As a CFS alcohol monitor and an active member of the Greek system, I am somewhat perplexed by the tone and purpose of one of the Principles for Discussion which were recently circulated among members of the community by the College Committee on Alcohol and Other Drugs. Draft Principle Five states that "The existing self-monitoring system in CFS organizations has failed in its purpose of enforcing compliance with alcohol laws and policies." It supports this assertion by further stating that there has "been no reports of a single instance of an organization serving minors or an intoxicated person" during the three and half years that the system has been in existence.
While I understand and approve of this statement as a legitimate hypothetical means for fostering a dialogue regarding alcohol abuse by underage students in the Dartmouth Community, this statement implies that CFS Alcohol Monitors are responsible for directly reporting underage drinking to the Administration, and that they have failed to do so.
This is not the job we are hired for.
The Report of the Committee to Revise the CFS Social Procedures, submitted to Dean Pelton in February of 1995, clearly states "that individual CFS organizations which sponsor registered events are responsible for preventing underage drinking." Alcohol Monitors report underage drinking directly to the Student Officers of the CFS organizations where they are working. We do not report to ORL, to Safety and Securit or to the Dean's Office.
The primary responsibility of an Alcohol Monitor is safety. Each and every CFS Monitor is extensively trained and legitimately certified to work in social settings where alcohol is served. We are there to look out for our peers. I know of several instances this past fall where CFS Monitors, working in concert with members of the CFS organizations holding parties, have removed guests for belligerence, underage drinking and sexual harassment.
Fraternities and sororities are safer social environments with the existing self-monitoring system than they were before the system was developed. Recent data compiled by Health Services Statistician John Pryor indicates important reductions in both binge drinking and in alcohol-related sexual contact and assault during the last three years. Whatever the reason, it is clear that social conditions have improved during the time that current alcohol monitoring system has been in effect.
I would suggest to the members of the Committee on Alcohol and Other Drugs that self-monitoring is central to securing safe social spaces where alcohol may be legally served and to ensuring active student participation in reducing incidents of underage drinking. The monitoring system is a clear example of students taking responsibility for the actions and well-being of their peers. It is part of the solution, not the embodiment of the problem.
Rather than trading ambiguities and shuffling implications, students and administrators should build upon the experience and successes of the current alcohol monitoring system to further improve safety. Greeks and administrators must work with other student organizations to foster the development of social environments, both within and outside the CFS system, which are not focused on the consumption of alcohol.
As thinking members of a community of scholars, the lack of popular social alternatives available to students should be our primary student life concern. We are far better off focusing our collective attention and energies on these long-term social and institutional issue, than we are critiquing those components of Greek self-monitoring which are effective and contibute to a more healthy social atmosphere within the Dartmouth community.
