Flaunting the Law, Creatively

STUDENT CLAIMS of responsibility notwithstanding, the College really has no choice but to attempt to enforce the minimum drinking age of 21. But how it will choose to do so is an open question, and one it is hoped administrators will respond to wisely, and with moderation.

For years, Harvard has subtly ignored the law by allowing its students to drink at house parties with only a whispered warning. But the happy days of easy liquor are past. Not because of anything students have done to warrant such prohibition, but because the public is scrutinizing the College to a greater degree than ever before. The time has passed when Harvard could envelope its students in the protective embrace of the house masters, or substitute parents.

Dean of the College L. Fred Jewett '57 said it all. "There is the question to what degree should University policy be in contradiction with the law. The laws are quite clear."

The laws are quite clear that people under 21 are prohibited from drinking alcohol, and as ridiculously restrictive, as outrageously unfair as they are, it is not the role of the University to flout the law when 70 percent of its undergraduates are under age. Harvard is morally obligated at least to pay the law lip service.

The College supported its position of allowing in-house drinking by the legal theory of in loco parentis, which held that house masters and freshman advisors were acting as students' surrogate parents. The theory would be a rather dubious defense in court. As one house master said, "I don't feel like the parent to 365 kids." The real idea was that students are going to drink anyway, and it might as well be in an orderly, supervised fashion. But under public scrutiny, such enlightened policies have got to give way to the LAW.

So if the University can no longer protect us, what can it do?

The issue boils down to enforcement. Students around the University have been reluctant to talk about the change in the alcohol policy because if they say they are going to flaunt the law, then it might push the University to crack down on them.

What a dilemma. The more students talk about drinking, the more they are asking the University and community groups to crack down. Even though, of course, about 98 percent of Harvard students don't drive at Harvard--only 97 students registered cars last year, according to Dean of Students Archie C. Epps III. Even though, by making the campus restrictive, students will be encouraged to wander elsewhere in search of alcohol and perhaps get into more trouble.

So perhaps students should not talk about circumventing the law. But why can't the University talk about its possible policy changes with students? Harvard officials have indicated they have spoken to Yale officials a lot, and are according the Yale policy great respect in deciding what this college's new policy should be.

But Harvard officials obviously didn't talk enough with Yale's Dean of Student Affairs J. Lloyd Suttle. "We had anticipated the change and held a large number of discussions. We held forums and even had one University-wide forum. There was a lot of give and take, and we really gave students not only advanced word, but an opportunity to participate in the decision," Suttle said.

Yale's decision, like Harvard's, was a foregone conclusion. But at least Yale acted on a belief that students might have something to add to the discussion. But while Harvard appears to sympathize with those stymied by the government's new restrictions, the College is no more willing than are the lawmakers to accord students a greater measure of responsibility and respect.

We can't talk about it; we can't drink it, so how do we get out of this mess?

Obviously, although Harvard is under pressure to comply with the law, it does not have to be Draconian in enforcing it. Naturally, no savvy administrator would publicly announce a policy of leniency, and no student body would call for its announcement. Nevertheless, in paying lip service to the law, Harvard has fulfilled its moral obligation. There is a responsible way of enforcing the spirit of the law which need not treat students like children.

Recognizing that under-age students are going to go out of their way to find booze, the University can try to keep such activity confined to campus where it can be controlled and therefore less dangerous. One way to do this is to allow private parties to continue as long as they do not draw too much attention. Another is to allow masters' open houses to continue serving alcohol. The masters in these situations are clearly opening their homes to students and throwing a private party.

The reason masters might be afraid of such action is their liability for any student who got drunk at their party and injured himself or another person. Of course they have been liable in the past--for legal and illegal drinkers. There is no additional cause for concern; students are every bit as likely or unlikely to hurt themselves drinking as they were before, and the masters' and University's possible liability has not changed. Moreover, for a University with Harvard's resources and relatively clean record, liability insurance of the type obtained by the University of Massachusetts should be available to Harvard.

In fact, the new policy could even help improve campus-wide parties. Under the old rules, in effect until now, University-wide parties could not serve alcohol; to anyone. But if under new guidelines those of age will be allowed to drink, then perhaps more of them will attend--in addition to those who would come anyway, booze or no.

Harvard students have faced times like these in the past, and they have managed to live through them, even having some fun. Creative flaunting of the law is perhaps half the fun--and it's even desirable if the alternative is enforcement so strict that it would make matters worse.