An unconscionable disregard

The University's recent announcement of changes to its policy regarding enforcement of alcohol violations on campus demonstrates an unconscionable disregard for student opinion and concerns. Residential college advisers (RCAs) are now required to deal with a wide range of alcohol-related infractions. In addition, it has emerged that Public Safety has for some time been employing two officers to patrol dormitory hallways on weekend nights, which especially targets alcohol-related disciplinary violations. As significant departures from past practice, as well as having great bearing on student life, these policy changes should have resulted from a long consultative process with students. It is frightening that students appear never to have been informed of, much less consulted during, the formulation of these changes.

The Daily Princetonian has often called for a greater degree of consultation between students and the administration on significant matters. The shock that this paper's report on the changes in the University's policy has created suggests that these calls have been completely disregarded. In a University that purports to be creating a new campus community and culture, it is imperative that students be involved in major decisions impacting residential life. The administration is right to be concerned about alcohol, which is a fact of student life at all universities. But it is a problem that is complex and systemic, and one which will only be solved through the thoughtful input of students. The policy changes threaten to demolish the bond of trust between RCAs and their advisees, and could well make students less likely to report alcohol-related medical problems. These fatal flaws would likely have been pointed out by students, if only they had been asked.

Disregard for the consultative process is particularly disturbing in this instance, because the new Public Safety patrols raise privacy concerns. Having officers on constant patrol in hallways, actively seeking disciplinary infractions, is a significant departure from previous practice. Even if there are compelling reasons for instituting these seemingly draconian measures, students will not know what they are because they were neither informed nor consulted in advance. It is chilling that infraction-seeking patrols were instituted two weeks before there was any indication to students that they were taking place. Sadly, the University chose to resort to coercive measures to address the problem of alcohol, instead of engaging students in dialogue.

One can only sympathize with the University's apparent motivation in adopting the new policy changes, which is to prevent an alcohol-related student death. But there can be no excuse for implementing measures of such gravity to all students without even a modicum of consultation. The disregard for the opinions of students in this instance makes a mockery of the institutions of student government. It can only be hoped that the next time the University attempts to address a major problem of campus life, it will involve those it intends to help.