Here at the University, students may readily access information on how to help intoxicated friends. From the Stall Seat Journal to student organizations such as ADAPT, we can learn how to help friends who may need assistance. Unfortunately, some schools — particularly high schools — do not enable the same kind of support network. Certain cases have shown that sometimes schools encourage their students not to assist intoxicated peers.
A story from North Andover High School in Massachusetts has been in the news recently as another example showing how poorly conceived “zero tolerance” policies toward alcohol are.
Erin Cox, an Andover student, was contacted by a friend who was at a party and too intoxicated to drive. Cox, who was sober, drove to the party and picked the friend up. The police arrived soon after Cox and broke up the party.
Cox faced consequences for her willingness to help her classmate. Andover removed the senior from her position as captain of the school’s volleyball team and suspended her for five games.
As an overall punishment, missing five volleyball games is not medieval. Yet it is ridiculous that Cox is facing any sort of chastisement for doing what should universally be considered the right action. I understand that underage drinking is illegal, and that high schools may want to avoid the legal hassles and negative publicity that may arise from their students consuming alcohol. But punishing students just for being associated with others who are underage drinking is an unnecessary exercise in administrative power. Moreover, Andover is sending the entirely wrong message by pursuing disciplinary action against Cox. The high school is emphasizing that students, if given the opportunity to help an intoxicated friend, should refrain from doing so. They should remember their commitment to abstain from situations involving alcohol and let their intoxicated peers deal with the situation alone.
I don’t care if Cox’s friend was breaking the law by being intoxicated. Students need to be encouraged for helping friends, and actions like Cox’s should be celebrated rather than condemned. One would think that high schools like Andover, which seem to want to govern their students’ lives even outside of school events, would value people like Cox. Student safety, after all, should also be a primary school concern. But as long as zero-tolerance rules remain enacted and excessively enforced, students will be less likely to make the proper decisions.
Zero-tolerance policies create an environment in which students are hesitant to assist one another. Underage drinking will still occur whether or not the rules exist. Despite the illegality of underage drinking, schools should seek to maximize student safety if students choose to drink. Students looking out for each other lessens the probability that dangerous alcohol-related events — from drunk driving to alcohol poisoning — will occur.
This, however, hinges on students not being unduly punished for coming to a classmate’s aid. Some students will not want to call parents to diffuse a hazardous situation. So, thanks to zero-tolerance policies, students are left weighing the potential punitive consequences against actually making helpful choices. Calling sober friends, as demonstrated by Cox’s situation, may not be a viable option, because sober students won’t want to be guilty by association. And making particularly public decisions — for instance, calling an ambulance for a friend — will be less likely because students do not want to face disciplinary actions from schools. What transpires, then, is a culture of underground drinking wherein students downplay or ignore the risks of underage drinking. Indeed, the risks are much higher than if high schools were to be reasonable about underage drinking outside of school.
The University does not have a zero-tolerance policy, and thankfully so. One could argue — weakly — that alcohol historically plays a much larger role in college life than in high school life, which is why most colleges don’t want to bother upholding zero-tolerance rules. But the ubiquity of alcohol in college does not change the fact that most first- and second-years are drinking just as illegally as high school students. The truth is that the University does not have a zero-tolerance policy because it recognizes the negative externalities that such policies create. Underage drinking is not an especially pressing threat to the school, and upholding student safety is much more important than ensuring that only those above 21 partake in alcohol consumption.
In the end, Cox’s intoxicated friend was luckily of sound enough mind to recognize that she needed help getting home, and Cox was fortunately available to help. Similar situations are less likely to occur, though, the longer zero-tolerance rules are upheld. Andover and like-minded high schools need to relax their stances on underage drinking. I hope Cox’s story gets enough publicity to catalyze a meaningful discussion about overturning these unnecessary rules.
Alex Yahanda is a senior associate editor for The Cavalier Daily. His columns run Wednesdays.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoOur independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | 6 days agoIn addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
EDITORIAL: Pedestrian safety is an institutional imperative
By Editorial Board | April 15, 2024Amid a national crisis of pedestrian safety, Charlottesville and the University are also struggling to properly maintain pedestrian safety.
