Game Over?
Just when you were prepared to write Harvard off as apathetic and apolitical (Iraq, where? Darfur, who?), up crops an issue that really gets the student body’s blood boiling.
Interim Dean of Harvard College David R. Pilbeam found out where students were willing to make their stand the hard way on Oct. 2 when, in an open letter to members of the Undergraduate Council’s Executive Board, he announced the disbandment of the UC party grant program, which provided thousands of dollars every week for private parties on campus. Both the abrupt tone and the sudden timing of Pilbeam’s missive sent shock waves through the community, stoking the flames of open-list debates and inspiring conjecture about the machinations of the College.
But while University Hall and the Undergraduate Council continue to spar over how much of a liability party grants really pose and, more fundamentally, how much autonomy the UC possesses, students and group leaders voiced their concern about a larger and perhaps more troubling trend.
For those students who mourn their demise, the UC party grants have become a natural (if not exaggerated) symbol for the vitality of campus social life. But there are other issues at play: the termination of the program is just one decision among several recent developments in the College administration’s policy toward alcohol that might presage a return to less open and more draconian methods of enforcement.
Talks have been ongoing between the Office of the Dean and official and unofficial student groups. The negotiations, which focus on the broader use of alcohol, center around recommendations made by the Committee on Social Clubs in April 2007. The College might be attempting to reel student groups—especially the more autonomous organizations that own property off of Harvard’s campus—more closely into the established guidelines of the College.
Taken together, the administration’s actions have raised questions as to whose interests are being served by recent College policies, sparking a debate as to whether they were designed to protect the lives of students or the liability of the University.
A GROWING CONCERN
“When we discuss what keeps us up at night,” says David S. Rosenthal ’59, director of the University Health Services (UHS), “there are two basic issues...one is an alcohol-related death and the other is suicide.” Rosenthal notes that UHS began collecting data in earnest on alcohol-related issues as early as 1989. Since that time, UHS has noted a steady escalation of both acute alcohol-related cases and an overall escalation of admissions to UHS for alcohol-related issues.
“We found that although binge drinking at Harvard is less than it is at some other schools, it’s still rather significant,” says Rosenthal. “We’ve all been focused on cases that get into the news...like an alcohol-related death at another school in the area.”
In response to increased alcohol abuse seen in UHS statistics and the media, the College began experimenting with an amnesty policy during the 2002-2003 school year. Prior to that year, admissions to UHS for alcohol-related issues had never risen above 60 cases a year, according to Director of Alcohol and Other Drug Services Ryan M. Travia. A year later, total cases had risen to 123. The year following, they rose again to 147.
In October and November of 2003, the total number of students treated for alcohol poisoning had nearly doubled in comparison to the same period in 2002. While Rosenthal stressed that the sharp increase might indicate a greater willingness on the part of students to seek professional treatment for alcohol-related concerns, they nonetheless prompted then-Dean of the College Benedict H. Gross ’71 to form the student-faculty Committee to Address Alcohol and Health at Harvard. Chaired by Harvard Business School professor Joseph L. Badaracco, the former master of Currier House, the committee delivered its recommendations to Gross and Provost Steven E. Hyman the following fall.
Surprisingly, the committee’s recommendations signaled a shift away from some of the more hard-line policies of the past, placing a greater emphasis on safety, student participation, and educational initiatives. Recommendations included redefining the disciplinary duties of proctors and tutors so that they better supported student safety, creating more non-alcoholic social options for students, and better publicizing the college’s “amnesty” policy.
The report also created the Office of Alcohol & Other Drug Services (AODS), which would operate under “a harm- reduction approach,” according to Travia. While the University still pledged to curb illegal alcohol use, it’s statement prioritized student safety.
FUN AT HARVARD?
The turn away from a strict alcohol policy coincided auspiciously with another campus project: resurrecting fun at Harvard. As the committee pounded out its new policies, the Undergraduate Council was instituting a fledgling program that would subsidize private parties in Harvard’s dorms.
In December 2002, Rohit Chopra ’04 and Jessica R. Stannard-Friel ’04 campaigned for the position of UC president and vice president on a platform dedicated to improving the undergraduate social scene. In its public endorsement of the duo, The Crimson lauded the candidates’ proposal for “an unprecedented party fund” that provided eight $50 subsidies each week to encourage students to host parties. Elected by an overwhelming majority, the UC under Chopra and Stannard-Friel formally established the party grant program in 2003. According to UC President Ryan A. Petersen ’08, Chopra sought outside legal counsel who indicated there would be no legal liability on the University’s part.
The UC party grant program aroused no public complaint from the Dean’s Office at the time of its establishment. One explanation for the administration’s reserve might have involved a comprehensive student-satisfaction survey administered in 2002 to 31 elite institutions, in which Harvard ranked fifth from the bottom. While the results were leaked to The Boston Globe in 2005, a former administrator told The Crimson last year that orders had come from the very top as early as 2002 to improve Harvard’s social scene. Then-University President Lawrence H. Summers, added the individual, encouraged “a competitiveness to get Harvard up in the scores.”
The issues raised by the data informed Gross’s priorities when he began his tenure as Dean of the College in July 2003, Gross said last year. Ever eager to compete in all categories–including fun–the University seemed unwilling to interfere with an initiative aimed at bettering student life that had garnered such widespread support.
The program debuted without controversy in Harvard’s residential Houses and enjoyed widespread support. “From what I heard everyone had a lot of fun and things went smoothly,” Chopra told the Crimson in 2003. “We’ve been getting a lot of positive feedback. People realize that throwing a party is expensive.” While some students couldn’t resist poking fun at the school for requiring institutional support in having a good time, the grants soon became a staple of student life. In each succeeding year the UC voted to continue the program, making small alterations for better accountability and increasing the value of the grants from $50 to $100. Harvard’s social scene, if not exactly on par with its brethren at the famous “party schools,” took a step away from critical condition.
A TURN OF THE SCREW
Meanwhile, Travia continued to pursue his policies of education and prevention.
“We’ve been seeing a number of really positive trends over the last two years,” says Travia. While overall alcohol-related admissions levels to UHS have remained relatively constant, he’s noticed a decline in the average blood-alcohol levels of students, which represents “a big win for us because students are identifying each other earlier and not waiting for those extreme levels to come in.” In addition, Travia cites his education and prevention efforts as cultivating change in the behavior of freshmen and student-athletes, as both groups experienced significant declines in risk over the past two years.
Despite these overall positive trends, two near-death incidents in the fall of 2006 shook up College administrators, prompting Gross and Robert W. Iuliano ’83, the University’s top lawyer, to organize another committee, focused on student organizations and social clubs. The Committee on Social Clubs, chaired by Associate Dean of the College Judith H. Kidd, was asked to consider “what, if any, disciplinary measures should be applied to hazing or other unsafe behavior violating College rules on alcohol or drug use,” according to the April 2007 report.
The report of the Committee on Social Clubs marked a distinct change in tone from the 2004 report released by the Committee to Address Alcohol and Health at Harvard; it placed greater emphasis on liability. Although the report acknowledged that the task would “not be successful without ongoing student input,” the Committee on Social Clubs—in contrast to the former committee—did not include any undergraduates from the College.
While some recommendations followed the College’s previous hands-off approach of expanding social space and educational initiatives, critical changes were instituted. In essence, the report recommended three reforms. It formally enshrined the College’s “amnesty policy” in the Handbook for Students, though the recommendation had already been operating for several years. It rephrased the Student Handbook so that, in cases where “serious harm, or the potential for serious harm, has come to any person as a result of consumption of alcohol or drugs,” the hosts of the event and possibly the officers of the student group could be held personally responsible. Lastly, it mandated all student groups—official or unofficial—be required to provide the Dean’s Office with the names and contact information of all its undergraduate officers and sign the College’s non-hazing pledge.
A BIG MUDDLE
While the new phrasing in the Student Handbook was intended to “clarify expectations,” in practice it accomplished the opposite. In response to student concerns about student officers being held accountable for drinking that is not under their control, the committee agreed to change the wording in the handbook from “will be held” to “may be held” responsible. Somehow, the rewording did not provide sufficient comfort to a number of group leaders.
“With the new policy for student groups, you encounter a situation where student groups themselves, regardless of how much money [they have], are afraid to throw parties in any capacity,” says Harvard College Democrats President Brigit M. Helgen ’08.
“The amendment to the handbook was incredibly vague and far-reaching,” adds Petersen. “As far as I know, there is no specific criteria to ensure that student group leaders won’t be prosecuted. Specific policy measures have not been made clear.”
Other group leaders, however, were not as concerned. “We don’t really have alcohol at our social events, so it was largely irrelevant,” says Ren J. Zhao ’08, president of the Harvard-Radcliffe Asian American Association. Zhao found the new wording a mere technicality, asking “when is the safety of the people who come to our social events not our top priority?”
Harvard Black Men’s Forum President Bryan C. Barnhill II ’08 agreed for similar reasons, pointing out that “alcohol is not a major component at our social events.”
Comments from student leaders, however, revealed a divide in opinion between those groups that regularly host events on-campus and those who host events at off-campus locales traditionally exempt from the University’s long arm. Harvard’s final clubs, as well as student organizations that own property or regularly host parties off-campus, were reluctant to comment on the matter, citing ongoing talks with the administration. One final club president, who, like others quoted in this article, was granted anonymity to preserve relations with College administrators, says that “Harvard is trying to get the names of these officers...Whether it’s to share the blame or whether it’s to help remains to be seen.”
Asked whether he intends to comply with the college’s request to register, he added, “We’re really on the fence right now. We’re really ready to work with the College. I think everyone has in hand student safety.”
The issue, as he sees it, is “ensuring kids feel safe about getting help without fear of retribution for their friends. “
“Whether we’re going to register our names as officers, we’re not sure yet,” he added.
A leader of another student group, who also requested to remain anonymous, referred to the fact that registering with HUPD and providing Beverage Authorization Teams (BAT), while always University policy, is now being actively enforced. “It now seems that neglecting to do so would not escape the administration’s notice and the consequences could be more severe,” the leader said.
Without these provisions, student group leaders feel that they are vulnerable to disciplinary action on the part of the administration. At the same time, the group leader pointed out, the costs for making such arrangements can be quite prohibitive.
The Harvard University Police Department (HUPD) Web site, where all student-group events must technically be registered, reveals changes reflecting a stricter alcohol policy, including the automatic incorporation of a BAT Request Application for all events at which alcohol will be served. The site also advises the hiring of a police detail for “any function where alcohol is served with expected attendance of 100 or more guests.”
The costs of hiring two BAT officers for a 4-hour-long event come out to $144. The cost of hiring a single officer for the same amount of time is an additional $182.16. Taken together, these precautions cost $326.16. While the Student Life and Activities office, headed by Dean Kidd, provides up to 16 hours of BAT service to House committees per semester, no similar offers are known to extend to other student organizations.
BLIND-SIDED
While the debate over the feasibility and implications of the new regulations governing social clubs had plowed on for several months, Dean Pilbeam’s public call for the termination of party grants instantly brought the discourse about alcohol to a new level among students. Concerns about the UC party grant program had been raised by both House Masters and residential deans last spring. The deans and the UC Executive Board continued to work together in apparent good faith over the summer to make the necessary changes to appease all the major stake-holding parties.
Among the changes made by the UC to the party grant system was a removal of the requirement to advertise UC-funded parties on House open-lists because of complaints from some of the resident deans, an immediate notification sent to the resident deans informing them of what rooms had been awarded grants, and two check boxes on the application confirming that any alcoholic beverages would only be purchased by and served to those who were over 21 years of age.
“I feel like if you look at the historical timeline, its pretty evident that we worked as hard as we could to answer all of their worries and answer all of their questions, so we were definitely kind of surprised by what happened,” says UC Vice President Matthew L. Sundquist ’09.
Pilbeam, however, was not impressed by the changes. Citing a national increase in binge drinking among college students and the stricter position courts now take toward even the tacit condoning of illegal behavior, Pilbeam argues that administrators, deans, House masters, and party hosts “have to be able to demonstrate if something goes appallingly wrong, we all have taken reasonable steps. I had absolutely no choice.”
For Pilbeam, the matter wasn’t up for debate but was rather a requirement of his office. “I am not so naive to think that people underage are going to stop drinking,” he says. “What I am constitutionally charged to do is try to make sure that people come to no harm.”
Petersen says he learned only after Pilbeam’s announcement that the Office of the General Counsel had been providing the deans of the College with extensive legal advice over the summer. “They did not tell Dean Kidd or [Assistant Dean of Harvard College] Paul McLoughlin that the program was illegal,” says Petersen, “Rather, based on its assessment, Dean Kidd and Paul McLoughlin determined that the party grant program must be discontinued.”
Still reeling from the event, many students have made the argument that the administration’s new policies will force drinking further underground. Petersen believes that ending the fund “forces undergraduates who want to drink to attend off-campus events in unsafe environments with unfamiliar people outside of the safety and care provided by our Houses.” Taken together with new policies for student groups, Petersen also claims that “both shift the social life on campus into hands of the privileged.”
Black Men’s Forum President (and resident of the Pfoho Bell Tower, a famed party suite) Barnhill agrees. “As a student receiving a large part of financial aid,” he says, “the party grants enabled a positive social atmosphere on campus where socializing became less of an economic burden.”
Travia, however, dissents. “Our numbers so far haven’t reflected that shift,” he argues. “I think one of the key examples of that was the success of last year’s Harvard–Yale game.” Fewer students were arrested or drank themselves into the emergency room than in recent history, but the student body as a whole seemed underwhelmed by the tailgate as a social event.
AN INHERENT TENSION?
A discussion hosted by the Radcliffe Union of Students last Wednesday raised the idea of an inherent tension between attempts by the administration to curb its liability and efforts to promote student safety.
“The College is attempting to reduce its own liability by decreasing its oversight of student parties,” reasons UC Secretary Kyle A. Krahel ’08, “and with no oversight there will be an increased risk at these off-campus venues. To give you an example, when was the last time a final club party was broken up by the Cambridge police for underage drinking?”
From information gleaned from talks with the administration, Krahel claims that, in addition to the UC party fund, the administration will crack down on House Committees and Stein Clubs next. “House events will inevitably appear less attractive, because BATs are going to play a greater role. The only parties that remain will be those that exist off campus at places like final clubs,” predicts Krahel.
The anonymous final club president, while not in attendance at this discussion, agreed with this line of reasoning. “I think that one reason the final clubs have thrived in the last decade or so is because there’s kind of a lack of alternatives. I think for some people it would be their chosen social scene and for others, its kind of their forced social scene.”
Other students, however, offered a more measured perspective on the current controversies. Another participant at the event, S. Adam Goldenberg ’08, says he is somewhat “skeptical about how broad the impact of the UC party grants really was. They’d only been around for four years and I think their impact was perhaps overstated.”
Goldenberg, who is also a member of the Crimson’s editorial staff, also argued that Harvard doesn’t rank among the worst on the alleged oversight-liability tradeoff, claiming “Harvard is fairly unique in allowing private parties in its dorm rooms.” Jenna M. Mellor ’08, while not a fan of the party grant’s demise, agrees. “I have friends at other schools that were surprised by how big a role the University played in funding parties with alcohol,” she says.
While the UC and the administration are still currently in disagreement about who owns the money designated by students to fund UC activities, the College does act as a trustee for the annual budget. That fact alone has proved sufficient in convincing the College leaders that the party fund must go.
“Students make their own choices when it comes to social life. We have legal policy to uphold,” says McLoughlin. Any negative side effects that might result are “less because of our policy but because the legal age is 21,” McLoughlin points out, adding that arguments to the contrary are “not quantifiable or verifiable.”
More than any one particular policy, students have expressed frustration over the lack of input they have been allowed to offer regarding regulations that intimately concern their college experience.
“I think that anyone who works at University Hall from 8 to 5, Monday through Friday, has a different outlook on what students do on Thursday, Friday and Saturday evenings when they’d like to go out and spend time with their friends, because administrators just aren’t here then,” Sundquist points out. “So its different for them, as much as they try and as much as they care, to understand students...We’d like to see at the end of the day a good compromise that can allow people to have fun and be safe in whatever conditions they would like to be.”