In a letter to students, the president of James Madison University announced plans to step up enforcement of laws against underage drinking and public intoxication as part of a broader effort to “transform the JMU alcohol culture,” the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported. The letter, which notes that nearly half of James Madison students have reported alcohol-induced blackouts, makes reference to an off-campus Springfest party in April that attracted 8,000 people and resulted in 30 arrests. Meanwhile, the Winston-Salem Journal reported that Wake Forest University will begin notifying parents when their children violate campus alcohol rules. The new policy is part of a larger plan to curb binge drinking in the wake of an off-campus party in January that sent six students to emergency rooms to be treated for alcohol poisoning.
RSS
Follow The Ticker through your favorite RSS reader.
8 Responses to Wake Forest and James Madison Take Aim at Binge Drinking
freddie13 - August 19, 2010 at 1:51 pm
Sad to see same old basic mistake being made here, which goes back to prohibition. Clamping down, enforcement, notifying parents, etc, just drives drinking further underground, leading to more binge drinking, etc, in a never-ending spiral. Best way to stop binge drinking is give these young adults a legal, public way to drink, and give them a normal social life. Why can’t the US take the example of our more sober friends in Europe, who have a drinking age of 18??
laker - August 19, 2010 at 4:35 pm
I think we ought to license drinking. When you turn 18, you would complete an alcohol education program and be licensed to consume alcohol. If you abuse alcohol, you lose your license, drink without a license, and you break the law at your peril.Why do we think that turning 21 magically makes one capable of handiling alcohol? We don’t let 16 year olds drive without instruction and licensing, when I was growing up I completed a hunter safety course before I could get a hunting license. We require restaurants and bars to have licenses and demonstrate safe food handling, but at 21, somehow, we can magically handle alcohol and function normally…I am not advocating for one more layer of bureaucracy, but I think bars and other sellers of alcohol would welcome some relief from liability. By the way, sell to someone without a license and you break the law too…
goodeyes - August 19, 2010 at 7:50 pm
The law was 18 years old in 1983 and the student handbook stated that we couldn’t have more than 4 cases of beer in a door room. Today, you can make a decision to fight for our country at 18 but are not considered responsible enough to buy a beer.
swish - August 20, 2010 at 10:21 am
I like the licensing idea very much, but there’s no need to make the age 18. Seems to me anyone capable of completing the requirements could be licensed.In Fall of 1978 I was passing out flyers on college campuses in Michigan urging students to defeat the state ballot proposal to raise the drinking age to 21. My group had done its homework — even the Secretary of State’s office openly said that accident statistics did not justify raising the age. But over and over again I heard the same responses from the students: “I don’t drink, so it doesn’t matter,” “I’ll be 21 before it passes, so I don’t care,” “I can get booze anyway, so I don’t care.”Well, that was that generation. Michigan’s proposal D passed on a very close vote, probably thanks to the votes of sensible older people. But that law (and New Jersey’s, which had passed earlier) provided the impetus for the national mandate. Not enough young people cared about their rights, and not enough people of any age cared about the consequences. Now many of them are regretting their choices, and young people in college are paying the price.
devron - August 20, 2010 at 12:06 pm
Provinces in Canada changed the legal drinking age to 18 or 19 years of age, many of them back in the early 70s. From my Canadian point of view, our social structure has not been destroyed by changing the drinking age. People can be remarkably responsible when you give them responsibility. Someone should do a study to determine if binge drinking is any less of a problem on Canadian campuses than on US campuses. I think students still like to party hearty on campuses north of the border. DG
craigbrandon6 - August 20, 2010 at 2:54 pm
I think informing parents is an effective way of dealing with this. I talked with police officers near college campuses around the country in doing research for my book “The Five-Year Party” and they told me that students nearly always asked “Are you going to tell my parents?” after they were arrested for alcohol violations. Students know that most colleges are not going lose a paying customer over this, but parents who are paying upwards of $20,000 a year tend not to tolerate this kind of behavior. And let’s not forget that 1,700 students die every year from alcohol poisoning, falling off roofs and falling through windows, not to mention the high numbers of sexual abuse and date rape, all connected with drinking. And what impact does this have on the non-drinking students who are kept up all hours of the night taking care of the students vomiting in the bathrooms? It’s time for college administrators to stop accepting this as normal behavior and get tough on the ones who make college life so much worse for the ones who really want to learn something.
japesos - August 22, 2010 at 11:00 am
I am a parent of a college student and I see that the 21yr drinking age minimum does, in fact, drive drinking underground. The culture at her college is to go downtown to student apartments to drink on the weekends where, many times, the town police are involved, not campus security. I also think that we are not showing our children the way to drink socially or responsibility. When I was in college in the 70′s I remember going to college functions with faculty and administrators and there was wine available for all (back in the dark ages when 18 yrs. was the minimum)And maybe Europe is more sophisticated and right with their approach.Here’s my one and only concern–our kids drive where they are going and the statistics for injuries/death improved after the drinking age jumped to 21. In European cultures (and others throughout the world)kids drink socially and then WALK home.Ours jump in a carbomb and can potentially kill so many others, and themselves drinking and driving.
swish - August 27, 2010 at 10:30 am
Accidents, both alcohol-related and not, decreased pretty much across the board in the late 80s and 90s, for all age groups. Fatal accidents (a favorite stat for MADD) decreased even more dramatically, as I recall. There could be many reasons why: reduced speed limits (55, remember?), tighter vehicle safety standards, higher gas prices, the invention of the designated driver, “cut off” policies at bars when patrons are deemed to have had enough, public service announcements warning against drunk driving, etc.Also, proponents of the 21 age often chose statistics selectively, picking out the particular ranges of years or ages that would best support their arguments.Students tended to mobilize for their rights when there was a draft. But now, even without a draft, it is especially bizarre to allow 18-20 year olds to enlist in the military, but insist that they must be kept safe from the potential harm of alcohol.