Athletics department policy on alcohol is unfair to athletes

The sports page isn't the place for rants about this university's failed social policies and inability to think like or relate to the students. That has always been outside the jurisdiction of the Back Page. But now the school's truly mind-bending statutes have leaked over into the sports arena.

In an unpublicized move, the University now holds different students to different standards. The traditional argument is that athletes receive preferential treatment. Well, if there ever was a time when that maxim was true on this campus, that time has come and gone.

If an athlete is put on disciplinary probation for a second time for an "alcohol violation," the Department of Athletics suspends the player from his or her team for one game. There are so many things wrong with this, I don't know where to begin.

Let's try this. Why does an athlete receive more punishment than any other student? If I commit an alcohol violation, no one tells me to stop editing the paper. No one tells a singer to sit out the next archsing. Unsure of my logic? There actually was a party in the 'Prince' building a couple weeks ago that was broken up by Public Safety. As far as I know the school has not yet mandated that students involved cease writing for a week. This example does not take into account the paper's independence, but you get the point.

If a coach wants to institute his own rule and suspend his own player, that is fine. Coaches have a right to know if their players are getting in trouble. And they should have the freedom to deal with it as they see fit. Not all violations are identical, but there seems to be one blanket punishment. Is there a difference between an open container and throwing a party? Since both are "alcohol violations," evidently not. How about between going to McCosh and serving a minor? Guess that's the same too.

I am dumbfounded. Does the administration think athletes — 21 or not — don't drink? How naïve can it be? Virtually every team has a 48-hour rule! Teams have 48-hour rules because they drink sometimes when they don't have a game coming up. But that rule is also a team-specific rule. Teams police themselves just fine and when people break that rule, oftentimes their coaches will sit them — for a half, a game, whatever. It should be up to each team how to deal with a violation. How is it your business, as a school, to punish athletes more than others? Isn't that institutionalizing bias? Sure seems that way to me.

And the worst part is that this is just one of many ways in which the university continues to show how little it understands the student body. You want to know how to help our health and wellbeing and keep the number of alcohol-related trips to UMCP down (and out of the local papers, since we all know that image is our most important priority)? Put yourselves in our shoes.

Here is what we don't want: you guys entertaining us. We don't want the school to put on ridiculous events just so you can monitor our every action. Do you remember what is was like to be 21? Doesn't seem like it. Your alcohol initiative and four-year residential college are thinly veiled ways to chaperone our social events. ARE WE IN MIDDLE SCHOOL? Kids will drink in college, and if you don't, then hats off to you.

If you want us to drink less (and binge drink less), then make other opportunities appealing. And having Public Safety roaming around an outdoor barbecue is not appealing. Provide ways for us to interact in a more healthy way without chaperoning. Want some ideas?

1. Stop paving over the entire school. Your need to make this school an example of what can happen when you buy a billion dollars of concrete is laughable. The grassy area between Frist and McCosh Hall has more walkways than O'Hare. Give us some grassy places to throw a ball. Toss a Frisbee. Lie in the sun. Stop putting gravel over where grass used to be so the construction people can park there. I know you say that these are improvements for the future, but what about the present? If your construction means that we have to go to school in a dusty, concrete-laden campus, maybe it isn't worth it.

2. Let us keep our doors propped open. The one reason I have heard for why none of us are allowed to keep our doors — ahem, means of egress — open is that if there is a fireball in the hall it can't get into our rooms. Am I the only one who doesn't know what a fireball is? I think I remember them from the original Super Mario Bros., when Mario could kill the Koopa Troopas with them, but not the Helmet Heads (or whatever they were). Keeping doors open might actually encourage people who live near each other to meet each other. If someone is hanging out and listening to some music, maybe a passerby will stop in and join. Wouldn't that be a healthy form of living?

This school has, as far as I can tell, failed to this point in its desire to curb heavy alcohol intake. It has implemented policies with little rhyme and even less reason, and now our athletes are suffering the consequences of the latest misstep.