The law of unintended consequences

When you were a little kid, if you inadvertently caused something bad to happen, you could explain to your parents, "But I didn't mean to!" And they would say, "Aw, sweetie, we know you didn't mean to." And you would get a hug and a kiss and everything would be better. But after age seven, your intentions cease to matter. You are responsible for the outcomes of your actions, regardless of your intentions. The fact that the outcome is not necessarily the outcome you intended is irrelevant. Unfortunately, many people within the University have failed to grasp this concept.

The changed enforcement of alcohol policies and new regulations regarding social life are one of the most obvious examples in recent memory. In an interview with the Daily ("Alcohol policy also frustrates administration" Oct. 15), TUPD Captain Mark Keith said, "Speculation that the administration is seeking to kill the social life here is absolutely not true." But regardless of what the administration is seeking to do, there has definitely been a dulling of the social scene here as a result of its actions.

There are, in fact, dangerous unintentional consequences of the changes surrounding partying and alcohol policies on campus. Four times more students have been treated for alcohol poisoning by TEMS this year than in years prior, and it's easy to understand why. While some of this increase can be attributed to the change in policy surrounding alcohol-related calls to TEMS, the majority of this increase is likely due to changes in drinking behaviors.

As fraternity parties decrease, students begin drinking in their rooms and apartments more often. In these settings, there are less non-alcohol related social activities such as dancing. Students tend to drink more hard alcohol and less beer, and there is less restriction of access to alcohol. Acknowledging that college students will drink regardless of law or school policy, fraternity parties offer protective factors, particularly in that they're location is known and that they can accommodate large numbers of students in one place. There is safety in numbers.

These decisions are rampant this year and extend much farther than changes in the alcohol policy. Ranging from decisions by the TCU Senate to possible changes in graduation, administrative bodies would do well to thoroughly examine the consequences of their actions.

Changes to undergraduate graduation recently proposed by academic administrators also would have severe unintentional consequences. Having students graduate by major instead of by college would actually counteract the desired goal of creating a more 'personal' graduation ceremony. Since only some of students' friendships are academically based, students will not have the chance to watch their friends graduate. Sense of community will decrease, as students will be divided by major on their final day at Tufts, something that has not been particularly divisive in the rest of a student's four years in school. Yes, the ceremony would be shorter and people would be less restless, but the unintended negative consequences of short major graduations would far outweigh the inconvenience of a lengthy ceremony.

Our highest-ranking administrator, President Bacow, felt the wrath of unintended consequences himself last winter. In response to the Naked Quad Run and surrounding activities, he sent a somewhat-hostile email to the student body. Presumably, his intentions were to make undergraduates realize the magnitude of the unsafe and out-of-control nature of the event. However, he ended up angering students with his harsh, uncompromising language. Ironically, many of these students had also been upset by the tone of the 2002 Run, and, given a gentler response, would have worked to increase the safety of the event. Now, some of these same students are convinced of the need to party harder at this year's Run.

But, of course, "adults" aren't the only ones on campus failing to realize the range of effects of their actions. A change in the TCU bylaws passed last year prohibiting student organizations from charging admission to student activity-funded events has led to numerous negative consequences, although cynics would argue these consequences were intentional.

The first concrete example occurred at this year's Leonard Carmichael Society (LCS) annual semi-formal, when the group raised $1,000 less for charity than last year, despite increased marketing, likely due to the fact that the admission fee was a "suggested donation." The Senate argued the changed policy was to argue for fairness, in that students already pay the student activity fee, and that students shouldn't "pay twice." At the time, it was argued that this practice led to "compulsory charity."

Charity is a large part of the mission of groups like LCS, and since LCS is a recognized student organization, charity is implicitly funded anyway. However, this policy actually sends an anti-giving message to student organizations and the students that participate in them. This attempt at "fairness" ends up being the most unfair, because it provides funds for students who want to do purely social things, but penalizes students who wish to do things like raising money for others. At a university grounded on the ideals of public service, this does not make sense.

In none of these situations have people meant to do harm to the University community, but, nonetheless, bad policy has occurred. I've personally learned the danger of unintended consequences the hard way. The old adage, "Think before you speak," does not lose its meaning as we age. Before making any decision in life, we have to analyze every impact it could potentially have. If we don't, not only do we risk advancing a position contrary to one we intend, but we also risk being the ones to blame for the troubles that exist.