GUEST COLUMNIST: Earning the right to drink

To say the least, it was a particularly bad weekend. Two Saturday nights ago, agents from the infamous Liquor Control Enforcement bureau busted two downtown sorority parties, doling out citations for underage drinking to around 30 revelers. Only hours later, in an unrelated incident, a female freshman was hospitalized after friends discovered her sprawled semi-conscious in her Ware College House bed. She'd simply imbibed far more liquor than her body could handle. It's relatively easy to connect these three cases. Besides the fact that they all occurred over a few hours over a single weekend, each involved varying degrees of lapses in good judgment. More disappointing, however, in each instance, University officials and students alike pinned the blame on a system, a group or a policy (or lack thereof), rather than on the individual who acted recklessly. In short, no one has mentioned personal responsibility. Before examining Tobin's death, let's look at the LCE's "ambush" of the downtown sorority parties. Among many students and party-goers, the knee-jerk response to hearing the LCE acronym is one of two phrases -- "Gestapo tactics" and "Why can't they let us have our fun?" If state law prohibits us from hosting parties in sorority houses, the sorority brass ask, then why can't the LCE leave us alone when we hold off-campus parties? Both party-goers and organizers fail to recognize that actions beget consequences. If an LCE agent cites an underage student for a drinking violation, that student has absolutely no right to complain. The question is not why the LCE agents are at the party, it is why the student expected to get away with a clear violation of the law. And unlike the students who were cited, the LCE agents fulfilled their responsibility. Similarly, sororities have no right to complain. Such off-campus parties often foster an environment in which such transgressions -- irresponsible or merely illegal -- occur more frequently, and LCE officials have a strong reason to crash them. And if students continue to behave poorly, they'll continue to arouse the LCE's suspicions. And rightly so. With regard to the female freshman whose "alcohol-related illness" ushered her to hospitalization, the young woman is an adult who made a doltish decision. No doubt, her friends exacerbated the problem by neglecting to stop her from drinking when she could no longer think rationally. But to blame Penn's alcohol policy -- imperfect, patchwork or otherwise -- is to remove the responsibility from the individual. She paid the price for her own foolishness and immaturity. And the alcohol-related death of Michael Tobin only makes this fact painfully more apparent. Tobin was no longer a student. He graduated in 1994 and he worked for his family's financial firm in New York. One would think that Tobin would have had the ability to envision the potential results of his reckless behavior. But he didn't. Instead, he spent the last hours before his deadly spill drinking at campus bars and at the FIJI house. He showed no measure of personal responsibility for his actions. Tobin is not a martyr. Although his death may force students to look at the potential consequences of their actions, his death was a tragedy only for his family and friends. Vigils commemorating his life might comfort those who knew him but Tobin doesn't deserve commemoration for a careless act that negatively impacted both himself and the entire Penn community. And as a result of his actions, Penn administrators -- specifically University President Judith Rodin and Provost Robert Barchi -- have responded with a Draconian policy that renders all registered undergraduate events dry. Would Tobin have drunk himself to death under the new alcohol policy? Most likely. No policy will prevent students from drinking, just as no policy will prevent some students from drinking irresponsibly. Reckless alcohol use is a cultural phenomenon. But who can blame University officials for reacting so strongly, considering that someone died on Penn's campus? Ignore for a moment that Tobin was not an undergraduate. Ignore the hypocrisy inherent in a policy that restricts undergraduates but exempts graduate students -- most of whom are about the same age Tobin was. Ignore too that Penn officials have prohibited students of legal age from drinking at registered undergraduate events. The fact remains that a single weekend saw a bevy of underage students and a Penn alumnus acting incredibly irresponsibly with alcohol. And equally, the fact remains that personal freedom comes with personal responsibility. If you want your freedom back, show the administration that you deserve it. Stop complaining and show your responsibility.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.