Guest Blogger: James Gallagher
A recent email
from a colleague here at Lincoln University brought to the forefront of a
problem that has certainly hit virtually all of our classrooms, and this blog
serves as a perfect avenue to discuss this issue. The topic for this blog
involves the alcohol policies on our campus and the automatic suspensions that
are being levied against students for certain incidents, which happen in
non-educational settings. A majority of these suspensions are due to violations
to the campus alcohol policy. I submit that our current policy in this matter
may be too strict, and more detrimental to our students’ lives than any
possible perceived positive outcome.
As per the
student handbook, “Anyone found in violation of the alcohol-free/dry campus
policy is subject to (1) immediate interim suspension, (2) a subsequent
judicial hearing, and/or (3) extended suspension, permanent suspension, or
expulsion.” So far this semester, I personally have had no less than 4 of my
current pupils with infractions to the alcohol policy on campus. Thus, as per
policy, these students received immediate suspensions and at best can
communicate with their professors and advisors via phone and email. It is
unfortunate to report, not a single one of my students who received a
suspension is receiving a passing mid terms grade, largely due to having missed
2 weeks or more of class.
These automatic
suspensions are particularly tough on our student demographic, who struggle
with classes and material even when they are in full attendance, let alone when
forced to miss 6-9 classes in a semester after an infraction. After seeing how
student life is run after serving on the juridical board, I applaud the efforts
made at dealing with this complicated issue. It certainly is a difficult job,
one of which I am not envious. The question I would like to pose for the week
is whether these automatic suspensions are an appropriate way to deal with the
problem of underage drinking on a dry campus, or if there are better approaches
to incorporate fair and just punishment, while still allowing our students, to
keep up to task with their studies. Furthermore, many of these students are not
only subjected to our campus policies on the issue, but these cases also get
sent to local authorities for more penal violations. All of this punishment for
an alcohol violation seems to be simply piling on problems for our students if
they decide to make the wrong choice, and could have major implications for
their future. Our policies seem to be stricter than many of our competitors,
and whether we like it or not, will cause students to not select The Lincoln
University as their university of choice. Other universities, such as our HBCU
competitor Cheyney University, have hearings in which the student is only
suspended if the violation is considered severe. Further, the suspension is
then only levied after there is a hearing on the matter, not prior. This policy
will prevent students from partaking in better non-alcohol related activities.
Unfortunately,
student life has doubled down on this approach by instituting a new policy has
also just recently been put in place in which attendance to an on campus
activity could automatically subject you to a breathalyzer test. More than
likely than not, this policy will serve to discourage students from pursuing
more clean activities, instead encouraging students to participate in more
dangerous substance consumption activities like binge drinking in the
dormitories.
I also want to
make clear; I also do not believe we should just ignore the systemic problem of
alcohol on our campus. Alcohol abuse is a problem which affects society as a
whole and I agree that we should take a leading role as educators to help solve
the problem. However, zero tolerance policies
as we have implemented have been shown to have no effect on the actual
deterrent value nor increases in quality of atmosphere (1). Further, studies
comparing countries that are more permissive in their alcohol consumption have
found decreases in amount of alcohol consumed (2). These type of studies only
highlight that we are potentially damaging our students’ lives but gaining
nothing in return. Perhaps if we were to provide more avenues for clean student
recreation, such as increased access to the gym, pool, and bowling alley, we
could have a much greater effect on alcohol consumption by our student
populace. Other approaches which have been shown to be successful are to
promote educational programs about personal responsibility and social normal
behavior (3), a direction that would be a perfect fit for our campus, and might
even slide nicely into our FYE curriculum. These approaches, on top of
disciplinary hearings, would seem to be a better fit our students in that they
would still aid in discourage alcohol consumption while avoiding the zero
tolerance policies that include automatic suspensions that will undoubtedly
cause our students to not succeed.
1. Skiba, R. J.,
& Knesting, K. (2001). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school
disciplinary practice. In R.J. Skiba & G.G. Noam (Eds.), New directions for
youth development (no. 92: Zero tolerance: Can suspension and expulsion keep
schools safe?) (pp. 17-43). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass./p>
2. Kuo M, Adlaf
EM, Lee H, Gliksman L, Demers A, Wechsler H., Addiction. 2002 Dec;97(12):1583-92.
"More Canadian students drink but American students drink more: comparing
college alcohol use in two countries."
3. Haines, M. and
G. Barker. "The NIU Experiment: A Case Study of the Social Norms
Approach," (2003) in The Social Norms Approach To Preventing School And
College Age Substance Abuse: A Handbook For Educators, Counselors, And
Clinicians, Ed. H. Wesley Perkins. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
