5/27/2004
THE SEVEN PER CENT SOLUTION
Jason Whitlock has the solution to the recruiting ills at the University of Colorado:
CU’s problems would be solved simply by outlawing the use of alcohol by its athlete-students. Any scholarship athlete caught consuming alcohol and/or failing a randomly-administered breathalyzer test would lose his or her scholarship, permanently. Zero tolerance.
Here is a solution so simple and so certain to succeed that it could never possibly be implemented. After all, if CU banned alcohol and other schools didn’t, just think of the recruiting advantage those other schools would gain: “Why you wanna go to CU and be treated like a kid? Come here and be a real man!” It would solve the problem of recruiting scandals, in much the same way that decapitation cures dandruff.
Look, there are three things we tolerate in society despite the fact that we know they’re not very good for us: Alcohol, gambling, and pornography. We (and by “we” I don’t necessarily mean me, since I barely use the first and don’t use the other two) tolerate them because we know it’s very difficult for most people to be 100% good 100% of the time. There’s a responsible way to use alcohol; there’s probably a responsible way to use gambling; porno, I’m not so sure about.
But, being Americans, we prefer excess to success. Why have a drink or two to ease the pressures of life when you can have twelve drinks and forget who you are completely? Pretty soon our use of alcohol goes from a (mostly) harmless diversion to a sense of entitlement.
I attended a “party school,” and, while I can’t say I’ve never been drunk, I’d imagine my consumption of alcohol was probably in the bottom 5% of students at my school. I really grew to loathe the sense of entitlement my classmates felt regarding alcohol–getting drunk and staying drunk from Thursday night until Monday morning was regarded as the true mission of college, and classes were simply an impediment to that goal. It disgusted me, because I knew it was cheapening my degree. When riots broke out at this fall’s homecoming, I took my diploma off the wall. I’ve even seriously considered getting a second bachelor’s degree just to lose the “party school” stigma. And the irony is, I got a great education. But for all the argle-bargle and jawflap regarding the need to get binge drinking under control, nobody ever does anything about it.
You see, colleges need students to survive. And in today’s world, that means countenancing a certain amount of booze-soaked money business. CU’s faculty may not be happy with its “#1 party school in America” reputation–but it brings in lots of out-of-state students and their tuition dollars. So I’m not surprised that CU ultimately chose not to rock the boat. And neither will anybody else. America’s colleges are about fifteen years too late to do anything about the problem of alcohol abuse.
10 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
You left out tobacco, although it is not quite as accepted as it used to be.
Comment by Bryan — 5/27/2004 @ 1:00 pm
College-age kids are going to drink to excess, because that’s what kids in our society (with its strange laws against alcohol consumption by young adults) do.
By banning alcohol outright or by making it harder for students to drink, colleges drive partying underground, where there is a much higher risk of injury, alcohol poisoning, and rape.
Rather than trying to eliminate alcohol on campuses, colleges should create policies which encourage responsible and safe drinking. Here at Illinois, alcohol is banned from most Greek events (all others are BYOB), so students who want to drink must do so in the campus bars (which are well-policied and cannot by law serve to clearly-inebriated patrons). Public transportation to and from campustown is available.
What cheapens a college degree is not the amount of partying, but rather dumbing down classes so that students who would rather party than study can still pass. It’s possible for some students to do both - and students should be encouraged to balance work and play in a healthy way - but students who can’t cut it (regardless of the reason) need to be shown the door.
That’s the main distinction between Harvard and U of I (I transferred from the former to the latter my junior year). Harvard makes it very difficult for students to drink legitimately, but allows even the worst students to graduate with a B average. U of I leaves students free to plan their own social activities, but tosses failing students out or forces them to switch to easier majors. I would claim that U of I graduates are both better-adjusted than Harvard grads, and (in fields where both universities’ admissions standards are competitive) better-equipped to start their careers.
Comment by Dave — 5/27/2004 @ 1:13 pm
Dave:
Iowa State’s been trying that, and it didn’t work. And nobody would accuse ISU of being a ‘gut’ school academically. The genie’s out of the bottle.
Comment by Mark Hasty — 5/27/2004 @ 3:00 pm
What has ISU done?
Comment by Dave — 5/27/2004 @ 5:14 pm
Similar to what Illinois has done, plus they’ve banned alcohol from the VEISHEA celebration. It still didn’t prevent rioting this year.
Comment by Mark Hasty — 5/27/2004 @ 5:23 pm
What were students rioting about? Did ISU win something?
Comment by Dave — 5/27/2004 @ 9:43 pm
The Ames police broke up an off-campus party at about 3 in the morning. When the crowd failed to disperse, the police used tear gas and the game was on from that point.
Comment by Mark Hasty — 5/27/2004 @ 9:48 pm
When police break up a party here, they start ticketing and arresting people. It disperses the party pretty quick, and nobody has to pull out the mustard gas. Perhaps what you have is a problem with your police, and not with the college students?
Comment by Dave — 5/27/2004 @ 9:52 pm
It was something like their third or fourth time trying to disperse the crowd. I don’t think that’s the police’s fault–more like a problem with hearing comprehension.
Comment by Mark Hasty — 5/27/2004 @ 9:56 pm
I think one of Dave’s points is that the 21 yo drinking age works against the binge drinking problem. If the drinking age were 18, more students would drink in controlled environments, such as bars or campus sponsored parties, and not in uncontrolled environments such as frat houses. I think the problem with alchohol in our society is that we don’t “teach” young adults how to handle it. We give them all the freedoms of the world at age 18, yet we tell them not to do this one thing. Well, of course they are going to do it then. A better way would be to lower the drinking age back to 18 and let them learn by paying $2 for a beer.
Comment by Jon — 5/28/2004 @ 11:31 am