On the Rocks

When Massachusetts raised the legal drinking age from 20 to 21 last year, Harvard felt it had no choice but to review its alcohol policy.

When the legal age was 20, almost every junior and senior, and even some sophomores were of drinking age. But after the age hike, nearly three-quarters of the College population was suddenly underage.

So, fearing liability lawsuits if underage students were injured while intoxicated, and sensing heightened community scrutiny of college practices, Harvard embarked on a month-long policy review which ended with profound changes in the way the College deals with the age-old bacchanalian rights of passage.

Under the previous system, the University had allowed students of all ages to drink at in-house parties under the supervision of house masters and freshman advisors who acted in loco parentis for those not quite old enough to drink legally. However no campuswide party had been allowed to serve liquor.

But by October, students found this relatively simple system replaced by an imposing quagmire of new regulations.

Campuswide parties serving liquor were now acceptable, but to drink at them, or at any other public function, students were required to show bursar cards and other identification to prove their age.

Alcoholic beverages now had to be placed in an illuminated area separate from other drinks. And master-approved, non-student supervision would be required at parties, though not necessarily in the bar area.

But despite the new policy's complexity, it was put into effect with no major hitches. Despite predictions that social life around campus would all but disappear, students have complied with the new policy as masters and administrators have experimented with various means of enforcing it.

One of the major questions surrounding the enforcement of the new policy was when to card and when to leave students on their honor. Some house masters have responded by using their own judgment in employing several methods of enforcement. Others have based their enforcement decisions on other criteria, such as the size of a social event and whether or not it was strictly an in-house affair.

"It depends on the type of event that's being held, in regard to the policy," said Master of Mather House David Herlihy. He said that Mather has used an honor system for small, in-house events like faculty dinners and language tables.

In contrast, Winthrop House Co-Master Martha H. Davis said that "we've tried to adhere to the new policy to the point that we've had no wine at our faculty dinners."

"I think the honor system has worked really well," said Carolyn M. Martin '86, former co-chairman of the Leverett House Committee.

Though administrators and masters have been fairly successful in enforcing the new policy, it is still difficult to gauge how the drinking regulations will affect campus social life.

"There are a lot of underage people who are still drinking, or having fun without drinking," Martin said. "I don't think the effect on College social life has been too great," she said.

But former Quincy House Committee Treasurer Philip L. Prince '86 disagreed. The alcohol policy "definitely had a negative impact on house social life," he said. "It drove those people who were of age into bars, away from parties, which became fewer."

The more stringent alcohol policy has also made it more difficult for house committees to raise money to fund social events.

"The dry parties don't go over very well," said Michele T. Ippolito '86, former co-chairman of the Eliot House Committee "It's limited the fundraising activities we can do." She said that the new policy has prevented her house from sponsoring events such as the alcohol-endowed party after the 1984 Harvard-Yale football game which proved a very effective fundraiser.