Eating clubs make inevitable college drinking safer

As an ex-eating club president, I am tired of being criticized by Borough Police Chief Davall and Mayor Reed. They have called the reputation of eating club officers into question on numerous occasions in person and in the press. I want to set the record straight.

Chief Davall says that underage drinking is a discipline problem, not a health problem. I say there is an inherent problem in attempts by the borough to discipline self-directed personal choices. How do you convince someone that they shouldn't drink, when they claim that drinking will only affect them and no one else? The immediate and automatic response is that drinking is "bad for you." Admittedly, drinking is a health risk. It can cause longterm health problems, death, and may lead to drinking and driving — something that certainly affects other people.

But contrast this view of underage drinking with that of unprotected sex. No one would ever think to outlaw unprotected sex until the age of 21, yet the consequences are almost parallel: unprotected sex can cause long term health problems (STDs), death (AIDS), and unwanted pregnancy — a consequence that effects you, your partner and the baby. There is no ordinance proposed to discipline students under 21 the next time they go to McCosh for an STD or pregnancy test. Why? Because we would never want to deter someone in that situation from seeking medical attention. Yes, this example seems ridiculous. That's because it is ridiculous to legislate around health risks. No one should be afraid to see a doctor.

Chief Davall's discipline proposal tacitly assumes that once someone turns 21, all of the deleterious effects of drinking suddenly disappear. In reality, they do not. What changes is the environment of drinking: there are no disciplinary consequences, and the drinking is supervised.

Drinking once someone is of age is safer, Chief Davall reasons, because bars have a staff that will call for medical attention should it be required. For those readers who have ever been to an eating club, this is eerily familiar: currently, there are no disciplinary consequences to drinking, and the drinking is supervised by club officers. The bar environment that makes drinking safer when you are over 21 is precisely the same environment that Chief Davall is trying to destroy at the eating clubs for students under the age of 21. With the recent legal action taken against club officers, they could become less likely to call for medical attention. If the borough alcohol ordinance were to pass, the intoxicated student would be charged as well, even if the officers did call for medical help. So the logic of the argument rests on the assumption that you can control a person's personal choices through disciplinary action. Chief Davall is betting that students will be too afraid to drink excessively — only he isn't betting with money; he is betting with student lives.

To the borough and its police force, the solution seems obvious: shut down the clubs. Perhaps I am biased as an ex-president, but that solution seems even more illogical. Aside from losing the significant non-alcohol related benefits of the clubs, should the club system as we know it be ended, those students who do not respond to disciplinary measures will still drink. They will drink in their unsupervised rooms, with intoxicated friends who are afraid to call for help because of the ordinance.

I think Chief Davall and Mayor Reed should stop criticizing eating club officers and start thanking them, for both their vigilance and willingness to work with the borough on this issue. Princeton has had some close calls with alcohol poisoning, close calls that may have led to deaths if no officers had been around — and willing — to call for help.