College keggers are the topic of the day. Well, it’s really been a hot media topic for a few months now. There was Caitlyn Flanagan’s Atlantic article about frat culture. Paying for the Party, the sociology book by Elizabeth Armstrong and Laura T. Hamilton, describes how lower-income girls fare at a party college. (We discussed the book here. Ross Douthat here.) Now, there’s a big debate about whether colleges should take responsibility for the outcomes of the party and how we calibrate the number of sexual assaults on campus.
When I started at college, the drinking age was 18. They later raised the age to 21, so I drank illegally my freshman year, legally my sophomore year, and then illegally for the rest of college. And I drank a lot. In my freshman year, the drinking rules were really lax. Someone would buy several kegs that were tapped right on the dorm hallway. My Tretorn sneakers (ah, the preppy 80s) were soaked with the river of spilled beer every Friday night. And I attended a notoriously nerdy college.
Amazingly, nothing really terrible happened to me, despite a huge maturity gap. (I’m still not a huge fan of rum, after one night of extreme yakking in 1985.) But there are plenty of bad things that happen to kids when they black out after twelve shots of tequila.
Douthat and Flanagan both argue that colleges promote a party culture, which boosts admission rates and brings in $$$. But then turn a blind eye to the fallout to party scene and evade legal responsibility. What? There’s drinking going on at those fraternity houses? What? I had no idea!
Some think that college rankings should include statistics on sexual assaults. Many of those assaults are fueled by booze.
Douthat, Flanagan, and a number of liberals are surprisingly in agreement on this topic. Bad things happen when kids are super, super drunk. Even if the sexual assault numbers are not totally accurate, we all know that bad things happen when an 18-year old has twelve tequila shots.
Those same writers say that colleges have insulated themselves legally from the outcomes of the party scene, and unofficially, promote it. That’s how colleges with unimpressive academic records attract new students.
Me? I’m not sure where I stand on this. My biggest problem, I suppose, is the existence of these stupid party schools that really steal people’s money. I drank on the weekends in college, but I spent the rest of the week in the library. I came out of college smarter than when I started. There are a disturbing number of colleges that are more party than class work. The most vulnerable are the lower income students who end up with a hangover and a huge student loan bill.
Apt. 11d 
Why does nobody focus on the good things that happen to kids who black out after twelve shots of tequila?
LikeLike
Yes – we’re so rigid in our thinking about issues.
LikeLike
It’s all that Emlightenment either/or thinking. We need more Eastern “and’s”.
LikeLike
Alcohol was easy to acquire in my (potentially the nerdiest school of all) university as well. I did not drink a lot anyway. At least one brilliant student flamed out in alcoholism my freshman year. There were drink fueled sexual assaults (I count having sex with someone who is unconscious as an assault).
I think mind-altering drugs (alcohol, marijuana, opiates, cocaine, . . . ) are risk factors in outcomes. Some kids may have the resources to remain focused while drinking, and others don’t. “Paying for the party” raises the concern that particular groups of kids (low income, with less support) might be more vulnerable for a variety of reasons (including the lack of second chances — I believe my brilliant dormmate went closer to home, to an equally prestigious school and recovered; the perpetrator in the assault went home for a semester and returned).
So, in my mind, the question colleges are facing is whether they are going to take on the paternalistic roles they used to have in the past, whether they can given the social mores of these times, what their legal responsibilities can and should be, whether they can take on more roles and still compete for students, . . . .
LikeLike
I attended a notoriously nerdy college.
But what else were people in Binghamton going to do but drink? I don’t even think there are enough cows around there to go cow tipping.
LikeLike
The administration’s fear of freshman dying from alcohol or being sexually assaulted is probably part of what’s behind colleges’ much mocked provision of bread and circuses. Colleges want to provide wholesome entertainment.
LikeLike
I think the biggest problem is the 21-year-old drinking age. That is what causes people to have 12 shots of tequila. If you’re drinking beer, you may fall asleep, but you can’t ingest enough alcohol fast enough to be emergency-room unconscious.
Another problem is that school administrations are caught between two politically correct factions–the sexual liberation faction and the anti-sex feminist faction (think Catharine MacKinnon, Andrea Dworkin, etc.) Administrators attempt to harmonize these irreconcilable views with impossibly strict definitions of “consensual,” which, like most overly strict rules, can only be enforced in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
Neither of the foregoing problems is soluble (at least not by college administrations), so I don’t intend to worry this issue much.
LikeLike
If you’re drinking beer, you may fall asleep, but you can’t ingest enough alcohol fast enough to be emergency-room unconscious.
This is true with regular beer, but don’t try it with that 8 to 10% alcohol stuff the kids are making these days.
Another problem is that school administrations are caught between two politically correct factions…
If you like, you can read a great deal of weird nonsense where people psycho-analyze school administrators, but really, they’re only worried about insurance policies, attracting students, alumni donations, and not getting in the news for something horrible.
LikeLike
The drinking age does play into it. At my Big 10 university, the bar entry age was 19 but you couldn’t buy until 21. This was all handled with a wink – generally everyone knew that over 21 students were buying for the 19 and 20 year-olds. The local towns that set the bar entry age did this to prevent the very things discussed here (keggers and house/frat parties). The idea was that keeping the students in public places with sober, paid staff was the more reasonable solution.
I drank my way through school, but I never attended a house/frat party. I felt safe because I was always in a bar.
LikeLike
Amherst has banned fraternity/sorority membership. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/06/amherst-college-fraternities-ban_n_5275705.html
I would think this will be challenged in the courts. Or not? I do not object to it, but it would threaten the hard-partying fraternity culture if it caught on.
LikeLike
In my former U, there has been an increase of paternalistic rule-making by the administration, on drugs, sexual harassment, hazing, and the removal of students deemed psychologically unstable. There’s pushback, but I’m guessing the U can get away with it, though there will be a cost, probably paid in the form of attracting more introverted misfits than it even already does. In the modern world, this might pan out OK, but it might produce some limits for the students too, in the overall education they receive, especially socially.
I think schools have taken the attitude that they can’t solve these problems in our pluralistic society. But, then, what guidance does that provide for, as we raised in the discussion about Monica Lewinsky, protecting our own daughters and sons? What guidance do we provide on attending sorority/fraternity parties? on choosing schools? on drinking?
I’m terribly conservative on all of those issues, and am comfortable with the social exclusion/isolation that the choices might produce. So is my older child. She’ll try to pick schools wehre this is a social culture apart from the “partying” one, but she’ll also put up with fewer friends in order to avoid it. My younger child? I’m not sure.
LikeLike
Considering the fact that our frontal lobes don’t finish maturing til our early twenties, some limits to mitigate risky behavior are prudent.
LikeLike
I’m thinking, as my older child reaches a transitional age, that this is easier to say and believe philosophically when children are younger. When you’re parenting a 10 year old (and I still am) it’s pretty easy to see a black line, say, about alcohol use — he’s not ready — and the ability to enforce — he dosn’t really know yet how to use money to buy things (a skill we’re trying to teach him now).
The 13 year old, on the other hand, who is very mature and responsible does buy things, carries a credit card, and a phone, travels by herself, waits for rides, and, will, I think this summer, be using public transportation on her own. I can see how mature she is and how much I expect of her in many ways. It becomes a bit illogical to imagine that she can’t drink responsibility (if not now, when, I do believe, she would chose to not drink at all, as the responsible choice) or when she’s 18 (when, maybe, she’d want to try the occasional margarita, I imagine). As the kids get older, their responsibility in making the appropriate choices for themselves grow and our ability to regulate their behavior shrinks, making the concept of limits that we can see working for our 10 year olds become a much more complicated idea.
LikeLike
Not saying it’s simple. Throw in a range of risk-seeking personalities and you have even more complications.
LikeLike
Maybe it was just me, but I spent my high school years getting stoned instead of drunk (because the drug dealer never carded me). Then I got to college, where the drinking age was 21, and promptly learned the joys of dating older men who could buy. What could possibly go wrong?
I think my point here is that it’s just not possible to regulate moderation into kids who aren’t feeling moderate. Making it illegal simply drives it underground. Honestly? I say limit the scope of stuff they can screw up while wasted. New regulations that make it illegal for kids to drive their friends around, those are effective. Let’s limit a kid’s ability to commit to $100K worth of student loans on a whim. More Norplant for everyone. You see where I’m headed.
LikeLike
Do any studies show that those regulations work? I don’t really understand how they are enforced. Are cops expected to identify someone who is 18 (vs 16) with similarly aged passengers while they are driving past? Are kids allowed to drive their siblings? Also, I don’t want to drive them to the movie. It is fine with me if they drive their friends to the movie. (One of the happiest days of my life was when my son got his license – FREEDOM!!! FOR ME!!! He can drive his sister YAY!!!!!!)
I also oppose giving cops yet another reason to pull people over. It is ALWAYS abused. (And again – how do they identify age in order to pull someone over – just pull over all young people? Yeah – that’s not gonna be abused.)
I think we have done a good job of reducing drunk driving and car accidents in general. What you are proposing seems rather draconian for the amount of improvement I suspect we will get.
LikeLike
I’m not completely clear on what the difference is between regulating driving and regulating alcohol and marijuana. Is it that we enforce one of the regulations and not the other? Is it that one is easier to regulate than the other (since driving has to be done in public, but buying and consuming drugs can be done in private)?
LikeLike
Our state introduced graduated licensing some time ago. More than anything else, it has helped to decrease teenaged driving deaths.
Local high schools have instituted draconian prom policies. Everyone is bussed to the prom. They’re checked for alcohol and drunkenness when they arrive at the school parking lot. Random breathalyzer tests during the event. Fun fun fun!
I agree with the Amethyst Initiative. College students are drinking more now than they were when the drinking age was 18. The colleges can’t be involved, due to liability. It may surprise some, but intelligence and temperance do not go hand in hand. Prohibition didn’t work in the ’30s, and it doesn’t work in the age of the internet, home color printing, and easily available laminating supplies.
All the change in the drinking age has done is to have driven the drinking off campus and underground. And it’s increased interest in non-alcoholic alternatives for parties. Not sparkling cider. Illicit drugs of all kinds.
LikeLike
Calling the rules “Tiered driving” regulations is a good encapsulation, I think, because i think one big part of the benefit has been increasing the practice period of driving. Yes, the kids are maturing, but, I think they’re also just becoming better drivers.
LikeLike
@Tulip, I’m not proposing anything, I’m talking about what’s already in place. The driving regulations I am familiar with limit a car to two occupants under the age of 18, unless they’re related. So you can drive your siblings around but you can’t load the car up with all your besties and cruise around (which I did in high school, and which was the cause of much trouble). These rules also limit nighttime driving. Here’s an overview of the regulations in Illinois, and they do vary some by state:
http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/departments/drivers/teen_driver_safety/gdl.html
Both anecdotally and formally I’ve seen evidence that such programs are working. The rate of teen drunk driving fatalities has dropped at twice the rate of the general population:
http://www.ct.gov/dmv/cwp/view.asp?Q=538750&A=807
http://responsibility.org/drunk-driving/underage-drunk-driving-fatalities-under-21
BJ, I like the way you phrase this – that drinking/drugs are done in private, which makes them very hard to enforce. Also, while the impacts of drinking/drugs can be awful, these impacts are typically felt most by the drinker him/herself, and are somewhat recoverable. Not so with drunken car accidents.
But Tulip does make a good point about enforcement abuse – I’m not sure how these are enforced currently.
LikeLike
It would be interesting to see data on enforcement abuse. It would not be surprising to hear that groups of kids in a car would be treated differently based on race. On the other hand, I do think that the new regulations have decreased the cruising behavior that used to be a big part of teenage social life — groups of kids in a car driving up and down the street, even among the higher SES teens, who might not be the target of enforcement, because that behavior is public (that’s it’s point).
I’ve definitely seen an increase in awareness of risks among the teen and pre-teen drivers I’ve seen learn to drive in this new era of greater knowledge of drinking/driving concerns, tiered driving rules, . . . . Driving has been reduced to its more utilitarian purpose — getting from one place to another, and been disassociated from the party/independence cars used to provide in the days I remember. Combined with increased risk awareness, there’s been an increase among the teens in the perceived cost of driving and a decrease in its utility (especially if they haven’t heard “we can’t drive you” as a reason why they can’t do something very often).
And, yes, I think it’s pretty well documented that there have been decreases in teen accidents/injuries/deaths (though I’d have to look that up to see how much of the effect can be disassociated from the generally increased safety of cars and how much can be attributed to changing rules).
LikeLike
I will have to go check the links. Thank you for those. On the one hand, I can see that not having a bunch of teens in the car means they are less distracted, but on the other hand, now you have 2 or 3 cars with teen drivers. I am interested in how the sort out the confounds.
As far as the cruising around – I stopped my kids from doing that by checking the odometer.
LikeLike
“On the one hand, I can see that not having a bunch of teens in the car means they are less distracted, but on the other hand, now you have 2 or 3 cars with teen drivers. I am interested in how the sort out the confounds.”
I think one of the effects of the regulations has been a decrease in the number of teen drivers (statistically, but don’t have the data handy). That’s certainly true in my personal experience of the teens I’ve watched become drivers. But, the sample is small and non-random, including urban, difficult driving (traffic, bridges, etc.), high SES, and public transportation.
I do worry whether one of the effects of the regulation will be kids not learning to drive when they are young — which could mean over all poorer driving skills, since I think driving is a skill that might be better acquired young, like bicycling and/or a population of non-driving adults (which limits opportunity).
LikeLike
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/07/the-dramatic-30-year-decline-of-young-drivers-in-1-chart/260126/
(about 28% of 16 yo have licenses in 2010, as opposed to 45% in 1983, and, for 17 yo, 70% v 48%). My guess is that these trends may vary geographically and that some areas might have even higher drops in driving rates while others show minimal drops.
The article raises another player in the teen-driving equation — the availability of the internet for interaction, without having to drive to socialize.
LikeLike