In 1995, students living in James residence hall that were of legal drinking age were permitted to have alcohol. While freeing policies like that have been taken completely out of the conversation, the decision on whether or not to make CCSU a wet campus should be considered.
Whether allowed or not, drinking will seemingly always be in place on any college campus. But the cry for a non-dry campus doesn’t only come from the students fond of binge drinking multiple nights a week, it also comes from the more responsible students who stand by the belief that those that are of legal drinking age should be allowed to possess alcohol. Does a 21-year-old student legally holding onto alcohol really deserve the same punishments an 18-year-old illegally possessing alcohol would receive from the university?
The last time the CCSU campus was entirely wet was when the drinking age was 18. Of course, by this law, having a wet campus makes more sense, as law enforcement wouldn’t have to worry as much about distinguishing between who is legal and who is not. By the time the average student graduated from high school they were already of age. Today, with the drinking age at 21, a very large amount of students on campus aren’t legally able to consume alcohol, creating a nightmare for those facilitating a switch from a dry campus to a wet one.
But having a dry campus still does a lot of good for those in charge. The administration on campus isn’t oblivious to the fact that students will drink no matter what. The logic that not allowing drinking on campus will prevent vast amounts of dorm room damage and student to student violence is sound reasoning, but if campus parties and drinking didn’t have to be held so secretively, perhaps things would run smoother. In the current state, students are running around people’s back trying to squeeze in as much alcohol in one sitting because it might be there only free chance to do so. Nothing is done responsibly when you have to do it on the run or in hiding.
At the same time, there is already an alcohol culture acknowledged by the school. They allow drinking in the football field’s parking lot on gameday, a clear reversal of belief and procedure that sends a mixed message, as if the only reason a student might come to the game is because they can drink. By allowing students to get intoxicated before football games the administration is only further developing the college plus football plus alcohol traditions so stigmatized in popular culture and real life. Why not just go the whole nine yards and allow legal residents to legally consume alcohol? Those holding on-campus dinners and receptions also are allowed to serve alcoholic drinks like wine, but only if a someone of age signs off on a waiver accepting responsibilities.
And turning a campus from dry to wet doesn’t have to mean the trashing of all rules. There are still a good deal of policing issues that would be tested. Becoming a wet campus wouldn’t mean that you’d be allowed to have a campus-wide party at all times, but would simply allow those of age to drink in a responsible manner. There are still a number of rules that would be in place, and police would still crack down on those serving alcohol to minors.
Rumors have floated around campus about possible stricter punishment guidelines for students that are caught in possession of alcohol, which could include a 3-5 day suspension from the dormitories. While its important to preserve the safety of students living on campus, this can cause more problems than necessary for those caught with alcohol and would be an absolutely absurd punishment for a legal resident to have to face.
Although it may seem removing a student from the dorm-life atmosphere for a short period of time will force them to learn from their mistakes, the difficulty comes when a student who’s been kicked off campus can’t find a place to stay, possibly because they live too far from home. Depending on the situation, going through alcohol education again and a period of probation should satisfy as a punishment for breaking the rules of alcohol possession for students that are caught.
Semesters inside Devil’s Den used to be a pub as late as the 1980’s. Ironically, that location has lately been used as the location for “Devil’s Den at 10 p.m.,” a program on Thursday nights that intends to give CCSU students another option besides drinking. Now, of course, suggesting that the university should reopen the pub is a bit bold and does seem to draw upon many social issues. A school’s purpose isn’t to profit off of alcohol sales on a Thursday night, but to educate its student body. Having alcohol that available on campus might be a bit much. Still, in a strange way, if moderated correctly, it could create a CCSU community that is more cohesive and together, something that this campus has no semblance oEditf.
The fact that this issue keeps resurfacing shows how the focus at school isn’t always on one’s education. Ultimately, that’s a sad sentiment. Students should want to come to school to work towards an education, not to party. But the decision to create a wet, or even partially wet campus, should still be looked into. With all the information that has been gathered and that can be gathered, a well-educated and well-researched decision can and should be evaluated.
