A solitary cup defiantly remains across the table, half-filled with warm beer and taunting the player on the opposite side to sink the ball and finish the game. Staring at the hazy cup with glazed-over eyes, the player leans precipitously over the table to steady himself, at the same time releasing the ball in a hurried, erratic motion. The ball sails across the table in a wobbly arc, landing nowhere near its intended target. The ball is picked up and the game continues.
To many University of Wisconsin students, this might not seem like an atypical event to witness in an evening, but a recent article in the New York Times brings drinking games to the center of mainstream attention. The article, entitled "As Young Adults Drink to Win, Marketers Join In," addresses the rise of drinking games as legitimate forms of entertainment and social interaction and the reactions of college administrations across the country in response to this surge in popularity.
While the article might not stir much interest in the chronic beer pong player, the article does lead to an interesting conundrum: what role should college administrations play in the regulation of drinking? With the recent implementation of the "call-home" policy for underage abusers and Halloween just weeks away, this is an especially pertinent question for the UW community.
The consumption of large quantities of alcohol at UW has been a pervasive tradition for students, and conversely, a longtime annoyance for administrators. Every administration has been forced to deal with the contentious issue of increased regulation of alcohol consumption, a necessity born from a paternalistic urge to protect the welfare of its students. Yet the desire to protect students' well being through the increased regulation of drinking might be overreaching the boundaries of administrative power.
When an administration regulates alcohol, what it essentially is regulating is a choice. This particular choice has many possible outcomes: whether one drinks or abstains, whether one responsibly regulates their own drinking or drinks to excess, whether one remains in control of their behavior or wreaks havoc. While some of these choices are more prudent than others, they all are choices of the individual.
When one participates in drinking activities, to a large degree it involves a measure of personal accountability that supersedes proposed administrative regulation. What this means is that it should not fall to the university to proscribe activities that can lead to unacceptable behavior, but that responsibility remains to the individual to monitor one's self to prevent those unacceptable behaviors from happening.
To be sure, there are certainly instances where administrative regulation of drinking is not just merited, but essential for the protection of student welfare. Institutionalized hazing involving alcohol, whether occurring in the basements of a fraternity or in the locker rooms of a varsity athletic team, requires increased regulation in order to protect the welfare of students. The impetus for this regulation is that the choice regarding how much to drink and when to stop is virtually stripped from the individual and ceded to others.
So what is an unacceptable behavior in regards to drinking? Unacceptable behaviors are those actions that are criminal in nature or harmful to others or those that significantly infringe on the ability of an administration to perform its principal functions. It is these unacceptable behaviors that should demarcate the boundaries of what an administration is able to regulate. The important question then becomes; is drinking unacceptable? As it is a legal right of all of-age individuals, which carries with it a degree of social approval, drinking per se is not an unacceptable behavior. This leads to the notion that the personal drinking habits of the student should be an area that is outside the scope of administrative regulation. Thus, it should not be an issue whether a student decides to play a drinking game, or play several games for that matter. This is an area of choice that should be restricted to the individual, free of interference from institutionalized power.
Furthermore, to be hesitant in regulating drinking does not necessarily render an administration impotent in matters concerning drinking either. It does not preclude the creation of rigorous programs that deal with the prevention of unacceptable behavior, nor does it curtail the ability to educate students on the negative aspects of drinking. Instead, it shifts the focus to find other means of deterrence that still allow room for individual choice.
So what lessons can an administration and students glean from this? For an administration, it is important to realize their function is not to prevent all bad decisions from being made. And for students, it is important to realize that in regards to drinking, the choice is theirs.
Mike Skelly ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in finance and political science.
