When the Federal Government mandated in the mid-eighties that all state laws be amended to be in compliance with Federal minimum-age drinking requirements, I can imagine the shock was felt quite strongly across college campuses everywhere. Here at Dartmouth, it meant a drastic change in the party atmosphere and, I am told, the removal of the beer kegs from Full Fare (AKA Westside Buffet). Not only did student disappointment run high, but I'm sure every college administrator in this country muttered a collective expletive when their state finally bent to the federal pressure. The quandry was simple: students could bide their time and sneak in their drinking for three years until they became of legal age, but the administration would always, ALWAYS, be faced with the plague of underage (now illegal) consumption of alcohol.
Different schools dealt with the problem differently: some, like Bates, chose to offer the other cheek, deny state and federal funding, and allowed underage drinking. Some, like Dartmouth, chose to keep their funding and attempt to enforce the law. The repercussions of that decision have persisted to this day, and the College is constantly engaged in a tug-of-war with its students over our right to drink, and their need to enforce the laws.
I personally feel that Dartmouth students, by virtue of their age, maturity, intelligence, and responsible nature, should have the right to drink (responsibly, of course). It was thus with a welcome heart that I read Kevan Higgins' editorial on September 24th ["Student Behavior is Not Prey to Administration's Policies Anyway"], in which he implores the College to find a less oppressive way to deal with what may very well be a drinking problem: "I'm not saying that alcohol abuse should be rampant and unchecked ... Instead, perhaps the school could find some less destructive means of preaching the virtues of moderation ... Deal with me like a person."
Higgins brought to light the very important point that for the most part this College, and oftentimes the Department of Safety and Security, has a great deal of difficulty treating we students as human beings with lives, hopes, dreams, cares, fears and, yes, mistakes which sometimes need to be made. Sure, we've been known to drink in excess. But should that mean we should be charged $500 for an aspirin and a hard bed at Dick's House? Yes, I know that fee has been reduced, but for how long did the Administration accept and even defend it before they finally bowed to student protest?
Think back to your freshman orientation -- at any time were you told by an administrator, or even a UGA, how to drink responsibly, or that it was okay to say "No?" I know that I wasn't and when it came time for me to fearfully decline a drink and I received a "That's cool, man," I was absolutely shocked. It was the first time I realized that here, nobody really cares whether you drink, or smoke, or translate Catullus, as long as you're willing to have fun and be friendly. That night was the first of many times that I fell in love with Dartmouth.
It is that love that brings me to the second point of this editorial, which is to express my disgust at the letter written by Glen Frank '98 and published in The Dartmouth on September 29th ["Higgins' Column Misunderstands Life in Country With Laws"]. In it, Frank not only personally attacks his classmate by saying he will "heartily cheer on his [Higgins'] progress" in destroying his brain cells, but he makes the ridiculous claim that laws are meant to be enforced, not questioned, and that any such questioning is unforgivable.
At what point in our lives should we, as adults, have stopped questioning authority and lay down before those under whose charge we have been placed? I understand that the College has a duty to uphold American law, but I also understand that the campus police force has the right to enter our rooms at any time, for any reason, and to seize anything they might find. Surely that isn't legal in America, is it? There seems to be a discrepancy there.
Do you really feel, Mr. Frank, that any underage drinking is "stupidity," as you say? Are the governing bodies in Canada, Mexico, and virtually every other nation in the world encouraging "stupidity" by having sub-21 drinking ages?
Yes, this nation has laws and those laws should be upheld. But the laws were made by people no greater than you or I, and therefore we have every right to question them and even defy them if we are willing to live with the consequences of that defiance. This country, and this College, are as great as they are because people like Kevan Higgins dare to speak out against unfairness and suppression of rights. Hopefully these people will continue to speak out, despite the haunting and abrogating influences of people like Glen Frank.
