Last semester, I took a course on international negotiations in which my class learned what was described as the preeminent strategy taught to all negotiators. The book from which this theory stemmed, "Getting to Yes," by Roger Fisher and William Ury of the Harvard Negotiation Project, challenges conventional negotiation strategy by putting forth a new, principled form of negotiation. The authors' call to reexamine traditional approaches to negotiation has direct and critical relevance to the current debate about the university's alcohol policy.
Fisher and Ury characterize conventional negotiation strategy as positional bargaining — in which each party claims a position and then negotiates and bargains with the other parties to find a compromise. Classic examples include haggling over a price or fighting about which movie to see. Fisher and Ury deplore positional bargaining for three primary reasons: It produces unwise agreements, it is inefficient, and it harms the relationship between parties. Instead of working together to find the best solution to a problem, parties fight over entrenched positions; a discussion turns into a battle.
The current evolution of the alcohol debate seems like positional bargaining. Administrators put forth a position: All alcohol violations will lead to level-one disciplinary probation. In response, students shot back, arguing that we should revert to the old warning policy or some position in between. Since then, much of the debate has been negotiation between these two positions. A quote from Dean of Student Affairs Bruce Reitman in a recent Daily article illustrates the entrenchment of these positions: "I will be open-minded to different ways to approach this issue, but we're not going to abandon the new effort." In this fight, we've lost sight of trying to find the best way to solve the underlying problem of student drinking.
So what is the alternative? Fisher and Ury's answer is principled negotiation — separating the people from the problem, focusing on interests rather than positions, inventing options for mutual gain and insisting on objective criteria. This is precisely the method that I believe is necessary to find a solution to the alcohol problem.
1. Separate the people from the problem.
This step says that to reach successful agreements, parties must be willing to work together as equals, ensuring that prior history or interactions do not cloud their willingness to collaborate. Coming together on alcohol policy, it is important that as student leaders we view the administration not as adversaries but rather as partners who care about the school as we do. I think that of Fisher and Ury's four criteria, this point is the most minor issue — both sides do seem very willing to work together — but nonetheless it is one of which we should remain cognizant.
2. Focus on interests, not positions.
This one is critical. To reach the right solution, parties need to start not by laying out positions but by thinking about and expressing their interests. What are the issues that we truly care about in the debate? What are the problems we are trying to solve? Once we identify the problem and our priorities, then we can discuss solutions.
In our negotiation on alcohol, we should begin by focusing on interests. To me, our interest should be mitigating the dangerous drinking that we've seen in the past few years and changing a culture that encourages excessive drinking over safe and responsible behavior. With this interest clear and the problem we are trying to address defined, we can then move to the next step: thinking about the causes of that problem and brainstorming creative solutions.
3. Invent options for mutual gain.
4. Insist on objective criteria.
One of the problems with our current positional bargaining is that we seem to be locked into viewing alcohol abuse as something that can only be addressed through various levels of disciplinary action. Once locked into this paradigm, we lose sight of other potential solutions.
Rather than asking how severely we should punish students for alcohol violations, we should be exploring why students are drinking in such excess and brainstorming innovative solutions to address that problem. Then, once we have collected potential solutions, we should evaluate them based on an objective standard.
Fortunately, we don't have to reinvent the wheel. Colleges across the country deal with excessive drinking and many, such as Dartmouth and Washington University in St. Louis, have come up with unique approaches to keep students safe. Even more exciting, these programs appear to work.
Increased penalties should certainly be one of the options on the table — along with innovative educational approaches, student support services, campaigns to change societal norms and medical amnesty. Then, having collected these options, we should evaluate them based on what works. If we find that schools have successfully reduced student drinking through harsher penalties, then that may become the frontrunner for Tufts' strategy. However, if we find that schools have greatly reduced student drinking through programs such as medical amnesty, independent external hotlines and other measures, then those should be the ones we choose.
As students and administrators, we must commit ourselves not to our positions, but to the objective standard the student body deserves. If we are serious about addressing alcohol abuse, then we should be serious about pursuing whichever solutions have been proven to work best. In essence, rather than debating over an alcohol policy, we need to be working together to devise an alcohol strategy — an integrated approach combining the most effective policies, support systems and tools used in colleges across the country.
As chairman of the Tufts Community Union (TCU) Senate Administration and Policy Committee, I, like administrators, stand fully cognizant of the gravity of the dangerous problem we confront. If we don't take serious action to change current drinking habits at Tufts, it is likely that someone will die from alcohol abuse. My interest lies in making students safer and in confronting a culture of dangerous drinking. Rather than engaging in ineffective positional bargaining, I agree with Fisher and Ury and with TCU President Brandon Rattiner that we need to consider all options and select those which have been proven to work rather than jumping into a new policy.
--
Bruce Ratain is a junior majoring in political science. He is a TCU senator and is the chair of the TCU Senate Administration and Policy Committee.
