As The Phillipian reported this week, more than thirty students were placed on Sanctuary or DC’d for drinking alcohol during the Winter. Obviously, such a dramatic increase raises questions, especially about the total number of students drinking on campus. This situation also brings to light some important issues surrounding our disciplinary system. No one questions that faculty and administrators are primarily concerned with the health and safety of students in their charge. However, I would advocate some minor changes to the way our discipline system works, specifically concerning ex-post facto situations and the possible use of a breathalyzer. The Blue Book states, “As a community concerned about health and safety, we strive to educate students about the potential dangers of alcohol, tobacco and other drugs.” As this implies, the health and safety of students is the primary reason for our discipline system. However, there have been some concerns raised throughout the term about how students are becoming involved with discipline. On at least two separate occasions last term, groups of students were involved with drinking and were not caught in the act by faculty members. Later, the students involved had conversations with their cluster deans and confessed to their actions. In some cases, these students were then DC’d and given probation, while in others, they were given a form of sanctuary. Obviously, nothing excuses the conduct of these students and the punishments they received were warranted by their actions. However, there is more to consider. As WQN Cluster Dean Chad Green said to The Phillipian, “We are not purposely trying to discipline students…we are more concerned for their well being.” I don’t think there is a dean on this campus that wants to discipline students, and thus, the school should consider changing how “after the fact” cases are handled. When Deans hear of future drinking cases, students should be approached and told that they were rumored to be drinking, but that they will not face any discipline, only Sanctuary, so long as they tell the complete truth. This method ensures that health and safety are the primary concerns because there is absolutely no motivation to lie and any problems a student faces will be placed right out in the open. The student would then face the normal regimen of Sanctuary to help understand the health risks involved with drugs and alcohol, and avoid problems in the future. Obviously, this system should be modified for those students with a previous drinking offense. Clearly, if they are caught drinking before and are disciplined but then caught again, there is a problem and they should face the ordinary punishment for a student in their situation. However, aside from these hopefully rare cases, a system such as this ensures that students’ health and safety are the top priority, with discipline only as the last resort. Andover has offered students a tremendous service with its sanctuary policy and the same idea should be extended to these unique, “after the fact” situations. While on this topic, I feel that it is important to address the issue of using a breathalyzer, which has come up multiple times throughout the last several years. I don’t support using a breathalyzer randomly on Saturday nights in Ryley. But, I think the device does have a useful purpose in limited situations, namely in “prescence of alcohol” situations. Andover maintains a policy that students who are caught in the presence of alcohol or drugs face the same punishment as the students actually using the illegal substances. This policy seems to have sprung from two different concerns: technical and moral. Obviously, when students are caught with alcohol, it can be impossible to distinguish between those who were drinking and those who were not, especially when a student absolutely insists that they were not consuming alcohol. A breathalyzer would solve this problem: students who insist that they were not drinking would simply consent to a breathalyzer to prove their innocence. Obviously, this leaves the moral issue of being in the presence of rule-breaking. A student is obviously exercising bad judgment when they are around people that are drinking, but they have made one very large right choice: they are not drinking. While students in the prescence of alcohol should be punished, it hardly seems equitable that a student who drank and one who did not should face the same punishment. Andover has an excellent drug and alcohol policy and students are offered many opportunities to redeem themselves. However, I believe that the health and safety of students would be even better served if the academy made these minor changes.
