SOCIAL NORM in college to drink excessively.  Especially during freshman year, in the row houses, and in the Greek scene.  Honestly outside of those 3 social groups/periods, there isn't a big social norm to drink at Stanford.  (Although, those 3 social groups/periods encompasses a large part of campus at any time, probably 30-50% of the undergrad population.) 

So really the problem is: how do we change the social norm in freshman year, the row houses, and the Greek scene?  How do we make it NOT COOL to drink excessively?  If you get shunned by your peer group when you get black out drunk, you're going to stop doing that behavior. 

This is a very 'behavioralism' POV: http://bcotb.com/blog/2013/02/05/the-dif...unishment/

How do we reinforce the behaviors we want to happen (like only drinking 1 drink a night, or not drinking at all, or choosing beer instead of vodka)?
How do we punish the behavior we don't want to happen (like playing drinking games with shots, like getting black out drunk, like getting transported to the hospital)? 

I looked up how the university is going to penalize noncompliance: "Consistent with current practice, failure to comply with alcohol policies will be referred to residence deans and OAPE for administrative action. Continued or concerning behavior may result in removal from university housing or referral to the Office of Community Standards."

So on one hand, the university is going to punish the bad behaviors. 

But are they reinforcing the good behaviors?  When students are forced to only drink beer + wine at parties, are they going to feel 'reinforced' by a positive stimuli?  Or are they going to feel like "this is BS", and sneak hard alcohol anyway?  Let's be real, we were all undergrads once, we all know how we would respond...

So, is the answer more education?  No.  That may be a small part of the solution, but it definitely will not be the end all be all solution to this problem. 

What do I think could move the needle?
1) Remove this new policy.  Adding new restrictions only makes undergrads feel like the administration doesn't trust them to be adults, and creates an "us vs them" mentality.  Not a "we are all on the same page" mentality.  This new policy will lead to behaviors the university really doesn't want (like people hiding their excessive drinking behavior by doing it behind closed doors). 
2) Punishing bad behaviors.  Actually enforce the alcohol rules that already existed.  If you do it, you will get caught, and you will get punished.  If you continue to do it, you'll get kicked out of housing. 
3) Reinforcing good behaviors.  This is the hardest part.  It's not like giving people a sticker for choosing beer over vodka will be a positive, reinforcing stimuli to them.  What would be positive reinforcement?  Looking cool in front of your peers.  Being accepted by your peers.  "Fitting in" with the group. 

How do we make it cool to drink beer/wine instead of vodka?  That's the million dollar question.

If I could do anything, with no regard for the actual context of the college environment or laws:
1) I'd ban hard alcohol, and be extremely harsh with the punishment.  If you get caught with a hard alcohol bottle, you lose housing immediately.  No second chances.  + If you remove hard alcohol from the environment completely, you're defaulting students to choose beer/wine.  You're making the choice for them.
2) I'd give dorms + frats a free "slush fund" that they are only allowed to spend on beer/wine.  Make it a lot more cost effective to have beer/wine at your parties instead of hard alcohol.

But like I explained above, banning hard alcohol is just going to make an us vs. them mentality, and would cause bad behavior behind closed doors.  And obviously the university can't give under-21s money to pay for alcohol.   

I'm thinking the answer lies in:
1) Starting freshman year.  One of the key times new habits are built are when a person enters a new environment.  All my old cues for behavior are gone, and now I need to build new habits + models of how to act.  So I look to others (my peers + influencers) to decide how to act. 
2) Starting at the beginning of each new year, for all students.  Same as above per habits.  One of my most memorable experiences with alcohol happened at the start of my senior year.  My girlfriend moved into her room in French House with her best friend.  Her best friend was never a big drinker, but they both decided to go on band run.  Her friend drank 5-10 shots at a French House pre-game right before she left for the run, and barely made it a mile before collapsing and needing an ambulance.  Why did she drink outside of her norms?  Because she's in a new environment, with new peers, and she's trying to be cool/be accepted by her new peers. 
3) Starting with the 'influencers'.  Who are people looking to model their behavior after?  The cool kids in the freshman dorm.  The cool kids in frats/sororities.  People in their direct friend group.  How can we get these people to choose beer/wine over hard alcohol? 

[BostonCard]

Great post, and I agree wholeheartedly, particularly with many of your proposed solutions.

I think on an earlier thread, someone mentioned that there are places where something like designated drivers exist to make sure people are safe with alcohol (help them stop, walk them home if they've had too much).  I would love to see that implemented at Stanford.  Get volunteers and even pay people to go to parties and keep classmates safe.  I would have volunteered or done the job.

I think one of the challenges we face generally is that because underage drinking is illegal, full stop, the university cannot use freshman year to introduce students to moderate drinking.  If it were legal to drink at 16 or 18 (as in much of the rest of the world), the University could sponsor cool beer and wine events for freshmen that showcase drinking in moderation.  I mean how cool would it be to have a wine appreciation class where you learn how to drink wine for an end in itself, and not as a means of getting drunk.  Alas, the university has to operate within the framework of California laws, which pretty much means that the university cannot encourage moderate drinking behavior (in lieu of binge drinking) in underage students.  By the time they become 21-year-old seniors, the behavior is engrained.

But if you can somehow get the legal age upperclassmen to value responsible drinking, that will affect the culture going down and indirectly influence underclassmen.

The other thing is again, that students need to know that they need to step up and get help for their classmates who have problems with alcohol.  Again, this goes back to the punishment thing... nobody is going to seek help for a friend if binge drinking (or underage drinking) is viewed as a disciplinary problem.  On the other hand, if it is viewed as an opportunity to help someone, students will be more likely to approach their RA's or University staff and say "I'm concerned about so and so".

Nobody said this would be easy.

BC

[BostonCard]

Great post, and I agree wholeheartedly, particularly with many of your proposed solutions.

I think on an earlier thread, someone mentioned that there are places where something like designated drivers exist to make sure people are safe with alcohol (help them stop, walk them home if they've had too much).  I would love to see that implemented at Stanford.  Get volunteers and even pay people to go to parties and keep classmates safe.  I would have volunteered or done the job.

I think one of the challenges we face generally is that because underage drinking is illegal, full stop, the university cannot use freshman year to introduce students to moderate drinking.  If it were legal to drink at 16 or 18 (as in much of the rest of the world), the University could sponsor cool beer and wine events for freshmen that showcase drinking in moderation.  I mean how cool would it be to have a wine appreciation class where you learn how to drink wine for an end in itself, and not as a means of getting drunk.  Alas, the university has to operate within the framework of California laws, which pretty much means that the university cannot encourage moderate drinking behavior (in lieu of binge drinking) in underage students.  By the time they become 21-year-old seniors, the behavior is engrained.

But if you can somehow get the legal age upperclassmen to value responsible drinking, that will affect the culture going down and indirectly influence underclassmen.

The other thing is again, that students need to know that they need to step up and get help for their classmates who have problems with alcohol.  Again, this goes back to the punishment thing... nobody is going to seek help for a friend if binge drinking (or underage drinking) is viewed as a disciplinary problem.  On the other hand, if it is viewed as an opportunity to help someone, students will be more likely to approach their RA's or University staff and say "I'm concerned about so and so".

Nobody said this would be easy.

BC

[Stymie]

[quote author=FrankO link=topic=15473.msg168252#msg168252 date=1471999578]
Maybe hard to enforce, but needed.
For limiting legal liability, if for no other.

They have been duly noticed

Is it really a big deal for liability?
Does having such a nominal policy help in any legal case?

Stanford hasn't had such a policy for at least 40 years, probably closer to 50. Has it lost any big alcohol-related suits over that time?
[/quote]

In the Dark Ages when I was on the farm (1964-68) hard liquor was verboten on campus.  Beer was OK.  As a result, if we wanted to have parties with hard liquor (e.g. trashcans full of Skips and Go Naked, Vodka injected watermelons, etc......) we had to go off campus--Searsville Head, Rowing Club, various Alum estates, San Gregorio Beach, etc.  Boy, wasn't that a great in loco parentis duty of care!?  Rather than getting s**tfaced on campus, we drove 15-50 miles to get s**tfaced and then drove ourselves and our dates home!

Those were the days......

[Stymie]

[quote author=FrankO link=topic=15473.msg168252#msg168252 date=1471999578]
Maybe hard to enforce, but needed.
For limiting legal liability, if for no other.

They have been duly noticed

Is it really a big deal for liability?
Does having such a nominal policy help in any legal case?

Stanford hasn't had such a policy for at least 40 years, probably closer to 50. Has it lost any big alcohol-related suits over that time?
[/quote]

In the Dark Ages when I was on the farm (1964-68) hard liquor was verboten on campus.  Beer was OK.  As a result, if we wanted to have parties with hard liquor (e.g. trashcans full of Skips and Go Naked, Vodka injected watermelons, etc......) we had to go off campus--Searsville Head, Rowing Club, various Alum estates, San Gregorio Beach, etc.  Boy, wasn't that a great in loco parentis duty of care!?  Rather than getting s**tfaced on campus, we drove 15-50 miles to get s**tfaced and then drove ourselves and our dates home!

Those were the days......