One year after Parkland shooting, production places gun reform back on stage

On Feb. 14, 2018, 17 students lost their unalienable right to life.

In partnership with NewYorkRep, the UCLA School of Theater, Film and Television will host a production of “Church & State” in Macgowan Hall on Thursday, the one-year anniversary of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. The play follows the aftermath of a fictitious school shooting as those affected question both their religious beliefs and their stances on gun control. Fourth-year theater student and director Anna Mader said even though the show advocates for gun restrictions, she hopes the production will facilitate a bipartisan discussion on gun control and the multiple issues entangled with it.

“It’s a play about gun reform, but also a play about redemption and not being afraid to change your mind and say that you’re wrong,” Mader said. “Its main message is that our first human right should be safety.”

The production focuses on Senator Charles “Charlie” Whitmore, played by second-year theater student Carl Ballantine, who is promoting his congressional platform by fusing religion and politics in a small North Carolina town. After a shooting occurs at his children’s school, Whitmore must contend with his loss of faith in God, Mader said. Such personal and political conflicts are further amplified by his tense discussions with Alex Klein, his liberal campaign manager, played by second-year theater student Beatrice Brown.

The narrative highlights the tension between liberals and conservatives, which can best be seen between Whitmore and Klein’s complex relationship, Ballantine said. By featuring a multitude of conflicting political views, Ballantine said they hope to emphasize that people can have beliefs separate from their political party, namely supporting increased gun control while being Republican.

“I hope this role encourages people who are conservative or Republican not to fit a mold,” Ballantine said.

Similarly, Mader said she sees the play as a chance to remind conservatives and liberals alike that people’s opinions are not static. She hopes that the production can help audiences realize that strictly subscribing to the ideals of one group is limiting.

Their collaboration with NewYorkRep is another aspect that aided their desire to present gun control as an issue that can encourage a conversation between parties rather than divide them, said Emma Wenkert, a third-year theater student and the play’s producer. The organization reached out to the chair of UCLA’s theater department as well as eight other universities to host readings of “Church & State,” Wenkert said.

By staging the production across the nation, Mader said they will emphasize how the issue crosses state lines – an issue Mader herself connects with, having moved to a liberal state from a conservative one. Looking back at her home town, Mader said she can only hope they can break out of the Republican mold and develop their own opinions on the issue of gun control.

“My home state, Tennessee, is very, very conservative right now, so I’ve seen a lot of these issues play out,” Mader said. “It’s really hard for me to believe that the people I grew up with are incapable of change.”

As she approached directing the production, Mader said she was unable to separate her own biases in favor of gun control, as was fitting, for the play presents the same bias. On a different note, as the play was written before the Parkland shooting, Mader said she did not want to alter it to more specifically reference the anniversary, but audiences will still be able to draw comparisons between the call for gun restrictions that emerges from both the production and the aftermath of Parkland.

To further the conversation on gun control across parties and to continue the commemoration of Marjory Stoneman Douglas, Wenkert said there will be a panel featuring representatives from the Brady Campaign and a Los Angeles organization, Women Against Gun Violence. Mader said she hopes the panel will provide a more literal space for conservatives and liberals to talk alongside each other about gun violence and the play’s central question on whether or not religion should play a part in politics.

“It’s meant to be a play that unites parties,” Mader said “I hope that this play inspires people to think about change and making the world safer, because fear is bipartisan.”

Second Take: Ariana Grande’s new music video walks fine line between self-love and queerbaiting

No thank u, next video.

Ariana Grande recently released a troublesome new music video for “break up with your girlfriend, i’m bored” featuring the singer observing a supposed love interest with his girlfriend. Complete with a slicked-back high ponytail and almost matching makeup, the opposing actress could easily be mistaken for Grande if you squint just enough. The resemblance is clearly purposeful – one scene with a mirror even switches between both women’s reflections, driving home the comparisons a bit too hard. Up until the end, it could be interpreted as Grande’s obsession with the couple, presumably fixating on the man’s relationship.

In the final frame, however, Grande leans toward the other girl, almost but not quite kissing her before the screen cuts to black. The video has prompted some to tweet, accusing it of queerbaiting, saying the act was “nothing new or shocking sadly. #thankyounextalbum.”

Most often seen in film and television, queerbaiting refers to the inclusion of almost, but not quite, queer relationships – hinting at a possibility but never actually depicting a relationship – in order to appeal to LGBTQ audiences. In the past, other female artists have also come under fire for such questionable representation. Demi Lovato’s “Cool For the Summer” places two actresses in a queer relationship despite the lyrics hinting at Lovato herself being in a relationship. Combined with the problematic lyrics – “Don’t tell your mother” – the video further establishes the noncommittal trope of bisexuality, implying queer relationships are a quick fling and meant to be hidden.

Grande’s supporters argue the female love interest’s resemblance to Grande implies the music video simply is representative of her focus on self-love instead of relationships. If so, her attempt at illustrating the concept leaves much to be desired, especially in comparison to other artists who have successfully shared related messages.

Though there was no accompanying music video, Lorde explored a similar topic in “Liability.” In the song, she says she will go home “Into the arms of the girl that I love/ The only love I haven’t screwed up,” only to reveal that the love interest actually is “one girl swaying alone/ Stroking her cheek” – essentially, it is Lorde herself.

Lorde’s depiction of the concept in a straightforward manner shows that it is not the premise of Grande’s video that is problematic, but the execution. The ploy works lyrically within Lorde’s song as the singer laments her inherent need for self-love because she is rejected by others. In “break up,” the supposed self-love is not immediately evident, particularly when considering the focus on romantic relationships of others. Instead, it feels like the visual representation of clickbait – meant to be a bold plot twist instead of a thoughtful message. Though a tad self-obsessed, the music video clearly lacks any self-awareness.

In “thank u, next,” a single off the same album, Grande references falling in love with someone named “Ari,” but the attempt at replicating the prior song’s depth in “break up” comes across as cheap instead of thoughtful. Lyrically speaking, the song also is problematic – prompting someone to break up with their significant other doesn’t exactly promote healthy relationships. Grande herself has acknowledged that the song was just meant to be fun, but paired with the scene at the end, the lyrics take on a new meaning.

Even the titular lyric – “break up with your girlfriend/ … ’cause I’m bored” – implies that a romance between two women only comes as a bored afterthought of a heterosexual relationship. The music video places a female bisexual relationship in the shadow of a man who merely is a supposed love interest; these women are not allowed to love on their own but must instead exist within the context of the man who connects them.

Since the video does depict a queer relationship, albeit in a negative light, “break up” is not queerbaiting in its most strict definition. But that doesn’t make its feeble attempt at representation acceptable, especially considering that it perpetuates the stereotype that bisexual relationships often emerge as a result of cheating or failed heterosexual relationships, rather than organic love.

Nevertheless, Grande has been an active advocate for the LGBTQ community, writing a letter for Billboard in 2018 stating her love for the community and the support they have given her. She probably didn’t intentionally create an exploitative video meant to depict harmful stereotypes. But members of the LGBTQ community shouldn’t have their sexualities exploited for views.

Theater company’s ‘Lonely Hearts Club’ show seeks expression on Valentine’s Day

An upcoming Valentine’s Day event on campus will feature three distinct hearts of comedy: improv, sketch and stand-up.

Lapu, the Coyote that Cares Theatre Company’s annual Valentine’s Day comedy show, titled “Lonely Hearts Club,” will take place Thursday in the Kerckhoff Charles E. Young Grand Salon. LCC is scheduled to perform comedy sketches, most of which are themed around Valentine’s Day, as well as a set of improv games, said Arielle Bagood, an alumna and one of LCC’s producers. The show’s content is inspired by the diverse romantic experiences of members of LCC, a theater company that provides a stage for Asian-American voices, Bagood said.

“(LCC) is dedicated to giving underrepresented groups a chance to express themselves,” Bagood said.

One planned sketch is “Asian Persuasion,” which aims to critique and mock potential racial preferences – or fetishes – within dating. Inspired by personal experiences and stories from friends, the sketch was written by Melissa Peng, an LCC improv director and a fourth-year mathematics of computation student. It focuses on an Asian female lead who learns that her non-Asian partner has only ever dated other Asian women in the past.

“I’ve noticed a trend in my social circles of guys who only date Asian girls, to the extent where they will date girls because they are Asian,” Peng said. “My sketch exaggerates and makes fun of that.”

Another sketch, written by LCC general cast member Patrick Zhang, will parody romantic comedies. The first-year undeclared student’s “A Rom Com” revolves around a leading performer who breaks the stereotype of Asian-American women being “lotus flowers.” The “lotus flower” figure in media typically denotes a submissive and sexualized woman, Zhang said. The character in this sketch, however, is more assertive in her mannerisms, contradicting the tired trope perpetuated by onscreen relationships, he said.

Joining LCC in “Lonely Hearts Club” is the Shenanigans Comedy Club at UCLA. Furkan Yalcin, a fourth-year political science student, is the president of the club and said his organization will feature five stand-up routines. Yalcin said he views attendees of student-run comedy shows as an essential aspect of comedy events.

The themes during the stand-up portion of the show will be up to the discretion of the individual performer, and may or may not involve Valentine’s Day, Yalcin said. Despite this, he said the comedy routines still take into account interests of fellow peers, such as romantic relationships, to feature more relatable content.

Despite the event’s focus on Asian-American experiences, Akila Rajesh, one of LCC’s writing directors and a performer, said she believes it can appeal to people of all backgrounds. The third-year computer science and linguistics student said “Lonely Hearts Club” is a Valentine’s Day event that is inclusive because it features universal themes of romance and relationships.

“Comedy is a great way to express the human condition,” Rajesh said. “Let go of all the fears, anxieties and stresses that you’ve had that day and find something that is relatable and universal.”

Extreme density of finals week schedule adversely affects students and faculty

Friday of finals week is a day of mourning for Bruins – for their fried brains, that is.

You can thank UCLA’s cramped final exams schedule for that.

UCLA’s final exam period is unreasonably short. The majority of exams take place within the five weekdays directly after classes end Friday of week 10, with a select few taking place on the Saturday or Sunday before. This means students are forced to take multiple exams in an extremely short time frame, setting them up for excess stress and exhaustion. With so many students collectively taking thousands of classes and final exams, students are much more likely to have consecutive finals with exam days so packed together.

This short final exam period isn’t just detrimental to students. Professors have only 10 days after the end of finals week to submit grades. Even if a professor holds a final on the very first day of finals week, those extra few days do little to alleviate the pressure of marking exams at such a fast pace, especially for those exams with a heavy writing component.

As a result, many professors rely on alternative methods. Some hold their final exams during week 10 to avoid finals week and others assign final papers instead of formal examinations. The mental strain and stress caused by the condensed schedule sets students and professors up for failure.

Finals week needs to be extended in order to alleviate this. Putting students in a position where they frequently have consecutive exams creates unnecessary anxiety and hurts their academic performance.

The issue boils down to the number of days scheduled for final exams. At other universities, students are given seven-day, 10-day or even two-weeklong final exam periods.

Harvard University, for example, has a final exam period that takes place over a nine-day span. The University of Pennsylvania has a nine-day final exam period, with a two-day break in between for the weekend. And the University of Minnesota allocates “study days” in the middle of finals season.

UCLA’s setup, on the other hand, unnecessarily rushes things.

Jaclyn Stone, a second-year computer science student, said she felt her back-to-back finals hurt her overall performance.

“With two back-to-back finals, it’s hard to prioritize one over the other,” she said. “I feel as though I would have done better if I had more space between finals and more time to prepare – by my second final I was very stressed.”

UCLA did not immediately respond to multiple requests for comment about the length of final exams week.

The university’s exam schedule presses students to take multiple finals in an unreasonable time frame. Having more than one three-hour exam in a span of two days taxes students’ emotional well-being. By the time they reach their later exams, they are mentally preoccupied, and they don’t perform as well as they otherwise could.

It might seem the way to alleviate this frenzy is to implement a dead week that would give students seven days at the end of the quarter to prepare for exams. This, however, doesn’t address the underlying problem of students being expected to take exam after exam. Rather, the only benefit would be to those who adjust their studying accordingly.

Alisa Fang, a first-year psychobiology student, said having two finals in the same day was overwhelming for her, but that the issue isn’t just about giving students more studying time.

“Dead week would ultimately only benefit some,” she said. “At the end of the day it’s up to students to monitor their study schedule, and ultimately, many students are just going to end up cramming anyway.”

A longer finals week addresses UCLA’s scrunched testing circumstances, not just students’ study habits. If the university were to allocate an additional week or even a few extra days for finals week, it could reduce how packed the exam period professors and students have to navigate is.

And fixing issues with the current system isn’t a ridiculous request. UCLA has the capacity to extend exam periods without drastically sacrificing breaks between quarters. The university already has a zero-week period in fall quarter, meaning it has an excess number of days in the quarter to allocate to longer final exam periods.

Extending finals week certainly doesn’t mean that no student will ever have back-to-back finals. But that’s not the issue. The problem is with the university’s disproportionately cramped exams, which means that a considerable number of students face these scheduling hardships. While extending finals week doesn’t necessarily change the luck of every individual student‘s finals schedule, it makes the odds much less stacked against the student body as a whole.

Finals week already drains students mentally and emotionally. Extending the exam period is the least UCLA can do to keep a little bit of sanity.

 

Proposed bill presenting income share agreements may not be financial cure-all

With how expensive college tuition costs can be, students can feel desperate to look for an alternative form of payment. Better hope they don’t settle for some fool’s gold.

California Assembly Bill 154, proposed by Assemblyman Randy Voepel earlier this year, would allow California college students to opt in to income share agreements to cover tuition costs. An income share agreement waives tuition fees for students for the duration of their college careers but requires them to forgo a percentage of their future income to pay it off.

The proposal includes University of California, California State University and California Community College students after its success at other institutions like Purdue University and Colorado Mountain College. The agreement begins six months after a student graduates, only kicking in if they are making at least $20,000 annually. The agreement then lasts 10 years, with the exact amount paid depending on the student’s income. If this bill passes, CSUs and UCs would have to start pilot schools on campus and make income share agreements available to students enrolled in the pilot school.

Voepel’s bill aims to end student loan debt, but the benefits of income share agreements hardly differ from those of paying back loans in the future. Both methods are based upon the same premise: Once a student starts making money, a portion of that income immediately goes toward paying off debts.

There doesn’t seem to be a huge difference between a student being indebted to their loan provider and a student being indebted to their college. They’re still handing over monthly payments – income share agreements just deduct those straight from your paychecks.

In effect, it’s the same poison package with a different bow on top.

James Snyder, a first-year physics student, said he was concerned how much money would be taken at the end of the agreement.

“If I had to pay back more with the agreement over time rather than paying the regular cost of the tuition fees, then I would definitely not opt to do it,” Snyder said.

Given a whopping 44 million Americans are currently paying off student debts, it’s admirable that legislators are looking for solutions to the ever-growing issue of loan repayment. But the terms for income share agreements leave students on a hook that can prove more detrimental later in life than loans would, because students won’t know how much money will be taken from them until the agreement ends.

Adam Boman, a staffer in Voepel’s assembly office, said income share agreements don’t accrue interest, and payments are put on hold when a participant is between jobs or isn’t making at least $20,000 per year.

The bill is being championed as the solution to compounding student debt, but it doesn’t solve any of the underlying issues that come with paying for school. According to a legislative analysis from California’s Assembly Higher Education Committee, students would be paying back more over time than they borrow because they’re giving a percentage of their income to their colleges.

Tuition costs for UC students already are expensive – $13,900 for in-state students and $42,900 for out-of-state students. This proposal won’t do much to help with that, and with tuition costs on the rise, there are larger problems ahead.

Anthony Ho, a first-year business economics student, said income share agreements would cause people to feel less obligated to work extra hours or overtime.

“People aren’t going to have the incentive to work harder or work overtime because more of their money will be deducted because of the set percentages of the agreement,” Ho said.

The bill also is unclear about common situations such as a student who wants to switch their originally declared major, or needs to take time off from school. It’s unclear if these situations would be considered violations of the agreement. The proposal brings with it more questions than solutions, and the apparent confusion over the terms of the agreement doesn’t inspire much confidence for one to participate in it.

Kimberly Hale, a spokesperson for the UC Office of the President, said the University appreciates Voepel’s interest in tuition costs, but would not comment on the proposal, since it is currently under review.

Of course, income share agreements might seem easier to deal with because of the lack of accrued interest and the flexibility with payments while one is between jobs. But the agreement’s lack of clarity regarding how much a participant would pay once all is said and done weakens any inclination they might have to opt in to this program. It is also unclear if the percentage taken from a participant’s income can fluctuate throughout the duration of the agreement, complicating an already obscure proposal.

College students’ hearts already are tired and fragile enough. It’s time to stop dangling utopian promises of reduced debt in front of them.

Potential zoning revisions to beckon business to Village’s vacant storefronts

Westwood Village may be able to fill vacant storefronts and bring in new businesses by loosening restrictions on dining and parking requirements.

The Westwood Village Improvement Association, a nonprofit organization tasked with improving the state of the Village, submitted amendments to the Westwood Village Specific Plan, the master planning document that outlines zoning regulations. The amendments seek to relax food definitions and parking requirements for current and prospective businesses in Westwood Village.

The Los Angeles City Council voted Jan. 30 to approve a motion directing the Department of City Planning to conduct a review of the Westwood Specific Plan and the WVIA’s amendments. The council’s decision was finalized Feb. 1, and the Department of City Planning has 90 days to report back regarding its recommendations for the plan and the WVIA’s amendments.

Andrew Thomas, executive director of the association, said the motion signals a significant achievement for the WVIA and the Village.

“We’ve been working on this since about 2011, and this is as far as we’ve ever come,” Thomas said. “When the City Council made its motion to ask the planning department to make recommendations for the amendments, that was a big moment for our village.”

Thomas said the specific plan’s current food definitions rigidly define the characteristics of restaurants and fast-food chains, providing a list of five conditions food establishments must meet to be distinguished as a restaurant. The conditions include providing table service and having customers pay after eating. If the establishment does not satisfy all five conditions, it is categorized as a fast-food establishment instead.

Thomas said current regulations prevent new businesses from opening in the Village, as they make no distinction between traditional fast-food franchises like Taco Bell and fast-casual restaurants that serve food meant for off-site consumption, such as Starbucks and Yogurtland.

“Under the specific plan, you’re either McDonald’s or Ruth’s Chris Steak House, and there’s really no in-between,” Thomas said. “It has restricted what types of food-uses can lease in the district because so many of the establishments that want to come here are these fast-casual restaurants.”

A 2002 amendment to the specific plan limits the number of food establishments allowed to operate in the Village area to 40 fast-food establishments and 77 restaurants.

However, Thomas said the allotted number of fast-food establishments had already been exceeded by the time the limits were enacted by the city of Los Angeles. Current WVIA estimates place the number of fast-food establishments at 56 and the number of restaurants at 29.

Hagu Solomon-Cary, planning deputy for Los Angeles City Councilmember Paul Koretz, who represents Westwood Village, said the plan’s requirements are restrictive to new establishments.

“The cap the specific plan puts on fast food has been a challenge for businesses wishing to open in the Village in some instances,” Solomon-Cary said.

The WVIA’s proposed amendments seek to reduce the number of conditions a food establishment must meet to be labeled a restaurant, or remove the distinction between restaurants and fast food entirely.

Thomas said loosening the specific plan’s restrictions will reduce the surplus of fast-food establishments and allow willing businesses to occupy some of the area’s vacancies under the restaurant label. The WVIA estimates that 38 of the Village’s 237 storefronts are currently vacant.

“I get calls from (businesses) all the time expressing interest in moving in and asking if it’s possible, and then I have to tell them about the specific plan,” Thomas said. “It’s troubling for me to have to turn businesses away that want to come and open in Westwood Village, especially when we have these vacancies that have been here for such a long time.”

The specific plan also requires any new business to provide a certain amount of parking if it moves into a vacant space and changes its use. For instance, if a retail store moves into a vacant space that was originally meant for food use, the new store would require four parking spaces for every 1,000 square feet of floor area it possesses.

Thomas said new businesses are left with two possible courses of action to provide the parking required by the specific plan. The first is to demolish existing structures on a property to build parking spaces, and the second would be to enter into an agreement with another business that would provide parking on its own premises to the new business.

The WVIA’s amendments propose to eliminate the parking requirements for businesses moving into vacant spaces previously intended for other uses and re-evaluate the parking requirements for new developments in the Village area.

Ryan Snyder, an urban planning professor and a member of the North Westwood Neighborhood Council, said such requirements prevent interested businesses from leasing in the Village due to the associated costs and logistics.

“In many places, this has been an impediment for new operations to come in, because there really isn’t a space to put new parking, and even if you could, it would be extremely expensive to do so,” Snyder said.

Thomas added in addition to the prohibitive costs of creating new parking, neighboring businesses are likely to use whatever parking they possess for themselves and therefore be unwilling to share with new businesses seeking parking spaces. He said these factors contribute to the persistent vacancy of many storefronts in the Village, such as the former Mann Festival Theater, which closed in 2009.

“You couldn’t go to the Festival Theater and turn it into a restaurant without triggering the parking requirements,” Thomas said. “That space has been vacant now for years, and it’s going to stay that way until someone can get around the parking requirements.”

Snyder said the WVIA’s ultimate desire is to provide the Village community with a greater variety of amenities that are well-suited to the area.

“The WVIA wants to bring in good businesses that complement the Westwood Village and fit in with what’s already operating,” Snyder said. “The goal is to serve the community and cater to the needs of the people there.”

Solomon-Cary said Koretz’s office hopes Westwood can be revitalized with the proposed changes.

“The District (5) office hopes that the planning department’s report can do its part to bring the Village into a modern version of how it was in its heyday,” Solomon-Cary said.

Interfraternity Council will issue Breathalyzers to chapters for use at parties

This post was updated Feb. 12 at 3:21 p.m.

Fraternity members will soon use Breathalyzers at parties to check attendees’ levels of intoxication.

The UCLA Interfraternity Council updated its Risk Management Policy on Jan. 28 to require the use of Breathalyzers at parties to protect attendees’ health and safety. The policy change will not take effect until the Breathalyzers are distributed, which will occur in the near future, IFC President Joshua Kaplan said in an email statement.

Kaplan said each fraternity’s risk management team, composed of elected fraternity chapter members, will be equipped with Breathalyzers to assess attendees’ blood alcohol content so the fraternities can better respond in life-threatening situations. He added attendees will not be forced to blow into the Breathalyzer if requested.

The policy bylaw states the fraternities will be required to present the Breathalyzers at the pre-party check. However, Kaplan said fraternities are not required to use Breathalyzers during the parties.

He added the risk managers will decide when to use the Breathalyzers, and are encouraged to do so in dangerous situations. The Breathalyzers will not be used for guests entering the house or going up from the first floor unless the risk manager decides to take their BAC levels, Kaplan said.

According to a statement from the UCLA Office of Sorority and Fraternity Life, the Breathalyzers will be purchased by the IFC and loaned out to chapters on an event-by-event basis. They added the risk management teams or security guards may use the Breathalyzers at the front door if someone is too intoxicated to enter their party or in need of medical assistance.

The IFC will meet with university police and UCLA Student Health and Wellness to set a blood alcohol content level limit for contacting emergency services, according to the statement.

Kaplan said there is currently no limit set. In addition, Kaplan said the Breathalyzers would not replace private security guards at parties.

He also said the cost of the Breathalyzers had not been determined.

“We understand that these incidents may be infrequent, but in light of recent tragic events surrounding fraternity life across the nation, we want to do everything in our power to make sure UCLA students are given the best care,” Kaplan said.

Cara Nguyen, a first-year business economics student, said she thinks the impact of the Breathalyzers depends on fraternity members’ intentions.

“It’s better for the security in the front who mark student hands to have the Breathalyzers because it would be more reliable and likely for the Breathalyzer to be used correctly,” Nguyen said.

Kristine Carrillo, a first-year pre-business economics student, said while Breathalyzers can protect people from drinking to dangerous levels, it might also enable partygoers to get close to dangerous levels of drinking.

“It’s very iffy,” Carrillo said. “It’s like ‘How much can I do before I get caught?’”

Tommy Waller, a first-year economics student, said the Breathalyzers would prevent attendees from dangerous levels of intoxication and make the party safer.

Bella Martin, Undergraduate Students Association Council general representative 2, said she feels the bylaw is vague and needs to have more clearly delineated parameters so students can understand what to expect in terms of Breathalyzer-use.

She added she thinks the addition of the bylaw will give the false impression that sexual assault and harassment can be attributed to the intoxication levels of the perpetrator or victim.

“It’s victim blaming in its purest form,” Martin said. “I just, I wish I had words.”

Martin said the IFC added the Breathalyzer bylaw to the Risk Management Policy as an extra layer of protection to make parties safer.

“I am wary of the power dynamics that could be fostered by potential college-aged men who are entrusted to Breathalyze party attendees,” Martin added. “It is not the student body’s responsibility to interpret the bylaw, but, rather, IFC’s responsibility to be clear from the beginning.”