Vice President for Student Affairs Todd Olson should be commended for finally breaking his silence on the alcohol policy last week. But while his e-mail contained an important revision—apartments and townhouses with one 21-year-old resident will now be allowed to host parties—it conspicuously ignored numerous other problems. Moreover, it continued the administration’s disturbing trend of implementing policy changes without explaining why or how the decisions were made.
Two of the policy’s most offensive aspects are still in effect: the limit on the numbers of students allowed at a party and the 10 a.m. Thursday registration deadline. The deadline, which requires students who might have a weekend party to plan it by the preceding Wednesday night, is unrealistic and will only increase the number of unregistered parties.
Even worse, the cap on party size turns student hosts into bouncers. At a townhouse party, one resident guards the front door while another keeps the back gate closed to pleading freshmen. Georgetown is lucky to have a relatively friendly, open party scene where students don’t charge one another to attend parties, and underclassmen can always find somewhere to socialize responsibly on a Saturday night, but the cap could end these trends.
Fortunately, Student Association President Ben Shaw (COL `08) and Vice President Matt Appenfeller (COL `08) view the Sept. 13 change as a “good first step toward restoring the social atmosphere” and not as the final word. The Student Association and the rest of the student body must continue to push for more meaningful changes to the policy, and the administration needs to create a forum that will allow these discussions to take place.
“While major revisions to the alcohol policy are not likely at this time, I am committed to continuing our conversation with students about these issues and to working with staff and students as we seek the appropriate implementation of them,” Olson wrote in an e-mail message to the Voice.
While it’s a good sign that Olson is paying lip service to communication with students, it’s unlikely that he’s referring to a couple Facebook groups or a petition-signing table in Red Square. Olson’s office must provide an outlet for students to make their grievances public—and for administrators to explain their reasoning—like the town hall meetings that were held to discuss the proposed keg ban last year.
As students, we would like to believe that these important policy decisions are made carefully, but the administration’s lack of transparency makes it impossible to know. If the University expects students to abide by a suddenly strict alcohol policy, there should be good reasons for it, and students deserve to hear what these reasons are. The next e-mail from Olson should include more serious revisions to the alcohol policy and a long-overdue explanation.
