The Student Life Committee (SLC) recently voted in favor of making already-strict University party policies even more stringent. The new rules, effective next year, make it mandatory for student party hosts to register any woodframe party of 25 or more people if alcohol will be served, and any parties serving alcohol must say that alcohol will be served upon registration. We have several questions regarding this policy. Why make a frequently disregarded rule even stricter? When did the administration plan on informing us of these changes? And when did the administration become our nanny?
One troubling aspect of this rule change is the way in which it was made. The SLC, comprised of students and administrators, voted in favor of the rule change on a night in which more administrators than students were present at the group’s meeting. The voting numbers are not being released, and there was no announcement to students detailing the changes. But students will surely find the changes in a contract that they will have no choice but to sign in the fall.
This brings up the larger issue of the administration imposing its rules on students, the vast majority of whom have no option but to conform. ResLife refuses to grant off-campus housing except in extenuating circumstances—or when ResLife senior staffers suddenly realize that they are in dire straits because there are not enough on-campus rooms to accommodate all students. Why can’t off-campus housing be an option for any student who does not agree with an administrative policy—whether the policy involves pets and tapestries, or parties and cigarettes? We’re talking about social regulations, not academic policy, and at what point can we say the administration has gone too far?
Some rule changes are necessary, but it is hard to see the merit of this one. Administrators claim that registering parties in this way helps them share the liability with students should something go wrong, but it seems that students who register parties actually become more liable themselves. It also seems that administrators are playing make believe. A rule change will not change behavior, you can’t ask people to have smaller parties, but it will result in an increased number of SJB referrals.
Administrators also cite tracking students as a reason for the party policies, but if every 25-person gathering on a Saturday night was truly reported, they would be all over the campus map, which helps no one, not even Public Safety. If the administration wants to track us, why not start by changing policies to ensure that ResLife knows where students actually live—especially in the case of students who have—and are forced to pay for—housing both on campus and in an off-campus fraternity? If the administration is going to change rules, the changes should actually benefit someone.
Leave a Reply