SMU's Recommendations on Substance Abuse Prevention

[Dallas Brave]

SMU, like many other colleges and universities, has had to deal with the tragic deaths of several students due to alcohol and drug abuse. Yesterday, SMU President Gerald Turner accepted 36 of 38 recommendations made by a campus task force on substance abuse prevention. Dr. Turner's decisions, outlined in a 22-page report, cap nearly a year's worth of work by a group of school leaders, professors and students. He convened the task force last year after three students died from drug or alcohol overdoses.

Here is a link to the newspaper article:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/042908dnmetsmudrugs.3810356.html

Here is a summary of the recommendations accepted and rejected:

ACCEPTED:
???Encourage students to report violations of SMU's drug and alcohol rules when their health, or a friend's health, is at risk. In some cases, students would avoid campus sanctions but still be subject to police citation or arrest.
???Increase the number of Friday classes.
???Limit the number of course drops during a student's academic career.
???Increase the time students spend on academics outside class.
???Hold more late-night and weekend events on campus, giving students more social options.
???Discourage parties on school nights. Organizations must register off-campus parties with SMU.
???Expand campus health center hours to 3 a.m. Thursday-Saturday.

REJECTED:
???Allow student groups to serve beer on campus to those of drinking age.
???Establish a pub on campus where students and others of legal

[Da Coach]

REJECTED:
???Allow student groups to serve beer on campus to those of drinking age.
???Establish a pub on campus where students and others of legal

This all sounds good, but will it have any effect? I am skeptical, but at least they are doing something. I am glad they rejected those last 2. It would definitely send the wrong message to sanction drinking on campus.

[tornado]

I would like to play the "Devil's advocate", and ask a couple theoretic quesitons...

--Since we all know that college kids (for the most part or the large majority) WILL be drinking, some even will be doing it right on campus, in their dorms, and while underage!
So if we all agree it goes on all the time and they are going to do it anyway, then instead of "preaching abstinence", shouldn't we be teaching them to do it responsibly, and how to avoid the pitfalls that go with doing it irresponsibly?
Isn't it a bit presumptuous to impose our morality and tell them it is wrong to do so?

We could teach them to have "Safe Drinking" instead of "unsafe drinking".
Teaching abstinence is closed minded, backwards, and ignores the obvious that everyone is already doing it.

[pfunk880]

I would like to play the "Devil's advocate", and ask a couple theoretic quesitons...

--Since we all know that college kids (for the most part or the large majority) WILL be drinking, some even will be doing it right on campus, in their dorms, and while underage!
So if we all agree it goes on all the time and they are going to do it anyway, then instead of "preaching abstinence", shouldn't we be teaching them to do it responsibly, and how to avoid the pitfalls that go with doing it irresponsibly?
Isn't it a bit presumptuous to impose our morality and tell them it is wrong to do so?

We could teach them to have "Safe Drinking" instead of "unsafe drinking".
Teaching abstinence is closed minded, backwards, and ignores the obvious that everyone is already doing it.

So we should be teaching people how to break the law responsibly...?

[Dallas Brave]

So we should be teaching people how to break the law responsibly...?

To their credit, the university sought recommendations to consider, even if they pushed the edge. I believe that the thinking of having a pub on campus was considered as a way to counter:

• Kids driving off-campus to go to bars
• By having a pub on campus, the university would be better positioned to create an environment where responsible consumption occurred. Obviously, the school has no control on bars outside of campus.

One of the main problems with this idea is that most students who are of legal drinking age live off-campus, so ironically some would have to drive from campus after inbibing. This idea was rejected, but I think it was worthy of consideration.

While the causes of alcohol and drug abuse are beyond the ability of universities to address, there are measures that schools can take to ensure that academic schedules are structured such that students have less time to party if they want to stay in school. Many professors had developed a bad habit of not having, or lessening the importance of, Friday classes. Which, in turn, has made Thursday night an even bigger party night than it has been historically. I believe that in the future, SMU students will find out that they are taking many more exams on Friday!

[BradleyBrave]

Whether you're a drinker or non-drinker, I think we all know that a large number of college kids ARE going to participate in some sort of alcohol consumption while away at school. Unfortunately, I think universities are in a tough spot here. If they loosen campus restrictions in order to keep the drinkers 'on campus' to cut down on drunk driving, etc. they take on some liability that they likely don't want (looking at the lawyers on the board). If they tighten restrictions and make drinking on-campus impossible, they're likely pushing the students to local bars where they can't be monitored as closely and are subject to much more dangerous situations (drunk driving) and more severe penalties (fake ID's, DUI's). What's the answer? I think a hard-line position either way could send a university down a slippery slope.