To the Editor:
The recent opinion piece by Zachary Pfeiffer '05 about alcohol policy enforcement at Dartmouth ("Real Discrepancies Exist in Alcohol Policy Violations," April 13) gives me an opportunity to clarify something about the comparison to Yale. Pfeiffer says "from 2003 to 2005, Dartmouth punished 754 students for alcohol violations. The number at Yale ... was 131." The numbers referred to are actually liquor law violations referred for disciplinary action (meaning that they are violations of law, that must be reported for purposes of the Jeanne Clery Campus Crime Act). The numbers differ primarily because the laws of New Hampshire are different from the laws of Connecticut, as are the venues where many of the students socialize. For example, in New Hampshire, it is illegal for a minor to possess alcohol anywhere, rather than only in public places. Until recently, Connecticut law did not prohibit underage possession or consumption of alcohol on private property (i.e., the Yale campus). Staff at both schools confront violations when they encounter them.
For comparison's sake, it is helpful to look at schools that are in more rural environments, where much of the social activity that occurs is focused on the campus. From 2003-2005, Colgate University with 2,750 students had 963 cases in this category (which on the Office of Post-Secondary Education website is called "Disciplinary Actions/Judicial Referrals-On-campus"). Middlebury College, with 2,350 undergraduate students, had 421; Williams College with 2,120 undergraduates had 364. In New Hampshire, UNH had 1,523 violations. (UNH has 11,000 undergraduates.)
Additionally, not all of the students who are counted in the numbers above are sanctioned. Some students are found not responsible. Most of the numbers at Dartmouth reflect students referred to their class deans for a conversation about reports of underage possession or consumption of alcohol, which usually results in a warning. Other students are not sanctioned because they fall under our Good Samaritan policy (which means that because a call for help was made, they are not given a disciplinary sanction). We are very proud of our Good Samaritan policy (which was broadened, based on input from students, a few years ago) and feel that it exemplifies what we have been stressing for years: that our primary concern is, and will continue to be, the health and safety of our students.
