Effects of alcohol policy still hazy

A year after the implementation of Residential Hallway Patrols (RHP) and a new RCA policy, students are still questioning what some have criticized as contradictory University policies toward alcohol consumption in dormitories.

Since October 2007, Public Safety officers on RHP have been making rounds in dormitory hallways at night. The RHP policy allows them to investigate potential alcohol violations without having been called in for a noise complaint.

Likewise, after originally telling RCAs last year that they would be expected to immediately report alcohol consumption by their underage advisees and break up parties in their hallways, the University relented following substantial student opposition and issued a revised policy in March 2008. RCAs are now asked to remind advisees of University alcohol policies and alert Public Safety after making “every effort to intervene” in potentially dangerous situations.

The policy was revised to allow RCAs to address problematic situations instead of immediately alerting Public Safety, Associate Dean of Undergraduate Students Hilary Herbold GS ’97 told The Daily Princetonian in March.

“Some student [USG Undergraduate Life Committee] members expressed a concern that … the policy might prompt RCAs to call Public Safety even in situations where an RCA might be able to curb problematic alcohol-related behavior himself or herself,” she said.

The balance between Public Safety’s ability to intervene and RCAs’ abilities to handle situations on their own remains unclear, however. To some critics, there appears to be no balance at all.

There is an inherent contradiction between the new RCA policy and the RHP policy, USG president Josh Weinstein ’09 told the ‘Prince’ last month.

“The RHPs render the new [RCA] policy useless as Public Safety has been taking action well before a situation has become dangerous at all, and has instead rendered throwing a party in a dorm a punishable offense,” he said in an e-mail.

Getting caught may simply be a matter of luck. Herbold called the RCA and RHP policies a “two-pronged” approach to alcohol violations.

“If an RCA responds to a situation involving alcohol violations, and the students curtail their activity, then those students will be in the fortunate position of not incurring a violation,” she said. “If it happens that Public Safety is the one to respond, and violations are observed, then Public Safety will report what it observes, and the dean’s office will respond accordingly.”

The foot patrol

Public Safety officers now typically monitor hallways in pairs. They may go out on any night of the week, depending on patrol strength, but they always patrol on Thursday and Saturday nights.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

Though the RHPs do deal with noise complaints called in to Public Safety, officers on patrol can also respond if they hear any loud activity in the dorms. Regardless of whether an official noise complaint has been called in to headquarters, officers can enter students’ rooms if there is no response to knocks on the door.

“They will proactively deal with noise complaints,” Public Safety Deputy Director of Operations Charles Davall said in an e-mail. “They won’t just wait for a call.”

“We encouraged our officers to be more proactive in enforcing alcohol violations which was and is part of a comprehensive University approach to address high risk drinking on campus,” he added.

Weinstein said he worries that the RHP policy in particular will create a lasting negative impact. “The [RHP] program has led to significantly damaged relations between the student body and Public Safety,” he said in an e-mail.

Undergraduate Life Chair Arthur Levy ’10 agreed, noting in an e-mail that “students see the officers as intentionally trying to target them and catch them.”

Davall acknowledged that there is tension between students and officers and that the tension “is largely [caused] by the enforcement.”

“We do understand that we are in the dorms and [the fact that] there’s an increase in the number of violations will cause some tension,” Davall said. He stressed, however, that the “primary goal is to prevent high risk drinking and to prevent a tragedy from happening.”

He also emphasized that little of the officers’ time on the job is “spent in the dorms” on RHPs.

The policy has been hit-or-miss with students.

Some, like Paolo Iaccarino ’12, said they support the policy. “It’s a good idea,” he said. “I think it’s better to have someone patrolling rather than not, but I don’t really know how effective it is.”

Others find it potentially dangerous. “I just feel that the stricter [the] policy, the more people will hide their behavior,” Vicki Chen ’09 said. “If you’re hiding people drinking, you’ll be more reluctant to seek help when you need it.”

For Snow Li ’11, the concern isn’t the presence of the officers, but the additional power that the new system gives them, especially in terms of responding to noise that has not resulted in an official complaint.

“People shouldn’t get into trouble for things that aren’t bothering anyone else,” she said.

Members of the Alcohol Coalition Committee (ACC) did not respond to requests for comment.

By the numbers

The full impact of the policy on the total number of disciplinary actions remains unclear.

While Public Safety’s 2008 Annual Security Report indicates that the total number of judicial referrals for liquor law violations increased from 20 in 2006 to 120 in 2007, Davall explained that Public Safety changed its classification system for alcohol-related infractions in 2007.

“In 2006 and prior, [if] we found a party where alcohol was being served, and there were persons under the age of 21 at the party, we may have classified the incident as a [Rights, Rules and Responsibilities] violation, [but] now we classify it as a liquor law violation,” Davall explained.

“I think the numbers have gone up, but not as dramatic[ally] as the Annual Security Report would make one believe,” he added.

The number of students punished for alcohol-related infractions by the Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Students’ Committee on Discipline, which has not recently revised its classification system, also increased, from 123 during the 2006-07 school year to 142 during the 2007-08 school year. These figures are higher than those in the Annual Security Report because the latter does not include RRR violations that are not against state and federal law, such as possession of a keg or participation in drinking games.

Herbold, who is also secretary of the Committee on Discipline, noted that the increasing size of the student body may have contributed to the rise in the number of penalties, which has increased by at least 18 every year since 2004-05.

She added, however, that she believes “Public Safety has become more vigilant in the last few years, and that’s in part because the administration has asked them to be more vigilant.”

RCAs respond

RCAs said that the revised RCA policy does not seem to have substantially impacted their relationships with their advisees.

“It’s great that a policy exists that is aimed at promoting the welfare of the students, but ultimately the best policy is the one that results naturally from your relationship with your zees,” Mathey College RCA Milana Zaurova ’09 said.

Maria Salciccioli ’09, a Rocky RCA who also blogs for the ‘Prince,’ said that she “[doesn’t] think it has, in practice, changed how people act.”

Zaurova explained that the RHP policy also hasn’t significantly changed the way her advisees act.

“[Public Safety officers] handle the alcohol situations very well … they do use their best judgment,” she said. “If you’re cooperative, you develop a good relationship with Public Safety.”

Zaurova said that she has not changed how she acts toward her advisees and that Public Safety “still feel[s] like an enforcer but not a tyrant.” She added, however, that “I have heard from friends that there’s inconsistency in that.”

Salciccioli said that she has not heard any complaints about Public Safety from her advisees this year, and that she “personally [has] not seen [officers patrolling hallways] this year.”

Nevertheless, the way the RHP policy has been communicated to students may be a concern, Zaurova said. “Miscommunication between policymakers and the rest of the campus” can deter students from applying to be RCAs.

“I don’t think I would have become an R[C]A if this policy were in existence [when I applied] … it would [make me] think that I would have to be an authority figure … a policeman,” she said.

She found, however, that in reality, “that’s not the policy.”

“It’s still possible to put the safety of my zees first and still have a great relationship with them, I could deal with the new alcohol policy,” she said.

Helen Chen ’11, an ACC member who is applying to be an RCA, said that the new alcohol policy has not changed her and her friends’ attitudes toward the position.

“I don’t think it’s changed my, and most of the [potential] RCAs’ … views,” she said.

Salciccioli said, however, that she knows that some have been deterred from applying.

“Last year I had a zee that was going to apply to be an RCA, and I think he would have made a great RCA, and he ended up not applying,” she explained. “He said that he thought enforcing the alcohol policy would have been a stressor, and he found that just too much.”

Looking toward next year, however, “people aren’t thinking of it as a reason not to take the job,” Salciccioli said.

Staff writers Erica Che, Jasmine Chen and Melissa Loewinger contributed reporting.