Crack the Whip

Under the guise of furthering campus safety, the University is employing new, legaly-questionable policies which aim to dissuade on-campus drinking.

All right, trivia time. Who said: "We're going to crack the whip to whatever degree necessary"? Was it: a) Heidi Fleiss, castigating Hugh Grant for being a bad boy; b) Linda Tripp, angry that the President never offered to let her play with his winkie; c) Michael McCarthy, the idiot protester who fell out of the tree, inadvertently placing the word "whip" where "skull" should have been; or d) David Frohnmayer, referring to the UO's latest student alcohol policy?

The answer, of course, is D. Well, probably B too, but definitely D. Dave is talking about the newly released (well, not completely new, but c'mon, we're a fortnightly) alcohol polices for dormitory residents. He's tightening the noose on those bad boys and girls who think that school is all about partying.

"We want to make sure they get the message that school isn't all about partying," said Rick Gilliam, supervisor of the campus police office, according to the September 28th Register-Guard.

Dave is mostly concerned about more rioting. After last fall, when police had to use tear gas to break up two parties that had gotten out of control, Dave wants to polish the University's image a bit.

The new policies are mostly aimed at dorm residents, because that's where the authorities think they can have the most effect. Never mind, of course, that those two riots last year erupted from parties off campus; making dorm life even less bearable is about the best symbolic gesture they can conjure up to show parents and benefactors that the University acknowledges the problem and is working hard to solve it.

And never mind that Linda Devine, an assistant director of student life, acknowledged that the message is not, "if you come here don't even think about drinking," because "it's not realistic." Duh. But they just don't seem to care. They "want students' attention."

So thus goes the new policy: if you live in the dorms, no matter how old you are, you don't get to drink. Not in your room, not in the hallway, not on the roof, not on the ledge outside your room, nowhere. If you manage to sneak past all the new resident assistants and have a drink off campus, you'd better not have much, because you can't be "noticeably intoxicated" either.

And just what does "noticeably intoxicated" mean, anyway? Well, according to the same Register-Guard article, "staggering" is a visible sign of intoxication. What will happen to people who stagger as a matter of course because they are clumsy, ill, or just very tired? Will they be arrested? And when they are cited does the cop give the offender a breathalyzer test? How does staggering prove a state of intoxication?

You can't have any alcohol containers in your room, either, even if they're empty. If you're caught violating any of these rules, you will be fined $10, and will have to attend a class on drinking issues. That'll learn ya.

Later in the same article, the University trumpets their statistic that "most UO students (80%) have 4 drinks or fewer when they party." Officials are even putting out flyers to emphasize this fact in an effort to curb student drinking. They actually seem to believe this will have a tangible effect on student drinking patterns. Me, I'm using the flyer as a beer coaster right now. But the point is, if we only have four or fewer drinks when we party, why is there such a need for all these regulations? It could all be a bunch of cynical lies, told so that parents will send their offspring to the UO, thinking the kiddies will behave themselves through the positive influence of their lackluster drinking buddies. Or it could be that they actually believe in this crap.

But it gets worse.

On October 7, President Clinton signed the Higher Education Amendments of 1998. Most of this bill is actually pretty good. Tax breaks for college students, more Pell Grants, stuff like that. But there is a large chunk of text about substance abuse education.

The bill, sponsored by, among others, Senator Ted "Mary Jo Kopechne? Never heard of her" Kennedy, essentially says that in order for a school to receive federal monies, it has to have substance abuse prevention and education programs. One of the "programs" authorized allows schools to contact the parents of underage students caught in alcohol related infractions. Now, when I say underage, I'm not talking about juveniles. I'm talking about legal adults who are not yet 21.

So here's the main question: what the hell is the difference between an under 21 year-old adult and an over 21 year-old adult? If I, as one of the latter, purchase alcohol for a minor, I am looking at some pretty stiff fines and even some jail time. But Senator Kennedy hasn't made a provision for that particular offense, which is certainly related to getting an MIP. The University isn't allowed to tell my daddy (who would invite them to go to hell if they did tell him) if I break that law, so what gives them the right to tell the daddies of adults born just a couple of years before me if they get an MIP? It simply doesn't make any sense. How does one become more of an adult after age 21? I know 50 year-olds who don't act like adults. Can their parents be notified when they get DUIIs?

For the sake of an example, let's say my underage friend Erica gets picked up for an MIP while wandering around the Bean complex with a 40 of Old English. The helpful Office of Public Safety will call the helpful city police who will then either politely escort her to jail or just write her a ticket. In most cases, she will just get a ticket (unless of course she is totally belligerent, and, well, I know Erica). Then the helpful people of OPS whip out a form letter to Erica's mom and dad, politely informing them that their adult daughter is a total alcoholic who has been charged with being a minor in possession of alcohol, a misdemeanor. They will also include resources to "help" Erica and her parents to deal with Erica's "disease." Erica will be forced to perform humiliating acts of public servitude, and subjected to a lecture from her father for being stupid enough to get caught.

Has Erica learned a lesson? Yes she has. Don't get caught. What have Erica's parents learned? The cost of an MIP. Has anybody benefited? Well, the State of Oregon received Erica's fine money, and the Millrace may look a little cleaner after she performs her public service requirements, but all in all, no one really gets anything out of this. Underage students will still drink themselves into oblivion on a very regular basis. Notifying mommy and daddy will not discourage anything. Because, as college students are adept at doing, they will find ways around this little unconstitutional nuisance (or just not care about it in the first place) for as long as this section of the Amendment of the Higher Education Act goes uncontested in a court of law.

Which brings me to another argument. My father tried calling the Business Office to get some of my billing information. They wouldn't give it to him. That's because I'm well over age 18 and the Business Office did not have a "release of information form," signed by me, to release information. You will find that this policy is the same at any other University office, your doctor's office, and even your attorney's office (if you've had problems with The Man before). I'm an adult, and it ain't nobody's business if I do.

So how is it that the University can release that sort of information without my permission or knowledge? They can't, at least not constitutionally, or even under their own long-standing official policies. But they will do it anyway, because federal money is more important to them than treating students with dignity. This University wants so bad to be a shining example to other universities, it will stoop to low level prevention tactics to do it. The UO has proven over and over that it doesn't really care about the individual student, it just wants to look really good and try to get over the whole "Animal House" thing. It wants to be known as a powerhouse of academia. Get real: this is a state college, not Yale. The University already has several rather draconian ways of dealing with offenders (see the Student Conduct Code), and this is yet another whip to crack over our heads. Next year we will probably be required to wear blazers, ties, and plaid skirts. Fun is not tolerated. You will be expected to have at least one disease related to stress by graduation, and you will not touch alcohol until you turn age 21. Even then you won't touch it, because it causes blindness and hairy palms (wait, that's something else).

This is, quite simply, an outrage. I for one am proud to attend the very same institution that was home to John (God rest his soul) Belushi's finest screen moments. Who gives a rat's ass if the administration wants to cover up our proud legacy? This is our campus, our lives (well, our social lives), and our traditions that are at stake. Everyone expects us to drink to the point of idiocy. We're college students, dammit! Let us have our fun while we aren't yet responsible for anything of significance.

I, for one, will drink with pride. Screw the administration, screw the Office of Student Conduct, and screw Ted Kennedy. I'm not afraid of them. I just hope my parents don't find out.

Sean Nelson, a staff writer, has red hair. Rose Richard, a staff writer, sometimes carries a wallet. (Sometimes she doesn't)