Columbia alcohol policy protects University at expense of student health and safety

The Columbia University undergraduate alcohol policy directly and negatively impacts the health and safety of the student body. It gives students incentives to act in an unsafe and unhealthy manner.

But maybe I'm getting ahead of myself.

If you are close to any one of us, you would know by now that we are involved in a disciplinary process with Columbia over an incident that occurred in early March. Now that the bulk of the trial hearings are over, I feel confidant that I can publish the details without consequence. The short of the matter is that a freshman drank before coming to our suite--where we provided her no alcohol--and became sick. A second freshman, still naive and believing Columbia to be a benign institution that actually cares about the welfare of its students, called CAVA and instructed them to come to our suite. CAVA met the intoxicated individual as she was on her way home in the courtyard, deemed the call to be unnecessary and permitted the student to return home to sleep off the alcohol.

Where do we come in?

Blissfully unaware of the forces building up against us, like a tsunami out at sea, the Monday after spring break Columbia welcomed us back with open arms and an allegation for "Reckless endangerment of student health."

We just had our hearings today, which made us aware of some troubling developments: the concept of a "fair hearing" at the judicial process is a farce, the policies the University maintains are contradictory and any notion that the University actually prioritizes the well-being of its students over itself is blatantly untrue.

The fact of the matter is that somebody at our party called CAVA for somebody they thought was in trouble, and now everybody involved is facing disciplinary action. If students perceive that calling CAVA gets you in trouble, it completely undermines the purpose of a critical service. For this very reason, sane universities have instituted Good Samaritan policies to protect anybody involved in the incident. For example, an excerpt of Dartmouth's alcohol policy:

"When a student or organization assists an intoxicated individual in procuring Safety and Security, local or state police, and/or professional medical assistance, neither the intoxicated individual, if a Dartmouth student, nor the individual or group who assists will be subject to formal College disciplinary action for (1) being intoxicated, or (2) having provided that person alcohol."

An editorial on the subject presents the argument for the Good Samaritan laws in that "they provide students with the clarity they need in order to make responsible, life saving decisions during confusing and stressful party situations. Every minute spent worrying about judicial consequences is another minute it will take for help to arrive. That minute can very literally be the difference between life and death."¹

When I raised this issue with the Judiciary Affairs office, it was blown off with a confusing statement that since I am 21, if somebody were to call CAVA on me, I "would not be sitting where I am right now." Should students then be checking ID on unconscious or injured people before calling for help? This is exactly the weighing of "judicial consequences" the editorial calls to abolish. Columbia bureaucracy either cannot or refuses to even consider the negative ramifications of linking CAVA and disciplinary action. In the future, If I were to come across an individual in need within my suite I would either 1) not call for help or 2) move the injured individual and dump them outside the boundary of the suite before seeking assistance.


This is a problem.

Columbia maintains that the "common room" is a public space and therefore nobody (not even people of age) can possess or consume alcohol in it--despite the fact that the residents of the common room are responsible for all actions that occur within it. According to the judiciary committee, the only place a legal student can drink is within their own room, the occupancy of which cannot ever exceed only a few people. Though one would like to give the university the benefit of the doubt, it makes it much easier to pin infractions on individuals should there be a problem when they are drinking in their own room as opposed to the slight chance the university might assume liability for a problem which occurs in a common space.

Columbia's policies encourage individuals to a) drink alone and away from peer supervision inside their own rooms and b) not seek assistance for anybody who could be in a potentially dangerous situation.

Are these the policies of a university who cares about its students? It's clear that Columbia places minimizing its own liability higher than the health and safety of its undergraduate population.

¹http://media.www.diamondbackonline.com