Page 4
Asking Around
Rather than the school year
trying to force our opinion
on you, we have created a
forum to hear from you, the
college community. Each
issue we will explore a
different topic by random
selection and short editor
ials, by both the staff and
you, the readers.
The next Capital Times
will deal with excellence in
teaching: what makes a
good instructor? Anyone
The focus of this feature is the new alcohol policy which went into effect at the
sun of the semester.
Jan Travers
Capital Times Editor
New Policy Only Protects University
“When drinking interferes with a
student’s performance in the
classroom, it’s time to make
changes,” a campus administrator
said to me recently. This seems to
be the justification behind the new
alcohol policy of refusing to allow
alcohol to be served at any
undergraduate function on uni
versity property. The adminis
tration sees a problem with alcohol
and they are taking steps to remedy
it, all for the good of the students,
right?
Not exactly. It’s true there is a
new policy, and it’s true it is
intended to cut down on underage
drmkmg,, but 1 feeV the tea\ invent
behind it is not concerned with
curbing alcohol abuse, but legally
covering the university in the event
of any problems. President Bryce
Jordan said as much when the board
of trustees adopted the policy in
May. He was quoted as saying the
legislation was “intended to
Charles Dishong
Marketing
I’m against it. This is another
manifestation of the litigation
crisis in America. Though I
understand the administration’s
concern aboiu liability issues,
limiting a party to 35 to 50
people does not necessarily
reduce the potential risk for an
accident.
with an interest in this is
asked to submit his feel
ings in typewritten format
to the Capital Times, Room
212. To be considered for
publishing, the editorial
must be signed, and submit
ted by October 1.
We will also be accepting
topic ideas for future Asking
Around features. Any ideas
selected will be credited to
you in the paper.
distance the university in terms of
legal liability.”
Studies at this campus have
indicated that alcohol is the most
abused substance used. But one
can’t assume this means only
undergraduate students are respon
sible. If the university was really
concerned with high alcohol con
sumption on its campuses, they
would have implemented, side by
side with the regulation, a total
public relations effort educating all
areas of the college community
about the dangers of alcohol abuse.
I applaud Penn State for its no
nonsense approach to the enforce
ment of the policy, insisting all
violators will be disciplined, but I
also think it is short-sighted of the
powers to try to solve a problem
without dealing with the cause. The
only good to come out of the
regulation falls to the university, in
relieving it of its responsibility.
What do you think of the new alcohol policy?
I’m undecided. No matter what
the school does they won’t be
able to stop people from
drinking. However, I agree they
have a right to try to stop
potential accidents and injuries
on campus because of liability to
the university.
Capital Times
Bryce Jordan
University P
Task Force Identified Alcohol Abuse
Early in the Spring Semester
1985,1 appointed a Task Force
to study alcohol use and abuse at
University Park and in the local
community, and to make ap
propriate recommendations.
In November, 1985, the Task
Force presented its final report
to me. I subsequently met with
key student leaders and appro
riate administrative staff.
On May 1, 1986,1 released a
policy document which clarifies
existing University policies that
govern the conduct of students
and student organizations with
respect to the possession and
consumption of alcoholic
beverages. In reviewing the po
licy document, I noted that the
University disciplinary system
and the Student Code of Conduct
apply principally to on-campus
students and student organ
izations. Neither the disciplinary
system nor the code of conduct
Brian Coons
Accounting
applies to off-campus student ac
tivity, except where such con
duct is determined to have a sub
stantial adverse effect on the
University or upon individual
members of the University com
munity.
The Alcohol Task Force
identified two key underlying as
sumptions in the preparation of
its report.
First and foremost, the
University has an obligation, as
an educational institution, to ed
ucate students, employees and
the community regarding al
cohol. The University, through
its various services, will assist
students in obtaining appropriate
treatment when conditions of al
cohol abuse exist. The entire
Division of Student Services
will continue its efforts in spon
soring nonalcoholic social e
vents and activities on campus,
as well as other program related)
csi
Crystal Drumheller
Accounting
I'm against it. It should be up
to the students to do what they
want as long as they are of legal
age. If dances are prohibited from
even allowing people to bring
their own liquor, no one will
come.
Sept. 17,1986
Problem Areas
efforts recommended by the Al
cohol Task Force. The Uni
versity should and will use its
resources, including its curri
culum, to help persons make
responsible decisions about al
cohol, and to prevent alcohol a
buse.
Second, the University has an
obligation, as a state related
institution, to base its policies
on alcohol on the laws of the
Commonwealth.
We need to work together to
make the learning environment
free of behavior which under
mines the value of the education
students receive. We can all help
in this effort by continuing our
commitment to maintain an ed
ucational environment that pro
motes values, attitudes and be
havior which permits each stu
dent to develop to his or her full
potential.
Photo by Sylvia Johnson
Lisa Tammaro
Marketing
1 m against it. We’re supposed
to be adults. Those of us over 21
are not going to take advantage
of a less strict alcohol policy. It
will make us go to bars instead
of staying home and we’ll end up
having to drive farther creating a
greater risk.