Students demand alcohol policy input
At the first Student Association meeting of the year Monday, students voiced concerns about changes made to the Alcohol Policy last summer.
Although the majority of the alcohol policy stayed the same, an additional clause defining the difference between public and private parties was added. Chief justices met with Assistant Dean of Student Judicial Programs Don Ostdiek Thursday to discuss addendums.
After he meets with chief justices Thursday, he will meet with the presidents and masters. Dean of Undergraduates Robin Forman said he hopes to resolve issues with the Alcohol Policy as soon as possible — by the end of fall semester at the latest. Currently, the clause is being held in abeyance.
The clause added to the alcohol policy states: “No more than one keg may be present at a private gathering. More than one keg requires registration as a public party” (Section 2a). Last year’s Alcohol Policy stated: “Any party or gathering that is public in spirit or effect is considered a public party or function, including those in private areas that overflow into public spaces (such as hallways, landings, lounges, bathrooms, or other common areas) or that causes undue disturbance to other college members” (Section 2a).
Every summer, Ostdiek makes changes to the alcohol policy as he sees fit, and Dean of Undergraduates Robin Forman approves them. Then, these changes appear in the student handbook. Ostdiek said in some years he consulted chief justices and presidents prior to making changes, but not this year. Forman said there was not time to consult college leaders and still have the revised Alcohol Policy ready for publication in the student handbook.
The result was that many students, including chief justices, did not know about the policy until recently. Brown College Chief Justice Phil Gorman said he did not know about changes in the alcohol policy until prompted for an interview.
“I’m concerned that they did not inform us because I’m supposed to know this stuff and register parties,” Gorman, a senior, said. “If I’m not informed about the changes, I can’t really be expected to correctly register them.”
Lovett College Chief Justice Nathan Bledsoe, who also coordinated Orientation Week this year, said he was one of the few who found out about the changes before O-Week. During adviser training, Ostdiek spoke with three colleges at a time to discuss the alcohol policy. Bledsoe, a junior, said Lovett, Martel and Jones Colleges were the only colleges that received a mention of the addendum.
“What [the chief justices] don’t understand is how these changes were made, and we don’t know about them,” Bledsoe said. “Somewhere, there was a major communication breakdown.”
As for the added clause itself, Bledsoe said he is not opposed to the change.
“Overall, I don’t feel like it’s a particularly unfair change to the alcohol policy,” Bledsoe said. “But the issue is about communication and input, not change itself.”
Gorman said he opposes the clause because it might give rise to students using more dangerous means of accessing alcohol, such as buying strong liquor with the amount of money that could be used to buy a keg.
“People will try to avoid being registered as a public party or doing something against public policy, because you can get in trouble for that in a significant way,” Gorman said. “That issue is going to force people to look at alternatives in terms of buying more liquor in terms of kegs.”
Lovett junior Ray Yu said he believes the clause could be beneficial to students.
“I do think that the implementation of the alcohol policy has been a bit strict of late, but I think it’s good because it controls the environment of Rice that might get crazy sometimes,” Yu said.
Ostdiek said when he made the changes, he did not think they would significantly alter what colleges could or could not do with alcohol.
“Based on how I understand the system to be working, I don’t think I was changing what could and couldn’t be done,” Ostdiek said. “I thought this was still in the same spirit, that what’s happening is it’s making the system more rational and easy to understand.”
Ostdiek said he hoped the addition of the clause would clarify the line between public and private parties. He said one keg appeared to be a good line of demarcation, but he solicited feedback Thursday when he met with college leaders to discuss the revisions.
Jones senior Chelsea Derrick said the unannounced addendum bodes poorly for student-administration affairs.
“A lot of students don’t exactly feel the administration is behind their interests as it is,” Derrick said. “I feel like this isn’t going to help relations with the administration. I just think it was a shady thing to do.”
Ostdiek said he said admits he was wrong to not consult college presidents and chief justices, but he does not understand why people would be upset with the content of the clause.
“People are overreacting,” Ostdiek said. “They’re vastly overreacting to what they perceive as an attack or a change. They are wrong. Some of the allegations that this was done with malicious intent I just don’t understand. “
Other news stories
- Directors hired in preparation for enrollment increase
- Hispanic Studies plans future programs, adds to faculty
Sports
- An overabundance of water washed away our win
- New teammates see loads of potential, not uncertainty, in lineup
- New uniforms usher in era of tradition, simplicity
- Rain, turnovers cause season-opening defeat
- Soccer starts new season without a loss
- Volleyball ends home swing with split
Arts & Entertainment
- Comedic attempt Balls of Fury hits, misses jokes
- Lyrical Cartel mixes unique youth, ambiguity
- Self-Medicated suffers boring, ineffective story
- Sports movies: The good, the bad and the end zone