The system of having students monitor their own parties has undergone little change since its inception a year and a half ago. But this year, several negative incidents have forced the system's effectiveness to fall under increased scrutiny.
Now, University officials and students are trying to figure out what is wrong and how they can change it.
"We continue to receive anecdotal information that party monitors in general were not taking their responsibilities seriously," said Sue Wasiolek, dean of students and assistant vice president for student affairs. More specifically, Wasiolek said some party monitors have violated the rule to remain sober.
Administrators instituted the party monitor system in September 2001, rejecting an option to have professionals monitor student parties but still seeking a way to increase security at such events. Monitors attend a one-time training session and usually take turns monitoring parties for their selective living groups.
Wasiolek said the only method for her to evaluate the effectiveness of party monitors is to visit parties herself. When doing so, however, she risks being accused of interfering with students' lives and trying to ruin their social lives, reasons why Wasiolek has not attended any parties this year.
"My very strong preference is for students to step up to the plate, recognize that this is a tremendous opportunity to keep the administration out of their lives and be accountable for their own actions, and to hold each other accountable," she said.
Wasiolek said she is mindful that students would rather have an opportunity to regulate and govern for themselves than to have it imposed on them.
She said she does not know whether a more extensive evaluation is necessary, and that the current system will stay as is "at least for the semester."
Page Inman, president of Maxwell House, said the party monitor system has worked well for Maxwell. Inman likens party monitors to designated drivers, and said they are effective because they scatter throughout a party, maximizing their ability to oversee partygoers.
Andy Walls, a sophomore party monitor for KA, said the large size of some parties makes effective governing difficult. "The more people you get, the more you have to choose the way you expend your resources." He said that his main job is going around making sure people are not breaking windows, stealing or literally about to pass out, not necessarily preventing students from drinking.
"The biggest issue is the size of our spaces," said Todd Adams, assistant dean of students. "We don't have the best space to host large scale events."
Adams added that it would not matter if the monitor were an officer, an off-duty guard or hired security, because party monitors are stuck in a tough situation when several hundred students try to pile into a small space and end up spilling into public areas.
Rick Gardner, director of event advising, said the most important issue is how successfully party monitors have embraced their roles. He added that there have been quite a few negative incidents, and that if groups are not responsible, they will lose their privileges.
"Students seem to suggest at times they aren't [responsible]," Wasiolek said, "which makes me question my own philosophy. Sometimes there is a mixed message that we're adults but we're kids."
The party monitor system is "something that we always have to evaluate," Adams said. "We understand that peer-to-peer contact can be difficult, but it is the most effective method in the businesses. Parties need to be run in a away that safety and security are a priority."
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.