Out of necessity, I have been following the aftermath of the three tragedies involving SMU students last spring. The need to focus on such affairs resulted from my experiences addressing the many issues of campus alcohol use and abuse after the death of my daughter, Kristine, in a 2005 campus alcohol-related incident in upstate New York. Everything encountered substantiates the often repeated statement “you just cannot avoid it” in reference to the pressures to join the prevailing alcohol culture that exists on too many campuses across the country.
Presently, SMU is addressing whether last spring’s tragedies were an indication of a pervasive problem at SMU or unrelated incidents which coincidently occurred during a short time period. Determining the latter would be consistent with the outcome during similar processes at campuses across the country. After a dead student is found, there is a period of deep mourning, followed by a questioning of the cause and the environmental factors involved, adjustment of policies at some level and finally a feeling that all is now right and everyone moves on. Unfortunately, the process seldom produces real long-term change.
One may question what change would people like me desire and is this consistent with the good of the students and the overall environment? Behind such a question is the prevailing belief that college students need to have an environment where they gain independence to grow and make their own decisions, an objective that is virtually universally accepted. Also, implicit is the belief that all college students participating in drinking as a right of passage. Finally, the question fails to address the real problem that drinkers effectively have created campus environments which violate the rights of those students who are not so predisposed to unlimited drinking. They have had their right to decide whether or not to participate largely taken away from them.
I propose that most freshmen come to campus not predisposed to have the next four year consist of uncontrolled and unlimited partying. However, once on campus, those freshmen find that such activities are difficult to avoid if they desire any social life on campus. Freshmen and others basically have three choices: Go home on weekends, assuming home is sufficiently close, to make this practical (many find that their friends of similar views who do live close to campus are absent on weekends); become a social shut-in and avoid those activities which involve alcohol or join in with the drinkers. For many, alcohol and drug abuse is an unintended practice learned at college.
The problem is gaining ever more attention and concern given the current excesses involving alcohol use and the growing involvement of females in binge drinking. One should seriously question whether this is at all consistent with the desired academic environment. Congress decided this issue in 1989 by passing an effectively written law which requires colleges and universities to seriously address campus drinking practices. Compliance with the law is tied to federal funding, including student financial aid. The task force and concerned students must consider this potentially severe sanction when determining the appropriate reaction to the spring tragedies. What if the task force determines that there are no pervasive alcohol or drug concerns at SMU but the federal government determines otherwise? The financial effect on students and the institution would be dramatic.
Compared to most private colleges in the east, SMU, at 11,000 students, is indeed Texas size. However, this is not too large for those who do feel that alcohol and drugs should not control the culture to work together to take back the campus. Granted those predisposed to abuse alcohol and drugs will continue do so, regardless of the consequences. However, if all students knew that avoiding those practices is a prerequisite to attending SMU, those individuals will likely be less able to control the campus culture for others. In keeping with SMU’s prestige, such a sanction could be strictly enforced without affecting its attractiveness for future students.
About the writer:
Stephen Guest is from West Hartford, CT. For more information please see CompelledToAct.com
