As any good politician would, Tufts Community Union (TCU) President Brandon Rattiner used his State of the TCU speech last week to address one of the principal concerns facing students this semester: the dramatic shift in the university's alcohol policy. The change means that a student's first alcohol offense now sends him or her straight to level-one probation, or pro-one.
In his speech, Rattiner diplomatically emphasized the need for students to change their habits and attitudes toward drinking, but he equally criticized what he called the university's unilateral decision to change the policy without significant input from the students in the Senate. He expressed hope for collaboration with the administration on this subject throughout the year, citing the creation of the Alcohol Task Force, among other things, as an example of the ways in which the administration is giving students a voice.
The Daily emphasizes that these words must materialize in more than the creation of a new task force. It is up to Rattiner more than anyone else to ensure that the voices of Tufts students reach the administration's ears as this university's misbegotten new policy is examined and hopefully rethought in the future.
Rattiner put great stock in the just-formed Alcohol Task Force. It involves student representatives and exemplifies the university's apparent attempt to bring students' voices into the policy-making process. It also seems a bit late, considering the circumstances.
While we can hope that the administration's intention in creating this body is to truly include students in the decisions that will directly impact their lives, it is a fact of history — as demonstrated by the U.S. Congress and large corporations, for example — that such organizations often serve simply to deflect criticism and offer only a façade of collaboration.
There is clearly a need for more student perspectives. Dean of Student Affairs Bruce Reitman told the Daily's news section that he understands that students are usually appreciative of friends who call Tufts Emergency Medical Services (TEMS) on their behalf when they have drunk excessively. Too often, because of the punishment attached to receiving treatment from TEMS, the opposite is true. This sort of limited understanding of student sentiments on Reitman's part could be largely responsible for the probation policy amendment, which the dean spearheaded.
It will be largely up to Rattiner to make sure students are heard in this discussion, and he can do that in a number of ways.
First, he can make sure that the task force schedules meetings regularly and often. One discussion every month will not suffice if the group is to gain a holistic understanding of the drinking culture and decide how to address it. Second, the task force must create specific suggestions for policy alterations, formulating a list that is too well researched, comprehensive and articulate to ignore. Third, and most importantly, the task force must be unequivocal in stating that punishment is not an effective means of prevention.
It is a well-established truth when dealing with criminality, and it is especially the case here: Neither probation nor the TEMS truck ever enters most students' minds when they are taking those last few ill-advised shots. The most effective method of precluding this sort of unsafe decision is peer mentoring, and it should be a basic part of the freshman curriculum — namely, orientation programming — for older undergraduates to earnestly discuss wise drinking habits and methods for dealing with unwise ones.
Before we can expect the task force to be unequivocal, Rattiner must be so himself. He has yet to clearly and publicly state his opposition to the deleterious new policy. Your move, Mr. President.
