Impaired Judgment

There’s no denying it—in the past twelve months, it has become considerably more difficult (and expensive) to throw a party at Harvard College. From the suspension of the party grant program to a ban on hard liquor at House stein clubs, College administrators have taken it upon themselves to standardize—or suffocate—social life at Harvard. But one new policy in particular—a rule that holds student group leaders responsible for those who become intoxicated at any point during their social events—has not only raised eyebrows across campus, but has actually created a system of perverse incentives that negatively impact student health. The recent announcement that this policy may be revised in the near future is a heartening step forward for the College as a whole; we urge those in positions of authority to adopt a more sensible amnesty policy.

First and foremost, the current amnesty policy has created an unjust environment dominated by perverse incentives for party hosts and their guests. While the College’s desire to ascribe some degree of responsibility to its students is understandable, the system in place actually discourages intoxicated students and their peers from dropping by Stillman Infirmary. From a medical standpoint, students suffering from ethanol intoxication need hydration, close supervision, and a safe place to sleep off what will most likely be a very painful hangover. University Health Services is the best place for an intoxicated student to rest and receive medical advice regarding their condition. Unfortunately, the current policy discourages students from receiving this potentially life-saving treatment, as students are reticent to help their peers to the hospital when the threat of Ad Board sanction looms over their student group leaders and party hosts. This is an absolutely unacceptable situation—the health and safety of all students at the College should be the Administration’s first priority.

Furthermore, it is unrealistic to assume that responsibility for a student’s condition can be fairly attributed to any one student or party. When one considers the sheer number of registered, unregistered, and totally private social events held across campus, it is utterly ludicrous to assume that the elected leader of a student group can be held responsible for the behavior of their sometimes uninvited guests—who may barhop for hours before vomiting at said student group’s function. The situation becomes even more complicated when students attend multiple College-sponsored functions in the space of one night.

Beyond these substantive objections to the current alcohol amnesty policy, we urge those in positions of authority to make the process of policy revision as transparent as possible. College and House administrators have sought student input on topics as varied as House renovations and environmental sustainability through the creation of committees and the use of online surveys to gauge student interest and collect responses. We urge those responsible for our alcohol policies to do the same.

Similarly, once a policy revision is made, the administration should be as transparent as possible regarding its implementation. During the party grant controversy last year, many students were more upset about former Interim Dean of Harvard College David R. Pilbeam’s arbitrary administrative procedures than by the actual intent of the program. In the future, we hope to see a substantive change in the way University Hall operates. A good start might be a transparent, firm, and fair alcohol policy. After all, this month has been all about change, right?