Herbold's Red Herring

The letter published yesterday by Associate Dean of Undergraduate Students Hillary Herbold clarifies that the University's changes to its alcohol enforcement policies do not require residential college advisers to intervene in every single case involving alcohol consumption by advisees, as an editorial in this paper suggested.

This clarification, while instructive, does not allay the concerns expressed in the recent editorial on the matter, nor does it excuse the fundamental disregard for consultation with students in this instance. Indeed, Herbold's clarification merely serves to underscore the importance of informing and consulting students prior to the enactment of policies with significant bearing on student life.

Herbold's clarification explains that "RCAs are neither required nor expected to intervene when advisees are consuming alcohol in a manner in keeping with the University's alcohol policy." The concern expressed in The Daily Princetonian's recent editorial was that such an expectation, even a partial one, serves to undermine the bond of trust between RCAs and their advisees, which is based fundamentally on the knowledge that RCAs are unlikely to be in a position to create disciplinary problems for their advisees.

Moreover, since the University's residential alcohol policy requires the prior approval of the dean of undergraduate students to serve drinks in dormitories, it is apparent that Herbold's clarification is virtually immaterial. Few students are likely to seek such prior approval to serve alcohol in their own rooms, making all alcohol-attendant parties — regardless of attendees' age — de facto subject to RCA jurisdiction under the new, stricter policy.

In response to another concern raised in this board's editorial, namely that students may be less likely to report alcohol-related health concerns if they fear disciplinary action from RCAs, Herbold asserts that "there is no increased possibility of disciplinary action for RCAs or students who seek help for intoxicated students or themselves." Once again, this position fails to address the central concern that students may perceive a greater danger in reporting alcohol-related health concerns, especially since contacting Public Safety alcohol-related incidents automatically involves administrators and can lead to disciplinary action.

Herbold suggests that all students read the University's new disciplinary policy for themselves on the website of the Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Students to avoid misunderstandings. This suggestion, however, is of little use if the administration continues to implement fundamental changes to its policy without informing students or soliciting widespread feedback. The fact remains that the student body is only aware of these changes because of investigative reporting, and at no point did the administration make any attempt to consult or inform students in advance. Herbold's clarifications correct the semantics of the 'Prince's' editorial position on this matter, but they do not address its substantive concerns.