Giving twenty-one-year olds their due

Last week, the eating clubs took a step towards responsible drinking on campus by testing out the proposal of wristbands. The Inter-Club Council (ICC) decided that the idea of clubs policing themselves by marking off students over 21 was far more palatable than the prospect of being invaded by undercover agents or students acting as Trojan horses for Borough Police. This action by the ICC, when combined with forms of non-alcohol programming such as the action-oriented discussions on race, shows that the clubs are indeed trying to be responsible actors when it comes to excessive drinking.

The same cannot be said for the University. Princeton does not treat its students over 21 with respect, as adults who can drink alcohol during events sponsored by student organizations. Instead, it enforces a prohibitionist alcohol policy that has the predictable side effect of forcing alcohol consumption into unregulated venues that often entail binge drinking. A student wanting to have a healthy buzz during a student-sponsored dance will down several shots before heading out. Or, she might take along bottles of Snapple that are heavily spiked with vodka or Everclear.

Admittedly, the Trustees' alcohol initiative has had some impact on reducing the consumption of alcohol. But its primary impact is limited to the hours of 10 at night to one in the morning. Students who are determined to drink on a Saturday night will still head over to the clubs or their rooms afterwards, making up for lost time. They will still drink the way they normally would, except in a much more concentrated manner.

Of course, it does not have to be this way. Other universities allow student organizations to throw parties that serve alcohol as long as there are I.D.-checkers at the door. By implementing policies similar to the wristband policy considered by the eating clubs, universities treat adult students with respect, while at the same time combatting underage drinking and binge drinking.

Most University administrators would agree that moderate drinking in regulated settings is better than binge drinking in unsupervised settings. And yet, they may balk at the idea of allowing alcohol in student events because of the risk of liability. What is puzzling, however, is why other universities do not act in a similar manner. As long as liquor licenses allow the serving of alcohol to anyone over 21, as long as there are I.D. checkers at the door with wristbands or markers and as long as the University allows for trained bartenders to serve alcohol, there should be no concern at all about liability.

Hopefully, the University will stop acting irresponsibly when it comes to alcohol consumption. It should not perpetuate its risky policy of prohibition under the pretext of liability. Instead, it should treat its over-21 student population with respect and allow for the serving of alcohol at student events. Someday, we may join other universities in having a Salsa Night that actually has good margaritas or a Caribbean party with piña coladas and virgin daiquiris. Until then, campus drinking will be confined to Snapple with Everclear and kegs of cheap, stale beer.

(S. Karthick Ramakrishnan is a politics and Office of Population Research graduate student from Holden, Mass. He can be reached at karthick@princeton.edu)