Greenberg 1

Daniel Greenberg Prof. Ben Henderson LA 101H 16 April 2012 Reforming Alcohol Policy at Penn State Alcohol consumption is a standard social norm throughout college campuses, and is an issue that is constantly being addressed by school administrations and local authorities, as well as by college students themselves. On weekends, fraternity houses, dormitories, and off-campus housing are all environments where students are pressured to drink by their friends. Every week, students across the nation are cited for underage drinking, both on and off campus. Many college administrations are attempting to extinguish this problem. As devoted as many schools are to reducing, and hoping to eliminate, drinking on and off their campuses, the efficacy of their efforts are questionable; new initiatives must be taken to cease the numerous deaths, hospitalizations, and accidents that occur as a result of high risk alcohol use. According to an article published in a 2005 issue of The Economist, 40% of college students binge drink1 and close to 1,400 die yearly from alcohol-related events. Harvard researchers have also found that students on dry campuses drink just as much as their counterparts on wet campuses. Almost one in every three American colleges has banned alcohol both on and off campus (United States...). Considering nearly 1 in 10 college students who report consuming alcohol in the past 2 weeks also report experiencing at least 1 memory

1 According

to the CDC, binge drinking is typically described as having five or more drinks in a time span of two hours. A drink is defined as 14 grams, or 0.6 ounces, of pure alcohol. This amount of pure alcohol is found a 12 ounce can or bottle of beer, an 8 ounce glass of malt liquor, a 5 ounce glass of wine, or a 1.5 ounce, or shot, of 80proof distilled liquor (gin, rum, vodka, or whiskey).

Greenberg 2

blackout during that same time period (Mitchell 149), alcohol consumption is an issue that must be addressed at remaining universities. Penn State must begin to make progressive reforms to its current policy to reduce the alcohol consumption of students and better safeguard those who are legally permitted to consume alcohol. Compared to other states, Pennsylvania is fairly conservative in regards to their laws on alcohol consumption and purchasing. Therefore, it could be assumed that Pennsylvania State University, a state school, has strict laws concerning all aspects of alcohol imaginable. The Universitys statement on alcohol use is as follows: Illegal alcohol use or alcohol abuse on or off the premises of the University negatively impacts the University community and places students at personal and academic risk. While responding to misconduct, the University strives to provide a healthy and safe experience for students. . . .When alcohol related activity occurs off the premises of the University, the Office of Student Conduct may consider initiating disciplinary action under the Off-Campus Misconduct Policy. The University reserves the right to impose sanctions for the use, possession, service, or consumption of alcoholic beverages off the premises of the University campus when such behavior affects a Substantial University Interest ("Penn State...). Inherently, alcohol is completely barred on campus, except for special occasions (alumni events and football weekends), where the 21+ crowd is permitted to drink. Parties and alcohol consumption are parts of college culture which can never be fully eliminated, and they should not have to be. Still, Penn State is certainly trying to get rid of their reputation as a top party school, as recently dubbed by The Princeton Review in 2008 (Bickel).

Greenberg 3

To increase the efficacy of Penn States alcohol-awareness programs, promote Success with Honor, and ensure that, no act of ours bring shame, (The Alma...) I am proposing new alcohol policies for Penn State. Since going dry in 2011 and attempting to scale back State Pattys Day, the administration has definitely made progress, yet in an effort to increase academic and individual success, it would be in the universitys interest to do more. Altering the current alcohol education programs for incoming and current students, allowing students 21+ to drink in alcohol free housing exempt dormitories, and restricting fraternities to having parties and socials two nights a week will improve alcohol education and awareness and should increase student academic performance. Before incoming freshman arrive on campus, they are expected to complete The FirstYear Testing, Consulting, and Advising Program (FTCAP), which requires them to watch videos and complete surveys on dangers of drinking and their drinking patterns, respectively. Attempting to frighten freshmen, usually before they have even graduated high school, the program educates first-year students on the damaging effects of underage drinking, and the negative effects in can have on their grades and background reports. A study conducted on college students perceptions on campus alcohol policies at a northeastern public school found that most students are aware about university policies in place and their penalties, yet still proceeded to consume alcohol (Marshall). In a similar study that examines students knowledge of attitudes toward campus alcohol policies and how they relate to alcohol consumption and alcohol social norms, (Mitchell) less than half of the students surveyed accepted the campus rules and policies on alcohol consumption and almost 80% reported engaging in consuming alcohol at social events. The University has good intentions, but they could nevertheless be doing

Greenberg 4

more to address the issue. Simply lecturing and surveying incoming students, that is, those who have not even arrived at campus yet, on the dangers of alcohol can be more effective if conducted throughout a students years at Penn State. Through the creation of a new general education class requirement, titled Alcohol Education (AE), students would be required to learn responsible and safe drinking habits through completion of a 1.5-credit online course during their fall or spring semester, every year of their undergraduate education. The course, whose curriculum would differ depending on the year of the student, would be a way of educating students of the laws and risks of binge and underage drinking. The online classes would be created by a joint effort from professors and professionals of all different fields as Penn State. Instead of a single lesson educating students on alcohol, yearly courses would serve as a method of repetition, a proven psychological practice for productive and efficient learning. Requiring an online for-credit course boasts the advantage of having an effect on a student's GPA; if a student does not do well and slacks off with learning the information for the online course, it will have a negative effect on their GPA. As previously mentioned, yearly classes have a greater chance of becoming engrained into a students memory, when compared to a standalone program before their first year. Through continually teaching undergraduates the laws regarding alcohol, the penalties of underage drinking, and the rewards of consuming alcohol responsibly, students will have a greater understanding of the effects of alcohol and how to drink safely. The second initiative of this policy reformation would be to allow alcohol-free housing exempt (AFHE) residence for undergraduate students who are 21 and over. Eastview Terrace, an area on the southeast side of campus that houses upperclassmen, would be a prime location for

Greenberg 5

this housing since it offers relatively large general areas adjacent to the rooms where students who are 21 and over could partake in alcohol consumption. Since East, South, Pollock, West, and North halls all house freshmen and undergraduates under the age of 21, these areas would remain alcohol free. If a minor is found in one of the rooms consuming alcohol, there would be similar punishment inflicted to what is in place today; this new policy would have no effect on the current penalty of underage drinking on campus. Community-assistants (CAs) would be responsible for monitoring students and making sure they are remaining safe and responsible, and would be responsible for reporting anyone underage found in the presence of alcohol. Although on-campus housing for upperclassmen is limited because of the requirement for all first-year students to live on campus, alcohol free exempt housing carries many benefits to the maturation and safety of students. Especially appealing to parents who are unsure about their children moving off-campus because of the risk and lack of safety, AFHE housing would provide a safe environment for 21 year olds and older to drink under the monitoring of responsible community assistants to teach responsibility. Allowing these students to drink on campus may also create a new culture, or trend, where students wouldnt necessarily have a huge desire to move off campus since they can enjoy the benefits of being close to their classes and having a clean living space while also being able to consume alcohol in their private residence, possibly a big motive for moving off campus. The final measure of my alcohol policy reformation is to place greater restrictions on the privileges of fraternities to be able to schedule social events and parties. An article published in the Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education found that, partygoers' actual blood alcohol concentration (BAC) found students at fraternity parties to become significantly more

Greenberg 6

intoxicated than students at private parties, regardless of their Greek-life affiliation (Caron 52). If a fraternity was found having an unregistered party any day other than Friday or Saturday, there would be infractions incurred by the Inter-Fraternal Council, including immediate social probation. Restricting fraternities to registering parties and socials to Fridays and Saturdays means less partying and drinking during school nights, which could lead to increased grades and more involvement with student clubs and groups, expanding the horizons of students. Eliminating parties from occurring on Wednesday, Thursday, and Sunday nights should reduce alcohol-related incidents and addictions, considering fraternities are where the majority of binge drinking occurs. Having less intoxicated students aimlessly wandering downtown will probably result in less arrests and crime as well. However, for most of the above measures to be successful, it is important that the University fully enforce a zero tolerance policy for minors and boost the level of strict enforcement by officers, something lots of campus police are found to be lacking today (Toomey 339). Night after night, campus and local officers have been found to become lazy and let students go with just a slap on the wrist. Binge drinking and heavy underage alcohol consumption are plaguing college campuses across the nation. Studies find that the current policies and education programs in place are quite ineffective, since over 80% of students choose to drink despite anti-alcohol education. By requiring students to complete a credited course on alcohol education, which counts toward their GPA, students would be motivated to do well in the course and would have better chances of remembering the material taught to them. Since most juniors and seniors turn 21 during their college years and they are most likely drinking off campus, allowing 21+ students to drink on campus would teach them responsible drinking because they would be monitored by

Greenberg 7

CAs. For the most part, fraternity houses are a significant source of binge drinking. Restricting the amount of alcohol related social events fraternities can hold will abate the social scene where students become pressured by peers and it becomes okay to drink excessively. By enacting all of these initiatives, I believe Penn State will be able to improve upon their alcohol consumption prevention programs and reduce the amount of unsafe drinking that occurs both on and off campus.

Greenberg 8

Works Consulted Beal, Kristin. "The Pros & Cons of a Wet Campus: The Cons." UNO Gateway. 12 Oct. 2010. Web. 12 Apr. 2012. <http://www.unogateway.com/opinion/the-pros-cons-of-a-wetcampus-the-cons-1.1791036>. Bickel, Chris. "Students Surprised by PSU Ranking on Playboy Party-school List." The Daily Collegian Online. Penn State, 30 Apr. 2009. Web. 15 Apr. 2012. <http:// www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/04/30/students_surprised_by_psu_rank.aspx>. Caron, Sandra L., Eilean G. Moskey, and Cindy A. Hovey. "Alcohol use among Fraternity and Sorority Members: Looking at Change Over Time." Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education 47.3 (2004): 51-66. ProQuest Criminal Justice; ProQuest Education Journals; ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source. Web. 16 Apr. 2012. Glindemann, Kent E. Reducing excessive alcohol consumption at university fraternity parties: A cost-effective incentive/reward intervention. Addictive behaviors 32.1 01 Jan 2007: 39-48. Elsevier. 15 Apr 2012. Marshall, Brenda L. College Student Perceptions on Campus Alcohol Policies and Consumption Patterns. Journal of drug education 41.4 01 Oct 2011: 345. Baywood Publishing Company. 12 Apr 2012. Mitchell, Rebecca J., Traci L. Toomey, and Darin Erickson. "Alcohol Policies on College Campuses." Journal of American College Health 53.4 (2005): 149-57. ProQuest Education Journals; ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source. Web. 12 Apr. 2012. "Penn State Office of Student Conduct | Alcohol Policy." Penn State Office of Student Conduct. Web. 15 Apr. 2012. <http://studentaffairs.psu.edu/conduct/policies/alcohol.shtml>. "The Alma Mater." For The Glory of Old State. Web. 15 Apr. 2012. <http://www.psu.edu/ur/ about/almamater.html>. Toomey, Traci L. Enforcing Alcohol Policies on College Campuses: Reports from College Enforcement Officials. Journal of drug education 41.3 01 Jan 2011: 327-344. Baywood Publishing Company. 12 Apr 2012. "United States: Booze Control; Dry Campuses." The Economist Jan 22 2005: 50-32. ABI/ INFORM Complete. Web. 12 Apr. 2012 .