Yesterday’s announcement of the details for the implementation of the hard alcohol ban, stipulated by “Moving Dartmouth Forward,” spurred discussion and has caused students and experts to question the likely effectiveness of the sanctions.
The changes to the alcohol policy include harsher punishments for the possession of hard alcohol, while punishments for possession or consumption of beer or wine will remain the same. A student found to be in possession of or to have consumed hard alcohol will face a College probation for a first offense, a one-term suspension for a second offense and a two-term suspension for a third offense.
College organizations that provide alcohol to others will have their recognition suspended for one term following the first offense and face a one-year suspension following a second offense. If another incident occurs within the three-year period following the one-year suspension, the organization will permanently lose recognition.
Director of the division of epidemiology and prevention research at the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Ralph Hingson, a member of the external “Moving Dartmouth Forward” review panel, said that he believes that whenever a university tries an innovative approach to address alcohol problems with college students, it is worth evaluating.
While he has not met with the new review board yet and cannot speak for them, he did offer his personal take on the new policy implementation.
Hingson said that since the policy is not eliminating alcohol altogether, some may be skeptical that changing the type of alcohol students drink will solve issues.
He added, however, that the policy is worth implementing and evaluating.
“I think that there are questions that ought to be resolved and evaluated and I think that Dartmouth has some excellent researchers that can undertake that evaluation,” Hingson said.
Evaluation methods that Hingson said are important include surveying student opinion and measuring disciplinary actions before and after the ban. With the right evaluation, he said he thinks Dartmouth can “improve its programming and help other colleges and universities grappling with the same issues.”
Three outside alcohol policy experts criticized the ban and remained doubtful about its implementation.
“I have some concerns about this approach because students can get drunk and experience serious harm if they drink too much wine or beer as well as with distilled spirits,” Traci Toomey, an epidemiology and community health professor at University of Minnesota, said. “I am not sure if policy will greatly reduce harm when looking across a whole range of alcohol-related problems.”
Toomey said that she hopes the College will evaluate the many potential positive and negative consequences of the policy as it plays out.
David Hanson, an expert on collegiate alcohol policy and a professor emeritus of sociology at the State University of New York at Potsdam, said he thinks that there is “plenty of reason to believe that the policy won’t work.”
Hanson said he thinks that when something is prohibited it “doesn’t really prohibit the consumption, but rather changes the venue and drives people underground into very unregulated environments where there is no control.” He thinks that this may exacerbate high-risk drinking instead.
Hanson believes that other policies that have had positive effects in the past could be pursued instead. He suggested social norms marketing as an alternative strategy, which can help people realize their misconceptions that other people drink more than they do and then choose to drink less themselves.
He also suggested a system that other colleges use where an outside company monitors and takes legal and financial responsibility for policy violations that occur at a specific event. The company then has an incentive to make sure people do not overdrink, he said.
Adam Barry, a health education professor at Texas A&M University and the chair of the American College Health Association’s Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs Coalition, said he thinks that the ban is a “little short-sighted” because there are health consequences resulting from all types of alcohol, not just hard liquor.
“Eliminating hard liquor will not eliminate alcohol-related consequences. You do run the risk of students getting innovative with how they drink, what they drink, where they drink,” Barry said, adding that he is not sure if a policy like this can truly keep students from consuming hard liquor.
Safety and Security director Harry Kinne said he does not believe there will be many changes in Safety and Security’s role in regards to enforcement, as they already enforce the current alcohol policy.
He said, however, that what will change is that they will confiscate hard alcohol and take appropriate action if they see it, whereas now they will not confiscate hard alcohol from the room of a student who is 21 years old or older. Safety and Security will also terminate all parties where hard alcohol is being served.
He does not foresee any large problems resulting from the policy change. He said that since students are learning about the policy a month in advance, they will hopefully have time to make adjustments in their behavior.
Kinne also said that he would encourage people to read the policy emailed out and the attached frequently asked questions. He said that students should give Safety and Security a call if they are confused, adding that “they would be glad to answer any questions related to the policy.”
Kinne said several times that the Good Samaritan policy will not be changed by the new ban.
“Our most important thing is that we are concerned about health and welfare of students,” Kinne said. He said that he encourages students to still call Good Sam if there are concerns about the health of a student.
Student opinion about the ban and the details of its implementation are generally negative. Of 10 students surveyed, nine had negative reactions to the policy.
Several students were concerned that the new policy will drive drinking underground and make people less likely to use the Good Samaritan policy.
“I think if drinking hard alcohol goes behind closed doors it will be a bigger problem because there will be more binge drinking and people won’t want to go to Dick’s House if it was from drinking hard alcohol,” Koryn Ternes ’16 said.
Wafaa Ahmed ’17 said she thinks students are concerned the policy will not change the amount that students drink, but rather just change the substance. She echoed the belief that students will be less likely to utilize the Good Samaritan policy.
Three of the 10 students surveyed said they do not drink, but two of these three were still not satisfied with the new ban.
Other students had mixed opinions about the policy’s effectiveness.
“At least it’s something, they are trying something to curb harmful behavior,” Ethan Canty ’15 said. He said, however, that he thinks the consequences are too severe.
Cecelia Shao ’16 said she does not think that the ban is the most effective route.
“I think you have to change the mentality surrounding alcohol as opposed to banning it,” Shao said.
James Detweiler ’18 said that he is not hopeful for the policy.
“This is going to create more problems then it solves,” he said.
