Under-rage

Most universities nationwide have some variation of the following statement in their alcohol policies: “Students under 21 years of age are not permitted to purchase, possess or consume alcoholic beverages.” This implies a fantasy that this statement bars, by its own virtue, any purchase, possession or consumption of alcohol by underage members of an undergraduate community. Given this fantasy, most alcohol policies list guidelines that allow on-campus consumption of alcohol exclusively by those 21 and over.

It is not enough for 136 universities to affirm the Amethyst Initiative, an initiative that calls for a re-evaluation of America’s legal age. Duke cannot have a policy that ignores the law and “permits” those under 21 to drink, but Duke students will continue to drink without regard for the legality of their actions. This is not the time for universities across the board to make empty statements about their respect for America’s laws. Universities, as guardians and institutions in their own right, must approach under-age drinking with the understanding that there is a fine line between regulating it and condoning it.

Compare the current situation to the act of recognizing that under-age and/or pre-marital sex is a part of society while continuing to condemn it and withhold the necessary measures to lessen its effects. If this were a sex-ed class, we’d be teaching abstinence and abstinence only. If you don’t remain abstinent, abstinent training is of no use.

I cannot imagine Duke’s administration restricting access to condoms on-campus, whether free-of-cost or paid for at the Lobby Shop and other such establishments. Unlike under-age drinking, under-age, consensual sex is permitted under the law—but both can cause considerable harm to an individual. Ideally, a condom prevents unwanted pregnancy and infection by sexually transmitted diseases—two events that can jeopardize a student’s future.

Duke’s policy for outdoor events like Tailgate, personal checks and the Last Day of Classes (LDOC) concert represents a move toward establishing safe-drinking practices for all students, regardless of age. The six-pack-per-person rule, along with the ban on the general distribution of alcohol, allows for self-service and self-regulation of one’s own alcohol consumption. Although this policy is age-specific, it is an avenue that controls for the method and quantity of individual consumption. It also takes the potential for indiscriminate distribution of alcohol into consideration.

Duke’s outdoor policy can be adapted to indoor drinking as well. An “open-door” policy that allows students to hold small gatherings of friends in their rooms would allow the Residential Advisor to be aware of everything that is going on. The small size of the gathering would allow students to consider and watch what they pour for themselves, while decreasing the amount of flowing alcohol. The University could then restrict the general distribution of alcohol at larger, student-hosted parties by requiring identification and a wristband for consumption at such parties.

These rules would acknowledge that students are well-equipped to consider and watch what they pour for themselves, while also taking into consideration that the same students should probably not be pouring drinks for hundreds of their peers at a party. Rather than focusing on what students do in private, an effective policy should take into consideration the incidence and impact of publicly available, free-flowing alcohol at large gatherings.

Students are going to drink. It no longer makes sense for a university to punish the act of drinking after the fact. We must establish a set of safe and sensible parameters for the prevalence of under-age drinking on campus.