Soteros-McNamara is a fourth-year political science student.
By Thomas Soteros-McNamara
If administrators like Chancellor Albert Carnesale wonder why
colleges and universities continue to suffer from chronic alcohol
abuse problems, they might refer to their own antiquated
reasoning.
In a recent response to a student’s question regarding the
university’s alcohol policy ““ which is essentially a
zero-tolerance stance ““ Carnesale begins by saying, “I
see no advantage to taking an action that would increase the
consumption of alcohol by students” (Daily
Bruin, Viewpoint, “Ask the Chancellor,” June
7).
However, instead of expanding on this idea, Carnesale continues
by saying, “Binge drinking of alcohol is a serious problem at
universities nationally.” Therefore, instead of believing
that students would make responsible choices about alcohol
consumption, the general opinion in Murphy Hall is that greater
access to booze is going to mean more rapes, riots and headaches
for the University of California Police Department.
Nevertheless, Carnesale contradicts himself later by saying that
“most UCLA students make responsible decisions.”
Following this logic, even if the drinking age were lowered, the
incidence of negative activity would still not involve “most
students.”
So why is Carnesale afraid to challenge the status quo?
The first answer is that the UC prohibits the sale and
consumption of alcohol at all university events, regardless of age.
Since the university’s policy is more restrictive than state
law, it would seem that every person involved is equally
inconvenienced.
But this is not true. Mysteriously, the Faculty Center at UCLA
can serve alcohol to its patrons. Yet since no student can enter
the center or even be served at this location unless invited by a
faculty member, it is unlikely the “binge drinkers”
that Carnesale fears so greatly will threaten university
safety.
However, with this loophole, Carnesale insinuates students
cannot make responsible decisions about alcohol but faculty members
can.
Surely, many among the great minds at UCLA have battled alcohol
addiction, and to act as though alcohol related problems among
faculty are less serious than those in the undergraduate population
is an insult.
The second reason why Carnesale has not challenged the status
quo is because he is a pragmatist.
There is no doubt that if alcohol were completely unavailable to
students ““ less rapes, riots and fraternity parties that
strain university security resources would occur.
But the unrest at such “riotous” events as the
now-infamous March 14 takeover of Royce Hall by student protesters
cannot be attributed to “binge drinking,” the only type
of alcohol usage Carnesale seems to believe students engage in.
Instead, it can be argued that as the quality of life at the
university continues to decrease, student interaction with the
authorities and the administration will also continue to
deteriorate. An angry and frustrated student body combined with
easy access to alcohol creates an explosive situation for all
parties involved.
Carnesale probably disagrees with this, since he claims at least
one-third of the campus are teetotalers anyway.
However, the real reason that UCLA remains frozen in Prohibition
lies in neither of these aforementioned possibilities.
Rather, administrators like Carnesale use the presence of
alcohol to ignore the larger structural problems at the
university.
Alcohol is a much easier target as the cause of unwanted sexual
assault than, for example, the fraternity system. Binge drinking is
a better villain to blame for student-related problems instead of
the UCPD or the Student Affairs Office.
Even The Economist, a very conservative and staid British
publication highlighted the silliness of having the minimum
drinking age at 21 (“Free Jenna!,” June 9).
Of course, any college student riled by the age discrimination
in this country ““ from the bar stool to the car rental lot
““ must turn the blame partially on themselves.
The low voter participation and political mobilization of 18 to
24 year olds has everything to do with why college students get
shafted while other age brackets do not.
It’s not impossible to think that if a motivated group of
undergraduates wanted to end this injustice, they could.
Yet the amount of work to reform the system is likely too much
to interest a person who, in three years, will no longer be the
target of the law anyway.