Opinion
ALRC vote important, boycott not
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Jack Craver:
- ALRC vote important, boycott not (October 29, 2009)
- Madison needs to help homeless (October 15, 2009)
- Drink it in: Eagon fighting for student input on ALRC (October 8, 2009)
- Walker and Doyle two sides of fiscally irresponsible coin (October 1, 2009)
- GOP's leadership fit the standards (September 24, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Last Friday was a great day in the already magnificent history of UW student activism. You might believe the “Boycott the Nitty” campaign was the result of visionary student leadership or you might dismiss it as a rash reaction to a mundane story by an attention-starved student press. Either way, you have to admit — especially since you’re reading this article — it got your attention.
To get your attention, both campus newspapers sensationalized a somewhat important story about alcohol policy by warping it into a crusade against oppression in the name of democracy and justice.
Don’t get me wrong. The testosterone-infused radicalism the Herald advocated last week was a refreshing change from the wimpy and dithering musings that generally define its editorial page.
Nevertheless, the absence of a student voting member on the Alcohol License Review Committee is not unfair — it’s equal treatment. Students are no more entitled to a vote than the “young professionals” who flood the Capitol-area bars are.
If you want to boycott the Nitty, there are two real reasons to do it. One, the Nitty Gritty is not a good bar. Two, the addition of a student voting member to the ALRC would put students in a privileged position to advance good alcohol policy.
The person who seems to best understand the issue is Ald. Shiva Bidar-Sielaff, District 5. Perhaps because she grew up in Europe, Bidar-Sielaff doesn’t think it makes sense for so many late-night entertainment establishments to be off-limits to so many adults. Yes, adults — the thing we become when we turn 18. Not when we turn 21.
Back in the ’80s, this wasn’t a problem. The state had a reasonable and somewhat realistic drinking age. All Madison nightlife venues were open to virtually all students. However, the federal government has since presented us with a dilemma. To drink legally, you have to be 21. Yet, to make money in Wisconsin, you still have to have a liquor license. Hence, young people don’t drink less, they just go out less.
This is not a situation a college town should seek to preserve. Non-Evangelical Christian underage students who want to have a good time at night should be able to find entertainment outlets. At the first committee discussion on putting a student voting member on the ALRC, Bidar-Sielaff emphasized the importance of adding the underage perspective to the alcohol licensing dialogue. It makes cultural and economic sense. Give underage students the opportunity to branch out of the grimy house parties where so many of them spend their weekends and bring them and their pocket money into the city nightlife.
A student voting member is not the only essential part of a policy that would encourage bars to include underage patrons. The police department should de-emphasize enforcement of the drinking age and instead concentrate on bars that are chronically over-serving patrons or are overcrowded. In addition, members of the council need to stop kowtowing to the Tavern League, which is nothing more than a stubborn group of bar owners who want to protect their businesses from competition. Since many of them — most notably the Nitty Gritty — fill their bars to capacity simply by serving rails and blasting Akon, they have little incentive to encourage entertainment diversity in the city.
So putting a student vote on the ALRC won’t be everything, but it could be a crucial part of a long-term strategy to provide more nighttime opportunities to underage students. It would amplify the voice in favor of expanding mixed-age bars and it would put students in a privileged position to deliver a vote in support of their interests.
So heed the Herald and Cardinal’s advice. Go to the council meeting. Make the alders shake in their boots and rail against the Tavern League. Make them realize the benefits of having a student — especially an underage one — serve on the ALRC.
But don’t pay attention to the talk of oppression. That was just the part that was supposed to get your attention. We’ve already got it pretty good. After all, the Nitty will accept your fake.
Jack Craver (craver@wisc.edu) is a senior majoring in history and the editor of The Sconz (thesconz.com), a local politics and culture blog.
7 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Parrotheads gorge on Buffet’s ‘Buffet’
Muckrakers
End of the year ASM statement: Where is it?
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
Place your classified ad online and have it show up here. Your ad will hit thousands of viewers a day!
DON'T READ ME! Too late. If you're reading this, guess how many other people are reading it. See... advertising in The Badger Herald does work!
IP hash: 80221b17
ouch…nitty got schooled
IP hash: 4fb77ce7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTFwAxfHgSA
IP hash: 3412785f
“warping it into a crusade against oppression in the name of democracy and justice.”
So, warping the truth and crusading against false oppression is the path to democracy and justice? Better look up the meaning of those words.
“But don’t pay attention to the talk of oppression. That was just the part that was supposed to get your attention.”
Right. But now that you’ve demonstrated a willingness to say anything to get attention, why should readers take this column seriously either? Maybe it’s just a ploy to save face and garner more attention.
“the Tavern League, which is nothing more than a stubborn group of bar owners who want to protect their businesses from competition. Since many of them — most notably the Nitty Gritty — fill their bars to capacity simply by serving rails and blasting Akon, they have little incentive to encourage entertainment diversity in the city.”
How is this an example of “protecting their businesses from competition?” If their bars are filled to capacity it’s because they offer entertainment that students value. If you don’t like where student choose to hangout then take it up with the students, not the Nitty.
IP hash: a4015436
geex, taking a shot at the Evangelicals hey? Why leave out the Mormons in that case?
IP hash: 9094dc82
What a pathetic essay.The student activists of the 1960’s and 1970’s faced down riot police and heavily armed national gaurds.The students of that era also invested their time in actual life or death worthy causes.They truly were brave and their actions meant something to history.There is NO BRAVERY nor is there ANY historical significance in cruelly harassing an older small business owner.You can stop preening and patting yourself on the back.If you really want to find your place in history,read up on HITLER’S BROWNSHIRTS with their boycotts and coercion of harmless small business owners.Jack Craver,you are not worth the smallest dingleberry in the Chicago 7’s butt-cheeks!
IP hash: d22a5f60
I LOL’D!
You are not worth the smallest dingleberry, Jack. LOL!
IP hash: 5aec2343
Why couldn’t this be the original “Boycott the Nitty” article? It’s well written, lays out an argument, clarifies the Herald’s position, and doesn’t alienate us as students in its call to action by assuming our blind cooperation. Kudos, Jack. Miles of improvement over that hastily-drawn overreaction blundered together by the editorial staff on the 23rd.