In a move sure to draw the ire of students at two of the state’s largest universities, administrators at both Virginia Tech and James Madison University recently enacted policies to notify parents about their child’s first alcohol offense — even for students older than 18 years of age.
In an open letter to JMU students, President Linwood Rose cited his concern for “the abuse and underage use of alcohol by some of our students” and indicated that new drinking policies are aimed at changing perceptions of a “negative drinking culture” at JMU. Last April, throngs of students and visitors attending JMU’s annual “Springfest” party had to be dispersed by tear gas from riot police after the crowd quickly became unruly and began damaging the surrounding property with beer bottles.
Virginia Tech instituted a similar parent notification policy last January. No high-profile incidences of disorderly conduct drove school officials to enact the policy. Edward Spencer, Virginia Tech’s vice president for student affairs, commented in an interview with The Washington Post that “students are more concerned about their parents being notified than they are of the legal consequences.” That may not be the case, but adding consequences like parental notification probably does have at least some deterrence effect. The issue becomes whether this effect is worth compromising the notion that 18-,19- and 20-year-old students are adults who should face the outcomes of their decisions without involving parents.
Dean of Students Allen Groves stated that the University does not automatically inform parents of students’ indiscretions on the first incident; the matter is typically dealt with internally by deans or in the Office of Resident Life, and parents are only notified if a pattern of severe conduct ensues. The University’s reluctance to notify parents seems to be in deference to the idea that although combating underage and excessive drinking is a top concern, so is ensuring that students are accountable and responsible for their own actions. Clearly there are consequences for being caught breaking the law or violating University policy, as should be the case, but the University is correct to treat students as adults. Parents who finance their child’s education could argue that they have a right to such information, but that claim seems tenuous unless the student’s violation is severe enough to threaten his enrollment or performance as a student.
The University may not be in as much hot water as some other college are in terms of public perception of its drinking culture, but the situation used to be more somber. Sandy Gilliam, University History and Protocol Officer and former secretary to the Board of Visitors, said Easters weekend — a large-scale annual spring party held by University students — continued until the late 1970s but “was abolished by administrators after the police couldn’t control it any longer.” Gilliam acknowledged that several factors have contributed to a shift in the University’s image over time, including the drinking age rising from 18 to 21, tougher academic standards — “you could no longer get by with a gentleman’s ‘C’” — and a greater enforcement by police of open-container laws. University administrators and law enforcement also made additional efforts to limit underage and excessive alcohol consumption during the past few decades.
Part of being treated like adults is making sure that situations do not get out of control and warrant a more heavy-handed approach by the University to regulate student behavior. To be cliché: Students have, and must continue, to earn the respect given to them by administrators. Only that will ensure that policies similar to those at JMU and Virginia Tech do not find their ways into University protocol.
“Clearly there are consequences for being caught breaking the law or violating University policy, as should be the case, but the University is correct to treat students as adults. Parents who finance their child’s education could argue that they have a right to such information, but that claim seems tenuous unless the student’s violation is severe enough to threaten his enrollment or performance as a student.”
It is not required,nor rarely suggested for a parent to be notified if their student is accused of an honor offense which could result in expulsion.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
2 
6
If there are not strong and immediate consequences – the schools simply become enablers! If UVA wants that role – so be it!
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
1 
2
@Callie.
True. I wonder if UVa legal eagles pondered their prospective assumption of (personal and institutional) liability when they wrote a policy that left notification up to their “discretion”.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
1 
2
That “shift in the University’s image” is not at all due to reality. It is due to 20 years of UVA policy covering everything up. And that is with regard to illegal drugs as well as alcohol. This is the place wher a frat guy can drop dead on a Friday morning, and the story is made to vanish – the cause of death somehow still a mystery 5 months later. And, of course, what was in Mr. Hugeley’s bloodstream at 3 am that night back in April is, well, lets just not talk about it and maybe it won’t matter!
I am not for alcohol prohibition by any stretch, and still belive that if you are old enough to die in Afghanistan – you are old enough to drink in Virginia. Easters was a lot safer than getting a .20 BAC student body back and forth from Foxfield every April.
JMU and VT are doing something. UVA probably will stick to its policy of covert silence, at least as long as Sandridge is still around.
As for 18-20 year olds being “adults who should face the outcomes of their decisions,” I suggest you let sperm meet egg involving a pair of them if you want a crash course on how that really works.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
1 
6
Just to correct the record, the last Easters was in April of 1982, my first year at the University. The Rugby Road area for three nights was absolutely mobbed with drunken students, not all from the University. My fraternity had 3 nights of bands as well as all you can drink beer. There also was a concert in the Colonnades. The University decided to ban Easters the following year and so no parties were permitted that April.
They did subsequently replace it with an April concert — a band I had never heard of which turned into one of my all time favorites – Los Lobos.
Now my fraternity house is boarded up, covered with weeds.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
2 
0
Sean has no shame. The father of the deceased student came on here and told of the pain he had caused to his wife and his family with his insulting and hurtful remarks about their recently departed son. Being a medical professional, he also pointed out that Sean has no idea what he’s talking about.
Sean is truly a despicable human being.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
2 
3
What insulting and hurtful remarks? Where? fyi, anyone can come on an online message board and post under any name they want.
The ever more astonishing thing is that nobody around here seems to care in the slightest why it is that an otherwise healthy, intelligent, and vibrant young man dropped dead at the age of 21. Not the UVA administration. Not the Cav Daily. Not the Charlottesville media. Not the UVA police. This doesn’t happen anywhere else on earth that I am aware of.
I share a mutual friend with the deceased. He and I were at the memorial service behind Clemmons last Spring. IF indeed his tragic early demise was caused by some combination of illegal substances, I can certainly see how those who provided him with those substances would have a very, very strong interest in keeping the cause of death a mystery that somehow nobody cares to solve. Perhaps “L. Bloom” might even be one of them.. What a holiday from justice THEY have enjoyed the last 5 months!
If that is not true and it was purely natural causes, then it would certainly behoove UVA to inform its students of this via an email ASAP. Maybe they could pretend for just a moment that a student dropping dead on Rugby Road is at least as important as a couple drunks calling someone a name in a convenience store at 2 am. Radical idea, huh? Because right now what we have is a student body that, if they have even ever heard of this at all, has no doubts as to what caused this. And regardless what actually killed the poor chap, that sends a very, very bad message – does it not? It seems the trendy “awareness” campaigns you see all over Grounds have a few grand canyon sized blind spots.
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
5 
1
L Bloom wrote: “The father of the deceased student came on here and told of the pain he had caused to his wife and his family with his insulting and hurtful remarks about their recently departed son.”
_______________________________________________
I have no idea what L Bloom is talking about above. L Bloom seems to be accusing Sean of something serious without describing for everyone WHAT it is he is talking about! Did any of it even happen? What happened? Who knows?!
Report this comment
Agree/Disagree:
0 
0