OPINION & EDITORIAL
Fixing, not shifting
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Badger Herald Editorial Board:
- Madison's annual hip-hop conference falters (April 14, 2003)
- Dear Dave: Post this near your desk (April 17, 2003)
- Politicking destroyed opt-out's proponents (April 14, 2003)
- Don't Cut Historical Society Funds (April 29, 2003)
- Redirecting control (April 23, 2003)
Related Stories:
- Time to step up (April 24, 2002)
- Fixing the wrong problem (May 6, 2002)
- Chancellor Wiley throws down the gauntlet, again (April 30, 2002)
- Acceptable hypocrisy (May 2, 2002)
- UW, city need to remember students (July 17, 2002)
by Badger Herald Editorial Board
Thursday, April 25, 2002
In a Wednesday press conference devoted to student drinking, Chancellor John Wiley admitted that banning drink specials is dangerous — more expensive drinks in supervised bars means more students in dangerous house parties. To that end, Wiley challenged critics of the drink-special ban — the Herald editorial board specifically — to come up with concrete plans for dealing with house parties. We welcome the challenge.
The first step is to accept the fact students drink and will do so regardless of city regulations. The question is whether we prefer students in supervised bars or unregulated house parties. We believe the city — and by extension, the police — should change its focus to the latter.
Unfortunately, the police are currently lacking the tools necessary to combat house parties. House parties are illegal for a myriad of reasons, and if they were punished to the full extent of the law, fines would be in the thousands of dollars. While this is not unprecedented, the reality is the hastle involved means police usually disperse house parties, providing zero incentive to not hold a party in the future.
As we wrote in our first editorial this fall, a better alternative would be for the city to institute an ?Irresponsible House Party? statute with a steep but realistic fine. This narrowly defined ordinance would apply to the most dangerous for-profit house parties and would give the police a realistic alternative to the current extremes — a ridiculously expensive ticket or a warning — and if consistently given out, would have a major chilling effect on hosts.
Equally important is an emphasis on personal accountability. It should be made explicitly clear to hosts and keg-purchasers that they are liable for incidents that may occur during a house party. Keg registration is an important first step in this regard.
But as we already stated, regulation will only shift the problem, not fix it (it is worrisome that Wiley?s challenge indicates he assumes more regulations are the key to house parties as well as bars). The city and university?s primary focus must be on changing students? perception of drinking and providing additional entertainment options.
The former would be accomplished through social norm campaigns. Evidence from other campuses indicates that educating students about how much most people really drink (i.e. a lot less that you might expect) is very successful in limiting high-risk drinking. We are pleased Wiley expressed interest in such a campaign.
Wiley also pledged to increase university funding for weekend alternatives. In the case of alcohol-free events, the extra money is essential. But we believe loosening the restrictions on all-age entertainment would be more effective and cost-efficient. Allowing entertainment venues to admit everyone and serve alcohol to those of age (via wristbands or a similar system) would solve three problems: provide alternatives for those underage, ensure drinking is a secondary focus for those 21 and over and make the entertainment economically viable.
The fight against high-risk drinking is a frustrating one — it takes time to see results. But a bit of long-range planning and patience would be a lot more effective and a lot safer than simply shifting the problem and making it worse.
