It's time to face facts. Penn has a drinking problem.
Whether you attribute this to a lack of University oversight, inexperience among Penn students or the ineffectiveness of Penn's current alcohol policy, it is clear that something needs to be done. As a first step, the University needs to take a long, hard look at that alcohol policy, figure out what is effective and what isn't and improve upon it.
This is not just a Penn issue, but Penn needs to address it. Students have died from excess drinking this year at the University of Oklahoma, University of Colorado, Colorado State University and the University of Arkansas. According to The Associated Press, approximately 1,400 college students die in alcohol-related incidents per year. Drinking is a serious problem nationwide and Penn is not immune. There is no sure way to prevent a tragedy, but we must begin working on the issue now if we are going to have a chance.
There are aspects of the current alcohol policy that we strongly support. For one, the amnesty policy, which protects students from punishment when seeking medical attention, is absolutely vital to the wellbeing of students. The one bad experience with alcohol is a classic though unfortunate element of college. By emphasizing safety over the threat of discipline, Penn is showing that it has the right priorities. However effective disciplinary action might be as a deterrent, the fact remains that students will drink too much, and it is in everyone's best interest to make sure that when they do, they have every incentive to go to the hospital and avoid a worst-case scenario.
Additionally, having Penn Police also prioritize ensuring student safety over making arrests represents a very responsible approach to the situation.
Currently, Penn does very well with the crisis management side of these incidents. But prevention remains a challenge. Unfortunately, this is not something that can be achieved by banning kegs or by enforcing a door-monitor policy. There are no easy answers and no quick and clean ways to change the competitive and sometimes self-destructive habits that have sprung up around drinking. It is clear, however, that if Penn really is going to effect this change, it must alter the drinking culture as it currently exists. Penn students are highly competitive, and too often they approach the ingestion of alcohol with the same determination that they approach a midterm. Rules on the prevention side of the alcohol policy will be effective only if they help enforce a broader change of thought across campus on how we view alcohol altogether. How exactly to do that is up to the University, and although it is no easy task, it is certainly one of dire importance.
Serious changes in alcohol policy are often reactionary. Penn's current existential crisis toward its policy began with the alcohol-related death of alumnus Michael Tobin in 1999. Since then it has tried a variety of measures, some with more success than others. In this, Penn must act pre-emptively and begin to truly address how we drink, before a Penn student becomes a statistic.
