• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Soteros-McNamara is a fourth-year political science student.

By Thomas Soteros-McNamara

If administrators like Chancellor Albert Carnesale wonder why colleges and universities continue to suffer from chronic alcohol abuse problems, they might refer to their own antiquated reasoning.

In a recent response to a student’s question regarding the university’s alcohol policy – which is essentially a zero-tolerance stance – Carnesale begins by saying, “I see no advantage to taking an action that would increase the consumption of alcohol by students” (Daily Bruin, Viewpoint, “Ask the Chancellor,” June 7).

However, instead of expanding on this idea, Carnesale continues by saying, “Binge drinking of alcohol is a serious problem at universities nationally.” Therefore, instead of believing that students would make responsible choices about alcohol consumption, the general opinion in Murphy Hall is that greater access to booze is going to mean more rapes, riots and headaches for the University of California Police Department.

Nevertheless, Carnesale contradicts himself later by saying that “most UCLA students make responsible decisions.” Following this logic, even if the drinking age were lowered, the incidence of negative activity would still not involve “most students.”

So why is Carnesale afraid to challenge the status quo?

The first answer is that the UC prohibits the sale and consumption of alcohol at all university events, regardless of age. Since the university’s policy is more restrictive than state law, it would seem that every person involved is equally inconvenienced.

But this is not true. Mysteriously, the Faculty Center at UCLA can serve alcohol to its patrons. Yet since no student can enter the center or even be served at this location unless invited by a faculty member, it is unlikely the “binge drinkers” that Carnesale fears so greatly will threaten university safety.

However, with this loophole, Carnesale insinuates students cannot make responsible decisions about alcohol but faculty members can.

Surely, many among the great minds at UCLA have battled alcohol addiction, and to act as though alcohol related problems among faculty are less serious than those in the undergraduate population is an insult.

The second reason why Carnesale has not challenged the status quo is because he is a pragmatist.

There is no doubt that if alcohol were completely unavailable to students – less rapes, riots and fraternity parties that strain university security resources would occur.

But the unrest at such “riotous” events as the now-infamous March 14 takeover of Royce Hall by student protesters cannot be attributed to “binge drinking,” the only type of alcohol usage Carnesale seems to believe students engage in.

Instead, it can be argued that as the quality of life at the university continues to decrease, student interaction with the authorities and the administration will also continue to deteriorate. An angry and frustrated student body combined with easy access to alcohol creates an explosive situation for all parties involved.

Carnesale probably disagrees with this, since he claims at least one-third of the campus are teetotalers anyway.

However, the real reason that UCLA remains frozen in Prohibition lies in neither of these aforementioned possibilities.

Rather, administrators like Carnesale use the presence of alcohol to ignore the larger structural problems at the university.

Alcohol is a much easier target as the cause of unwanted sexual assault than, for example, the fraternity system. Binge drinking is a better villain to blame for student-related problems instead of the UCPD or the Student Affairs Office.

Even The Economist, a very conservative and staid British publication highlighted the silliness of having the minimum drinking age at 21 (“Free Jenna!,” June 9).

Of course, any college student riled by the age discrimination in this country – from the bar stool to the car rental lot – must turn the blame partially on themselves.

The low voter participation and political mobilization of 18 to 24 year olds has everything to do with why college students get shafted while other age brackets do not.

It’s not impossible to think that if a motivated group of undergraduates wanted to end this injustice, they could.

Yet the amount of work to reform the system is likely too much to interest a person who, in three years, will no longer be the target of the law anyway.

Comments

Post a comment