The law is a positive development and reflects informed attitudes toward underage drinking at the state level. It shows that New Jersey legislators take high-risk, underage drinking seriously and acknowledge the need for affirmative measures to ensure the safety of young people across the state. But in its current format, the law may not do enough to alter the incentive structure surrounding emergency calls for intoxicated minors. The law grants immunity to up to three people per alcohol-related incident: the individual in need of medical help and as many as two friends who assist in procuring medical assistance. Unfortunately, the law narrowly prescribes the circumstances in which those seeking assistance can actually be granted immunity. Many of the situations that underage drinkers and their friends — both older and younger than 21 — may find themselves in would fall outside the stringent parameters of the current bill, rendering it potentially ineffective in restructuring incentives for these individuals.
The law’s requirement that those seeking help must fully cooperate with authorities to receive immunity is one example of this stringency. Cooperation includes giving their names and any other information requested by medical and law enforcement personnel at the scene. Under such conditions, an underage drinker may not feel comfortable calling the authorities out of a fear of implicating himself or herself in activities outside of drinking or implicating another person ineligible for immunity. Though it is reasonable to ask that those who call the authorities remain cooperative, the only questions they should be obliged to answer are those directly related to medically treating the intoxicated person. The fear of required disclosure or interrogation could continue to deter underage drinkers from calling for help.
Another flaw in the legislation is that immunity is granted only for the specific offence of underage possession and consumption of alcohol. Individuals over the age of 21 would not receive any form of immunity when calling for help. This is an oversight. Especially within the Princeton community (or at any college), older students — including eating club officers and members — are often more likely to know when medical help is needed than younger students. But the potential for someone over the age of 21 to receive a serving violation or another punishment while attempting to help might continue to discourage responsible and experienced persons from calling for help. By limiting immunity based on age and type of alcohol offense, the legislation fails to remove some substantial barriers to help.
Though the law is a good first step, improvements are necessary. In comparison, Princeton’s current practice of providing medical assistance without strings attached has been successful in encouraging students to speak up and promote the safety of the entire campus community. The extent to which New Jersey legislators can modify the law to remove disincentives in a similarly extensive manner will determine the effectiveness of immunity provisions in promoting safety across the state in the future.
Read More
Keep academic authority in human hands
Lily Halbert-AlexanderThe Trump administration’s attacks on research and higher education as well as a blind reliance on AI chatbots are reflective of a societal backslide: a commodification of knowledge that prioritizes “efficiency” over the messy process of getting to an answer, where nuances are flattened and the truth is fungible.
The Trump administration’s attacks on research and higher education as well as a blind reliance on AI chatbots are reflective of a societal backslide: a commodification of knowledge that prioritizes “efficiency” over the messy process of getting to an answer, where nuances are flattened and the truth is fungible.
What do we owe society for a Princeton education?
Jia Cheng ShenThe social and moral responsibility that comes with receiving a degree subsidized by both private generosity and public trust is significant.
The social and moral responsibility that comes with receiving a degree subsidized by both private generosity and public trust is significant.
Notes from a so-called enemy’s classroom
Jennifer JenningsIt wasn’t revolutionary. It was homework. But it was homework that asked: how do we build schools that work for all kids? Inclusion, after all, is the “I” in DEI. That’s what we’re thinking about together. And caring about each other’s experiences and opportunities, it turns out, isn’t something you can outlaw.
It wasn’t revolutionary. It was homework. But it was homework that asked: how do we build schools that work for all kids? Inclusion, after all, is the “I” in DEI. That’s what we’re thinking about together. And caring about each other’s experiences and opportunities, it turns out, isn’t something you can outlaw.