Although the social host ordinance doesn’t take effect until Dec. 12, avoiding legal prosecution weighs heavily on the minds of alcohol imbibers on both sides of the legal drinking age. Both of the parties I attended this weekend featured signs posted on the front door politely warning underage persons not to enter.
In September, Multimedia/Web Editor Grant Goerke wrote a logical, reasonable piece about St. Thomas’ “partying problem.” Observing that because St. Thomas, Public Safety, St. Paul Police, Ramsey County and many neighborhood residents have an uncommonly low tolerance for people openly drinking alcohol, perhaps inescapable and harsh drinking policies contribute to many of the problems our neighbors and administrators frequently rail against.
I agree that much of the “partying problem” can be attributed to our authority figures’ draconian rules. These expectations drive students consuming alcohol out of sight, or all out into the streets at once, regardless of the amount students intend to consume or their behavior when intoxicated. Goerke called for a compromise built on safety and respect, so students have a place to go besides bars or Minneapolis, should they choose to partake.
Yes, underage drinking is against the law and not every student drinks. Yes, college students’ judgment is compromised when intoxicated. And yes, sober people get annoyed when their attempts at sleep are disturbed by young people loudly singing along to Lady Gaga. But unless St. Thomas students are less capable of making sound decisions than students of other colleges, it doesn’t make our strict policies any more defensible. Enough with the sanctimonious piety.
Every college has to deal with students drinking in a recreational fashion, it’s been a traditional rite of passage at least since Sir Isaac Newton got tanked on grog or ale while studying at Cambridge. I also suspect that at a school founded by Irish Catholics, many people here know their way around the bottle.
Certainly there is a place for regulation, public health and respect for the people we share this part of St. Paul with. But because of the harsh, uncompromising stances adopted by authority figures, and neighbors’ tendency to snitch, students looking to party are given no quarter anywhere near campus.
Princeton Review calls St. Thomas’ alcohol policy ‘ungodly strict’
St. Thomas’ alcohol policy was called “ungodly strict” in the Princeton Review’s 2007 survey of college students. The policies of St. Paul and Ramsey County are stricter still. Our school even pays for additional officers to bust parties in the surrounding area during warm-weather months.
I don’t see the social host ordinance making college students any safer, it only adds another financially ruinous threat that we will have to take greater pains to avoid. More importantly, I feel it will encourage underage drinkers to only gather with other underage drinkers, even when their close friends or roommates are of age, which is a terrible idea.
Saturday before midnight, St. Paul police officers broke up a Rubik’s Cube party I attended under the pretense of a noise complaint, sending everyone home and threatening us with arrests and citations if they had to return. Thanks to a system of individually-numbered wristbands, there were no underage persons present. No one was acting disorderly, and most of the guests were in the basement, underground and with several closed doors between them and the outside world.
It’s difficult for me to think of any more precautions my friends could have taken, but we were flushed out into the street regardless, despite hosts taking extraordinary measures. Unfortunately, far too many St. Thomas students can relate to this experience.
While it is easy to paint St. Thomas students as disrespectful whelps who desecrate your neighborhood with their voices and bodily fluids, or irresponsible lightweights who black out and fall from roofs, in reality most of us are the kinds of people you’d be proud to have your children to associate with in their early adult years or to marry.
Believe me, you could do much worse than us as far as neighbors go. Remember that the presence of our school contributes heavily to making your property so valuable, and that Tommies have been getting drunk since this neighborhood was forest and pasture.
Neighbors, we are trying to meet you halfway on this issue and we appreciate when you show us understanding and don’t act like a crabby old man yelling at kids in his yard and confiscating their toys. To me, growing up means accepting things you don’t necessarily like, and cooperating to resolve disputes so all parties involved get something they want.
Goerke was right, compromising to build a community we can all live peaceably in is the most logical solution to this widespread resentment. And adults, since your ridiculous policies won’t ever keep us from drinking on weekends, there is going to need to be some give and take on everyone’s part if we want to resolve this matter without coming to blows. Given the hostile St. Thomas-area drinking atmosphere, I doubt students’ calls for compromise will be heeded anytime soon.
Zack Thielke can be reached at zsthielke@stthomas.edu
Well put. If the community wants us to develop into quality adults, they need to treat us like adults. Students shouldn’t have to walk on egg shells every-time they pass a University official. This is a place where we live, let us make it into a home.
I like what is said in this article. I believe the harsh conditions put onto students about drinking is making the problem even worse. At a certain point, students will have to hide to drink, and what will happen when someone gets a health issue? Answer, there will not be anyway to help the person since this is an illegal act that they are involved in. I come from a country were underage drinking is not punished to the extent I see here, and so most students do not look at it like some big thinkg to do. Most of them will even have a beer with their parents, and hence less problems with alcohol. Therefore, the neighbors need to relax a little, and compromise on some issues.
Well said Zack.
I do not agree with the views presented so far. I have no trouble with however strict the punishments are for illegal drinking. We are all legal adults and as such have a responsibility to ourselves and society. If you do not want to face punishment for a crime do not commit it. It is disgraceful to try and rationalize how unsafe a crime is because of how strict the punishment. Mr. Osende gives us a first-hand account of a different society, however, it is a different society.
The argument about the property value is shallow and insulting. The quality of the neighbors’ life should not be stacked against the value of their property. For all we know, the rigorous laws may have even kept their value from being deteriorated by reckless students.
Brett I agree with the argument that “If you do not want to face the punishment for committing a crime, do not commit the crime” But what comes to my mind is the speed limit. It is illegal, against the law, a crime, a violation of the mandates, a breach of restrictions to travel 66 MPH on the Interstate. It is above the 65 MPH limit. But no Law Enforcement Officer in their right mind would take action against an individual who travels at 66, most likely they wont worry about an individual traveling at 70. Why? because it is within reason.
Also, if by consuming any alcohol you are committing a crime… how does the university justify serving wine at church? Obviously there are exceptions to the Laws regarding alcohol, and it does not always mean that alcohol consumption is the same as criminal activity.
I am not saying the laws should change, I am saying that as long as students are being safe and responsible, let them be. When parties get out of hand, property is damaged and there are significant safety concerns occurring on a consistent basis, then step in and handle those cases. Dont give the kid who had one beer while watching a football game the same punishment you would give the binge drinking Freshman who passes out with his shoes on.
Students consuming Alcohol do not create a public nuisance. Stupid people being ridiculous about their consumption are the root of the problem. Punish the idiots, and leave the mature students alone. When it becomes an actual problem and a threat to the public interest then take action. Dont target college kids in an attempt to demonstrate some sort of moral superiority.
What you are arguing for is already in effect. A lot is left to the discretion of the officer at the scene. That is even present within the University as different situations are handled differently. Sometimes alcohol violations result in students being sent off campus with a guardian, and other times they are allowed to return to their rooms and sleep.
What I do not understand is where the audacity comes from to ask for more leniency when you are in the wrong. In regards to your speeding situation, while you might not be stopped by an officer, if you were to be stopped it would be impossible to argue that they are in the wrong for stopping you. This is one of those facts of life that as adults we must all familiarize ourselves with rather quickly. As children we whined and complained when such things happened, I do not see how doing so now is productive.
If you’ll allow me to hypothesize, say that every student sat quietly in their room drinking a beer during a football game then almost no one would complain. The statistics are against this hypothetical. In reality, we all know that this is not the environment surrounding college drinking.
The authorities in question do not need to impose a moral superiority, just a logical one. Drinking at this age, in the quantities consumed warrants the situation we are in. Your solutions seem to be rather reactive, “When it becomes an actual problem and a threat to the public interest then take action.” This precludes the possibility for preemptive measures. Why foster an environment that allows for it to become a problem. When faced with the possibility of a 600 dollar fine, and a night(or two) in detox the allure of alcohol is unsurprisingly less appealing. I can only imagine that those continuing to do this are a part of the “idiots” you made reference to.
I’ll apologize if this seems like a personal attack. I feel your comments accurately reflect the thoughts behind the article and those in agreement.
But about 1700 U.S. college students die every year from alcohol related injuries or alcohol poisoning itself. When was the last time you heard about an alcohol related death at an institution with “draconian” or “ungodly strict” alcohol policies? I’m not saying our rules are perfect, but I can understand why UST would rather err on the side of safety.
And while it’s true that it’s not fair to punish the responsible students for the behavior of the few “disrespectful whelps,” the “disrespectful whelps” don’t walk around wearing t-shirts that say “Hi, I’m gonna get drunk and pee on your lawn furniture!” so how can we expect our neighbors to differentiate between us? I’ll be honest, I can understand why if they see a party they might get nervous, especially given the behavior of some students, albeit few, in the past. I’m curious if students notified their neighbors before hand that they were planning on hosting a party, and asked the neighbors to let them know if it gets to loud, things might work out better?
“Tommies have been getting drunk since this neighborhood was forest and pasture.” Once again, Mr. Thielke demonstrates that he won’t let any pesky journalistic practices like “research” and “facts” get in the way of his overblown rhetoric. Since St. Thomas had a strict no-alcohol policy for *all* students during the first several decades of its existence — violation of which carried the penalty of automatic expulsion — his comments about those heavy-drinking Irish Catholics who founded the college, besides perpetuating an invidious racial stereotype about my countrymen, don’t even have the virtue of being remotely true. What this article amounts to is yet another complaint that (1) the drinking age is still 21, (2) St. Paul and UST enforce that law, and (3) “Waaaaaah! Stupid authority!” Mr. Thielke, I have three reading recommendations for you: (1) Journey To Fulfillment, the college history, (2) A Rulebook for Arguments, which you may remember from your PHIL 115 course, and (3) U.S News and World Report’s Best Colleges 2010, which you can perhaps use to find a college with a party atmosphere more to your liking. Might want to stop by Multicultural Student Services to get your Irish issues worked out, too.
I think that one of the points Zack is making a good point and is being overlooked. Students who are 21 and take every precaution necessary (like notifying there neighbors and checking ID’s and keeping people inside) and want to drink with their friends are still subject to certain neighbors that think any drinking is unacceptable. I do believe that students need to be respectful of their neighbors and when they ask them to quiet down they should, but many neighbors do not do that, their default is “call the police repeatedly.”
“Facts” and “research” you say Heaney? You show me a Tommie from the “first several decades” of the school’s existence that didn’t imbibe alcoholic beverages and I’ll show you a liar or a shut-in. If today’s “draconian” rules against drinking on campus are any indication, just because the school says drinking didn’t happen on campus doesn’t meant that that was necessarily the case. Seeing as how you are so superior to journalists with your fact-finding, you should know that any history written and approved by the administration is going to present the school as a fairytale land of learning and religious purity. What? People drank alcohol on this campus? That couldn’t have possibly happened – no way. I know people who went to St. Thomas Academy back when it was in Ireland Hall and they, yes that’s plural, love to tell stories of getting drunk and partying with college students here.
I think the thing that’s lost here is the sense of comraderie developed between people who go out and have a good time and maybe get a little tipsy together. Despite what people say, alcohol is great for college. It’s qualities as a social lubricant allow people to loosen up and get to know one another and maybe have a heart-felt chat they might otherwise never have. Basically, people over the age of 18 were able to drink up until 1970 when the federal government, in it’s infinite wisdom, decided to tell people who were, up until then, adults in the fullest sense of the word, that they were no longer able to buy or drink alcohol. Oh, but they could still die in the rice patties of Vietnam and vote for Tricky Dick. One more thing – I’m half Irish and I’m not offended by Thielke’s “invidious racial stereotype” at all.
Although St.Thomas may have been a dry campus for the first few decades of its existence, it would be naive to think none of the men drank alcohol despite the consequences. The fact that St.Thomas is currently a wet campus seems very contradictory to the new social ordinance. Even though I do not disagree with the policy, allowing alcohol on campus for those of age is not exactly the best way to prevent alcohol consumption by minors. Furthermore, the fact that minors will continue to drink no matter the law is simply that: a fact. This does not mean the behavior should be condoned but proper education about attitudes toward drinking need to be addressed. On a final note, the fact that the police can look at information posted on facebook seems like a breach of personal of privacy…
Mr. Johnson,
Quote: “You show me a Tommie from the “first several decades” of the school’s existence that didn’t imbibe alcoholic beverages and I’ll show you a liar or a shut-in.”
Your implicit premise here is that anyone who doesn’t drink is a liar or a shut-in. I disagree with this premise and I’m not sure this is what you wished to claim.
I agree with Paula here, the premise that one needs to drink in order to have any semblance of a social life is terribly misguided. There are plenty of people on campus here who don’t drink for a slew of different reasons, and I can’t see how that can be logically construed as a negative decision.
First, I did indeed overstate my point about early Tommies’ social behaviors – I was simply trying to make a point that to say drinking wasn’t present on the campus. As far as one needing to drink in order to have a social life, I’m not saying a person must drink only that they should at least have the choice to do so without facing such ridiculous consequences.
Normally I am not one to comment on articles, but for this I will make an exception. The overwhelming sense of entitlement that is presented by some students shocks me. To ignore the fact underage drinking exists would be incredibly naive and irresponsible. On the other hand, to defend it would be ridiculous. There seems to be a sense that because someone is a college student, they are automatically given the right to consume alcohol, illegal or not. It is unfair to assume each student who drinks underage is consuming irresponsibly, but that does seem to be the overwhelming trend. Why should a student who is underage believe the law should be more sensitive to them? When drinking underage the consequences should be understood. If someone making this risk is not responsible enough to accept them if they arise, maybe they are not adult enough to have the so-called privilege in the first place.
Lets also remember that the drinking age used to be 18. (and that part of UST’s early history included prohibition. AND that St thomas started as a military academy (you know, discipline, and all that) .
Hey Gina,
Quote: “It is unfair to assume each student who drinks underage is consuming irresponsibly”
Because consuming alcohol under the legal limit is breaking the law, anyone who drinks alcohol under the legal limit is being irresponsible. There is no responsible way to drink underage, though I will admit some ways are more responsible then others (which is what I believe you are trying to say with the rest of your message).
Everyone else,
There is no argument here that suggests that the enforcement of the alcohol law is inappropriate (either by Public Safety or the St. Paul Police). Rather, people are only complaining about the law itself. Regardless of your position on alcohol consumption, underage consumption is against the law. If your problem is with this law, then it would be more appropriate to contact your local representative then to complain about those who enforce the law.
For clarification on Mr. Thielke’s comment about the Princeton Review:
St. Thomas’ listing in the guide includes student reports of the university as “homogeneous,” “preppy” and religious, with an “ungodly strict” alcohol policy but possessing “an excellent sense of community” and one of the best study-abroad programs in the nation.
http://ust-wordpress.stthomas.edu/bulletin/2006/08/28/princeton-reviews-2007-college-survey-names-ust-among-best-in-the-midwest/
It was not the Princeton Review that called the regulations ‘ungodly strict’. Your article is completely misleading, and simply wrong on the matter.
To address Mr. Kaluza’s comment, legal drinkers must be made aware of the risks as well. There is nothing stopping them from drinking but being a nuisance can still get them in trouble. It is hardly the neighbor’s fault that it is easier to talk to the police then try and reason with a group of rowdy (and quite likely drunk) people. Throw less parties, throw smaller parties, or just don’t throw parties. But, don’t expect people to have to sacrifices for the sake of your get-together.
Paula,
Given that responsible is not equivalent to legal, your argument is quite flawed. There are plenty of cases in which you can responsibly break the law. Furthermore, you add arbitrariness by indicating a gradient of responsibility, weakening your argument even more.
Excluding that, I agree with both Gina and Paula as indicated by my previous response.
Hey Brett,
Wait… there is no one-to-one and onto function from the set of all things responsible to the set of all things legal? Gasp! Foiled again. (Sorry… math joke)
In all honesty, I think our disagreement likely stems only from a vague definition of responsibility. I’m not very interested in clarifying this definition. However, some examples of what you would consider responsible law breaking would be very interesting, if you’d be willing to provide?
And perhaps I can clear up your other confusion. There are many levels of being irresponsible. For example, drinking one or two bottles of beer is less irresponsible (and thus, in some sense, more responsible) then binge drinking. However, drinking one or two bottle of beer is still irresponsible given that it is against the law and breaking the law is irresponsible. Thus, I conclude that the only responsible way to drink under the legal limit is to not drink at all.
people, people…. We’re not stupid here. Do any of you REALLY think that other people on here don’t know what you’re talking about? There’s no need to “clarify” or “define” anything. It’s not a matter of “oh good sir, i think i heard you wrong, would you please restate your argument so i can bash that too?” , it’s that we disagree on the subject itself, plain and simple. Some people AGREE with under aged drinking, some people DISAGREE with it. You people are waaaayy smarter than you’re acting… I hope.
WORD Tony
I think everyone’s missing the point. Who cares if college kids drinking are “responsible” or “irresposible”. The fact is that there will always be a good chunk of students at St Thomas who do drink, both responsibly and irresponsibly. College students all across the world act like this and have for decades if not longer. Every year a new crop of freshmen come to St Thomas, never having lived on their own, determined to party. They are completely unaware of the issues between the neighborhood. By the time they finally do learn how to act responsibly and act as good neighbors, a new crop of freshmen comes in to take their place.
I’m not saying this is fair or right, or that college kids should be able to get away with irresponsible actions. What I’m saying is that regardless of what anyone does, St. Thomas students will continue to drink and have parties…. So instead of sitting here hopelessly arguing over how responsible/irresponsible these students are, we should be talking about solutions to the problem. And no, trying to force students to stop drinking and partying is not a solution. It is a hopeless and completely unrealisitic idea. Here’s my solution, I think we need a lot more apartment buildings on and around campus for mainly students to live in. This would separate the students from the families in the neighborhoods which would allow the students to be students, and the neighborhoods to be quiet.
I completely agree with Bill Mulvahill.