Underage drinking is a bad thing.
If we start by saying that, perhaps the rest of our words can be taken in context. We at the Emerald, as well as the University and the Eugene Police Department, believe that young adults must learn to, when legally allowed, use society’s most prevalent legal intoxicant responsibly.
How, then, does a society go about encouraging responsible, legal use, and how does it best punish illegal use? The University’s and the EPD’s tactics strike us as ineffective and neglectful of students’ rights.
For the encouragement aspect, the University works in conjunction with the EPD to provide education focusing on the risks of underage alcohol use. There are safety awareness programs with student groups and the Greek system, discussions during IntroDucktion and the recently created BUSTED program, which allows those with minor in possession citations to have their police record wiped clean after taking a University class. There are pros and cons to the BUSTED program, but education about the Constitutional rights of legal adults age 18 to 20 is overlooked.
On the punishment side, the University has a zero-tolerance policy for underage alcohol use in the campus area, and after the last University riots in October 1998, the EPD instituted its “party patrol” every Friday and Saturday night to make pre-emptive strikes at those who host friends of all ages with alcohol present. Punishment has been increasing in recent years, sometimes at the expense of students’ rights, while the education factor is clearly not doing enough.
The University should be applauded for instituting the BUSTED program. Young adults make mistakes, and offering them a second chance without marring their permanent record is a good thing.
And perhaps having to sit through lectures and write papers about the risks and responsibility of alcohol use will have an effect. But it can also seem like an easy way out. And simply offering the class begs the question: At an educational institution focused on reducing underage drinking, why is the basic BUSTED class not required for freshmen, with an advanced level available for those charged with an MIP?
With the laudation done, we can say the zero-tolerance policy and the party patrol are not having the desired effect. Holding up the act of drinking as taboo will not discourage underage use in a society that constantly glorifies the intoxicated state. And the party patrol plays on society’s current infatuation with militaristic policing in order to write tickets — tickets that are clearly not helping. In 1997, 505 MIP tickets were written. For the 1999-2000 school year, the number of tickets in the campus area alone was 1,118. Some of the increase can be attributed to the increased patrols, but where is the deterrent effect?
Part of the EPD’s party patrol duty is to do pre-emptive keg checks. This means that when someone buys a keg and indicates where and when the keg will be tapped, the EPD checks this list and shows up at the house early to find out if the keg has been prematurely tapped and if there might be something illegal going on. What would we say if every time someone purchased an anarchist book, they had to write down their name and address and the police could show up — just to see if maybe something illegal was happening yet? That sounds awfully militaristic, and it can happen militaristically, playing on students’ lack of knowledge of their rights.
“Students,” says Ilona Koleszar of the ASUO Legal Services, “are incredibly interested in their rights.”
Koleszar is an independent contractor employed by the ASUO. Koleszar says the Legal Services and Office of Student Advocacy, located in 334 EMU, is, as far as she knows, “the only place where students are given their constitutional rights, if they ask.”
Koleszar explains that students come to her, fazed by a potential violation of their rights.
“They’re genuinely offended when a cop is climbing through their window, after being refused entry at the door, because they have a keg on the premises,” Koleszar says. “Why are the police going to that door? Is this a community caretaking function?”
The University, as caretaker of young adults for a few years, should be informing students of their rights. But there is no formal University program offering this information. This from an institution of higher learning?
Koleszar works to be sure that students do know their rights. And she is often chastised, as she and the Emerald were on local TV station KVAL earlier this school year, for giving students the knowledge of their rights to protect them in a situation when they have chosen to drink illegally. We’re not, and she’s not, condoning illegal behavior. Koleszar talks about students’ responsibilities as students, citizens and humans, as well as talking about their rights.
But students age 18 to 20 are legal adults. They can make choices for themselves. If they choose to do something illegal, they should be informed of their rights under the Constitution so that they can make the choice of how best to conduct themselves when the party patrol comes knocking on their doors. To deny them that is an outrage and will only serve to further alienate students from police — which is what led to the University rioting in the first place.