Published: April 1, 2010

We are all aware that, for better or worse, the legal drinking age in the United States is 21. However, we are also all aware that underage drinking is hardly uncommon in universities throughout the country. As the New York Times recently reported, some universities, including Virginia Tech and M.I.T., have decided to take an active and repressive role in reigning in underage drinking. When they catch someone who is underage with alcohol, they call his or her parents. The hope is that students are more afraid of their parents’ reactions than of possible legal ramifications. Fordham University has had a similar policy in place for years. Freshmen must call their parents after the first underage drinking incident, whereas upperclassmen are required to call home after a warning. However, there is no data available from before the policy was implemented, making it impossible to evaluate the effectiveness of the policy. Anecdotally, parental reaction seems to span the entire spectrum from anger towards the student (for underage drinking), to anger towards the administration (for requiring the student to call home).

One could easily object to this practice on grounds of privacy. However, far more egregious is the way the administrations of these universities try to instill fear into students. How can they claim to be a place where students can grow and flourish, when they treat them like children? College is about learning one’s boundaries—whether that is the amount of sleep we can get by with or how much we can drink and still be fine. It also means learning how to deal with issues on our own and not having to depend on others to straighten things out. It is a time when relationships with our parents change, from being fully dependent on them to, hopefully, a friendship on more equal terms. Universities have to be places of open exchange and provide a sense of safety. Using fear as a means of enforcing obedience is antithetical to that objective.

According to Keith Eldredge, dean of students at FCLC, Fordham’s policy is not meant to scare students. Because one possible sanction of repeated violations is expulsion from the dorms, he argues that parents should receive a heads up. According to him, parental involvement does influence students even if the parents are not nearby. It does seem reasonable that parents should be notified ahead of such a sanction—especially if they are paying for the student’s accommodations. However, excessive drinking appears to be less of a problem at Lincoln Center, possibly because much of the drinking happens at bars where drinking is more expensive and one is less isolated.

However, universities in general seem to misrepresent the problem: the issue on campus is not with underage drinking, but with excessive drinking. The latter is a problem even if someone is 21, whereas it is hard to muster outrage over someone drinking a beer at age 18. Indeed, at Fordham you can be sanctioned even if you are not consuming alcohol but are merely in the presence of someone who is. Universities should aim to educate, and not merely enforce the state’s rules for their own sake, especially when they are not by law required to do so. They could educate, for example, by correcting our perception of social norms.

Consider two approaches to reducing excessive drinking. The Saskatchewan Ministry of Health in Canada created a scare campaign, relying on guilt and shame, showing a drunken girl laying on the floor and the caption “You always have a choice.” Georgetown University, in contrast, produced an upbeat campaign, with one caption reading “Did you know… most Hoyas have 0-4 drinks when they party?” Leaving aside the possibility that everyone in Saskatchewan is a drunk, thus making the latter campaign impossible, which campaign do you think is more desirable? Which is more successful?

The percentage of students who drink excessively declined significantly at Georgetown (21 percent over a 4-year period). Students simply had a wrong understanding of the prevalent social norms. Campaigns like the one in Canada, however, may actually increase excessive drinking, according to a study by the Kellogg School of Management. This is not an isolated success for social norms. Similar campaigns have reduced excessive drinking at other universities. Indeed, it is not even limited to drinking. An approach based on social norms has been used to reduce energy consumption.

Fordham, too, tries to educate students about social norms. During orientation week, incoming freshmen have to go through a presentation on alcohol and drugs. However, the information does not appear to stick: a survey conducted every other year shows that students still estimate that others consume twice as much alcohol as they actually do. Fordham does not have a full-time position for alcohol and drug education, and the position that usually deals with it is currently unstaffed. Therefore, there simply are not enough resources available to deploy a social norm campaign.

Universities in general, and Fordham in particular, may offer events and activities where no alcohol is provided. However, prominent events and networking opportunities include alcohol, as they do outside of academia. It seems a more mature approach towards dealing with alcohol is required. Especially because my inbox includes invitations to wine and beer tastings at Fordham, wine is poured after presentations on the 12th floor, and academia itself is known for its culture of drinking—not just among students.

Rate Your Students, a blog that anonymously publishes rants and stories written by professors, recently asked for submissions to see if professors really do drink as much as is the cliché. The posted responses were overwhelmingly from more-than-casual drinkers. As one writer framed it: “I’ve determined that the perfect state to be in is half-drunk. Still be sober enough to know what I’m doing but sufficiently numb that I don’t care.”

Ironically, two of the frequent complaints on the site deal with parents of students and the university administration. If more universities decide to tell on their students, maybe we can get drunk with our professors and complain about the very same people. That kind of bonding might actually provide an upside to a misguided university policy. First round is on me.