The Badger Herald: Opinion: UW offers bogus two-for-one special

Opinion

UW offers bogus two-for-one special

Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.

Also by Hannah Karns:

Shared governance not very 'shared' (September 17, 2008)
'Homeless night' can change with tenant action (April 23, 2008)
Time to shape up, ASM representatives (April 9, 2008)
Trading detainment for diplomas (March 26, 2008)
Deficit sidetracks worthy UW bills (March 5, 2008)

By Hannah Karns
Thursday, September 20, 2007 12:00 a.m.

2 Vote 0 Votes

Think one underage drinking ticket is bad enough? Try two. Currently, the University of Wisconsin System's Nonacademic Misconduct policy does not punish students for receiving off-campus drinking tickets. Yet, it is currently under review whether or not a UW school should be able to punish a student for consuming alcohol under the legal age. It may seem absurd, but this is not the first time that policy has created ridiculous circumstances. Take, for example, the student section of football games. UW System policy states in Conduct on University Lands, Section 6, that "No person may engage in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud or otherwise disorderly conduct … in which the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance … on university lands." Umm, yeah. I would have to say that the time-honored "Fuck you, eat shit" cheer alone creates quite the disturbance. The rambunctious nature of the crowd is due, at least in part, to the copious amounts of alcohol consumed, and kudos to those die-hard fans who begin the pre-game process at seven in the morning. However, I must issue a word or two of caution. The policy, which the student section violates so beautifully every gameday, may be adding a punishable offense to its arsenal — that of an additional underage drinking ticket. At this time, Chapter 17, the Nonacademic Misconduct policy, considers the following offenses to be within the system's jurisdiction: stalking, harassing any individual, damaging university property, interrupting a class or university-sanctioned event and stealing university property. The current proposal would add receiving an underage drinking ticket issued off-campus to this long list. Some of these punishable offenses, namely stalking, harassment and stealing have disciplinary actions by other parties, such as Dane County or the state of Wisconsin, depending on the severity of the offense. However, if the new proposal was adopted, an individual could be punished by both the university and a state entity even for a drinking ticket. Drunks everywhere, beware. UW System schools are currently allowed to administer varying degrees of additional punishment for violating rules of conduct. These include revoking university-specific opportunities, academic probation, suspension or expulsion. The university has the right to impose more than one if it feels so inclined. It seems impossible to both suspend and expel a student for consuming alcohol underage, but let's not put it past them to try. Furthermore, according to the Madison Police Department, in 2007, if an underage person had alcohol in his or her possession in an unlicensed bar or pub, the ticket was an average of $166. It is ludicrous to allow the university to enforce an additional punishment. I can't speak for the entire student body, but $166 out of a student's pocket is enough disciplinary action. It is also redundant to punish a student twice for the same action, especially in regard to something as common as underage drinking. Recently, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration released a statement pertaining to the prevalence of underage drinking in all 50 states. Surprise, surprise, guess which state made it to No. 1? That's right: Wisconsin. According to the report, 39.5 percent of people in the state between the ages of 12 and 20 have consumed alcohol in the past month. That's almost 2 out of every 5. And to think that the Princeton Review dropped us from the ranking of party schools altogether. But to place the newly considered policy change into context, let's do some simple math. There are 5,373 students in the freshman class and 6,353 sophomores. Both freshmen and sophomores, in a typical setting, should be considered under the drinking age. So let us say, in accordance with the SAMHSA report, that 39.5 percent of these students consume alcohol in a one-month period. That means approximately 4,631 students are drinking illegally. Now, not everyone would be caught drinking and receive a ticket in this hypothetical situation, but a pool of more than 4,000 students who qualify for two tickets is quite disturbing, to say the least. Could a university really hold those students who receive drinking tickets accountable? Is that plausible with an underage student body of at least 11,726 people? The answer is a solid "no." If the ticket is received off-campus, it simply does not relate to the university. The university should be concerned with providing more financial aid and scholarships, not the drinking tickets of students. If university officials see this addition to Chapter 17 as a way to decrease the alcohol consumption on campus, they are sadly mistaken. Until the number of drinking tickets issued to students becomes a significant measurement of the prestige of an institution, it is not the university's place to administer an additional penalty for underage drinking. Hannah Karns (hkarns@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in political science and international studies.

2 Comments | Leave a comment

Anonymous | September 20, 2007 12:51 PM | Reply

Like it or not, attending this school has consequences beyond yourself. When we have football players arrested, it looks poorly on the University. When we have our under-21 students getting arrested, especially in large numbers, UW looks bad too.

You COULD argue that your behavior off campus doesn’t have an effect on the school but you could also argue that the personal life of politicians have no bearing on thier career and the public’s perception; you’d also be wrong.

Anonymous | May 5, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply

Like it or not, working at a business has consequences beyond yourself. When employees are arrested it looks poorly on the business. When we have our over-21 employees getting arrested, especially in large numbers, the business looks bad too.

You COULD argue that your behavior away from work doesn’t have an effect on the business but you could also argue that the personal life of politicians have no bearing on thier career and the public’s perception; you’d also be wrong.

You want to apply these rules to students who are adults and subject to the law same as you and I? Then you need to tie the local law enforcement database directly into your HR office’s computers. How would you feel if your boss called you into his/her office and told you to explain why you have received six speeding tickets in the last three months. Or perhaps why you received a DUI four years ago on your 40th birthday? Maybe that indecent exposure incident with your husband/wife because you decided it would be fun to be adventurous outside in the hotel pool?