Drew Armstrong: An alcohol policy with the wrong effect

A few times each semester a headline appears on the front page of the DP that we've all grown to know and love: "Freshman hospitalized with alcohol poisoning." With Greek rush in full swing, we'll probably be treated to a few more stories like these as some aspiring frat boy downs one too many shots of Cuervo and lands himself in HUP. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism claims that 1,400 college students die every year from drinking or drinking-related incidents, and half a million more are injured. But does Penn really care? The University's alcohol policy as it stands ends up promoting the very kind of high risk drinking that causes these deaths and injuries. Big fraternity parties used to be the staple of campus social life for underclassmen. In the fall of 1998, there were 102 on-campus frat parties. Last semester? There were 30. Penn's Working Group on Alcohol Abuse claims that "the system has resulted in a universally acknowledged reduction in large-scale, high-risk alcohol-related parties by fraternities on campus" -- one of the main goals of the policy. So, are the frat boys partying less, trading in beer and Beirut for backgammon and checkers? Not at all. I'm a frat boy myself. The parties just moved out of Penn's eyesight to off-campus houses and are often held past OFSA's bedtime. All "the system" has done is create higher risk behavior. And the University's so-called "expanded social options" likely don't have much appeal to the binge-drinking crowd. I suspect there's little overlap between the frat party set and the "Swing Night in the Quad Lounge -- Wear a Costume, Win a Prize!" crowd. Why have parties gone off campus? It's simple economics -- the alcohol policy makes registered parties prohibitively expensive. It costs $100 to hire a "bartender" to hand out cans (since when did handing out an unopened can become a $25 an hour job? Somebody sign me up). It costs another $100 to hire a bouncer or two and $800 for the 60 or so cases of (cheap) beer needed for a big party. The parties are expensive to the point that they're not worth having -- especially when an unregistered party with a keg or hard liquor costs hundreds of dollars less. Nobody ends up at HUP from drinking 25 beers -- they throw up first. Liquor is another story. There's a reason that Penn banned liquor at frat parties -- it's more dangerous when people are being stupid. If fraternities were given the incentive to serve beer at open registered parties rather than hard liquor at unregistered parties, the health risk to the irresponsible would decrease. Penn's frats can't do without parties --they're a critical part of the rush process in a very social Greek system. The parties in the fall advertise the fraternities to freshmen who will rush in the spring. I'd like to think that Penn actually has an interest in the safety and health of its students. But the alcohol policy as it stands makes me think otherwise. Why else would Penn support a policy that inadvertently encourages underage drinking and hard liquor? If Penn is truly concerned about the welfare of its students, it will make registered parties cheaper and easier to host and in return will gain greater supervision over the very binge drinking culture it's trying to combat. The fraternities win, too -- they'll be able to attract greater numbers of freshmen with a more open social scene. The "Risk Reduction Awards," a pilot program by the InterFraternity Council and Penn's Office of Alcohol Policy Initiatives, is a big step toward getting events back on campus. The program essentially subsidizes registered, on-campus fraternity parties using money generated from fines. Alcohol Policy Initiatives Director Stephanie Ives acknowledged that "it is safer [to drink] in a registered environment." Whether or not the program is incentive enough remains to be seen. But even with the program, it will still remain vastly cheaper for fraternities to party off campus. Both Penn and national fraternities need to examine their ban on keg beer, and the IFC and Ives may need to take even larger steps to reverse the flight of parties off campus. College students are going to drink no matter what. The University has to make a decision -- to promote higher-risk, off-campus and unregistered parties with its current flawed alcohol policy, or to encourage and make it financially viable that students party in a safer, more controlled environment that doesn't send half a dozen freshmen to the ER each semester. Drew Armstrong is a senior English major from Ann Arbor, Mich.

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