A Call for Moderation

Last week witnessed a well-intentioned attempt by the administration to control student drinking. Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68, Dean of Students Archie C. Epps III and Director of Athletics William J. Cleary '56 co-authored a letter urging student leaders to use their positions to help reduce the use of alcohol by under-age students. The letter essentially urges student leaders to "exercise responsible leadership" and reminds them of College policies on alcohol, as well as of the dangers of heavy drinking.

The impetus for the letter is understandable. It mentioned two recent 'life-threatening" incidents involving abuse of alcohol. Obviously, the administration is concerned about the health and well being of its students, and we appreciate this.

Both incidents cited in the letter were the result of team or club initiations or celebrations. These types of ceremonies are often unregistered, secretive and unlikely to be discovered by the University except when something goes wrong. Therefore, the administration has taken the most obvious possible step: appealing to the leaders of these organizations and reminding them of their personal liability should anything happen to under-age drinkers served by them.

One of the better parts of the letter is that it calls upon students to look out for each other and to make sure that their peers do not drink too much. A letter devoted entirely to threats of aggressive enforcement of alcohol laws would have been the wrong approach to take.

But the letter has its flaws as well. Certain points in the letter--we're thinking here of the stern warnings reminding students that they may be "personally financially liable for any harm that may befall an individual" as a result of alcohol use--give the impression that the administration is cracking down on illicit use of alcohol. The reason that this is a problem is that alcohol's illicit nature makes it all the more desirable. A strictly enforced drinking age only exacerbates this phenomenon, and also makes underage drinkers more likely to binge since their access to alcohol is sporadic.

Because a heavy-handed University crackdown on alcohol consumption would make the situation worse, we feel that a more effective policy would be for the administration to remain deliberately lenient in the enforcement of guidelines regarding the use of alcohol by underage students. We recognize that Harvard cannot publicly endorse moderation in underage drinking because to do so would fly in the face of the Alcohol and Drug Free School Act. The area that Harvard does have some control over is enforcement.

There are several advantages to relatively lax enforcement of these rules. First, students will be more likely to remain on campus when they drink, where they can receive help immediately should a dangerous situation arise. We're sure the Administration would rather have its students drunk on campus than staggering through the streets of Boston at all hours of the night. (Or perhaps even driving home from an off-campus bar.)

Furthermore, this policy may help to remove the stigma that makes alcohol so tempting and dangerous. Harvard students are intelligent enough to realize that alcohol is a social drug that needs to be used responsibly. The administration needs to give them this chance by bringing drinking out from underground and into the open where it will lose its illicit allure and hence its danger.

When alcohol is used responsibly it can enliven many a social event. Underage drinking in an inevitable phenomenon on almost all American college campuses, and Harvard lacks the power to prevent it entirely. While the University cannot communicate such a message, we would like to urge students to exercise moderation and good judgement in their use of this potentially dangerous substance.