Estimating whether universities should restrict students’ right to party we should analyze the main reasons for which schools ban partying. The majority of universities shut down some party houses because partying is associated with alcohol drinking and the risks of the related incidents, harm to students’ health and the decrease of the rates of learning achievements.
Along with physical harm to students’ health, binge drinking involves a number of incidents of violence, including sexual assaults and fights. The majority of universities which ban partying claim that they create the conditions for concentrating students’ efforts on academic activities and prevent situations which threaten student health and safety such as alcohol and substance abuse, vandalism, physical violence. For example, not so long ago, the administration of USC decided to give a ban to 16 partying houses after 8 students have been taken to hospitals because of poisoning with alcohol. “The safety of our community is always number one,” Adams said, who is the IFC’s vice president on public relations (Stepney “Post-Rush IFC Parties Lead to Social Ban”).
In fact, most measures that are imposed by the University, including banning the party houses and filling the request forms of alcohol use are aimed at shifting the responsibility from the administration of the educational institution in case any accidents occur. The alcohol intake often becomes a precondition for the incidents of sexual assault and violence, and the University makes attempts to limit the partying time and to minimize the associated risks respectively. It is preferable to pay more attention to more effective ways for informing and protecting students instead of violating their rights. Actually, most students lack the necessary knowledge on secure drinking. Some students say they have completed an alcohol education program which every college student must take before beginning the 1st year in University, but this measure has proven to be ineffective. Actually, it is not the idea of the course itself but rather the inconsistencies in the content of the program which make the measure ineffective for reducing the risks. From my personal experience I know that these programs provide students with plenty of useless knowledge. For example, one of the recommendations of the program was to insist that peers who look a little drunk should go home even if they refuse to do it. However, implemented in practice, this tip appears to be absolutely useless because, on the one hand, everyone knows that it is preferable to persuade drunk friends to go home and there is nothing new in this point and, on the other hand, the realization of this intent is complicated significantly with the ethical considerations and students’ fear to ruin their reputation and relationship with friends. Some students might think their friends would be angry with them, while others might feel embarrassed. The majority of my fellow students considered the program as boring and confessed that the only reason for which they had taken the course was the University’s requirement. Wasting students’ time, the program does not answer the burning questions, not providing them with the necessary knowledge.
Students’ right to party is undeniable because in their age they are expected to be able to take responsibility for their choices and actions and if they are not, they should be provided with an opportunity to do so. “You can’t expect universities to baby-sit them. They’re not babies anymore” (Floyd “Colleges Can Only Do So Much about Students’ Risky Partying”). Regarded as grown-up personalities, students have the right for making decisions which University to attend and whether to show their grades to others or not. Students are allowed to sign any forms without their guardians’ signatures. The above-mentioned rights and responsibilities prove that students are expected to be responsible for their decisions and their consequences. Students have the right to manage their time, allotting it to their studies and entertainment as they wish. Partying is one of the most important entertainments at American campus. If University bans partying or drinking on campus, it indirectly deprives students’ of their rights for entertainment. However, some parents and University administrators claim that students do not know what would be better for them and cannot be responsible for all their choices because of their immaturity. Still, instead of restricting young people’s right for free choice, according to its mission of an educational institution, University should teach students to make informed choices and to take responsibility for them. Actually, providing students with a set of rights and responsibilities, the community provides them with an opportunity to learn the sense of responsibility. The public opinions as to the right of young people for making independent decisions have divided. Some educators and parents emphasize the lack of students’ maturity as the main argument for their inability to make informed decisions and independent choices. Their opponents are inclined to protect the students’ right for making free choices as a unique chance to receive the necessary life experience and the development of their skills. Recognizing the alcohol abuse as a burning problem of student campus, University should look for more effective methods of handling the problem than banning and imposing the prohibitive measures without explaining their underpin. When University shuts down party houses or limits drinking, it does not help students to set the priorities and prevents them from making conscious choices. It may only stimulate young people to avoid the watchful eyes of the administration and violate the rules as the forbidden fruit is the sweetest.
Disregarding all the risks associated with partying, it has a number of advantages. Partying is an important means of communication of the peer students and their socialization helpful for maintaining the friendly atmosphere at campus. The freshmen and sophomore can make new friends through partying and find their place in a group of students with common interests or simply have fun. For all categories of student population, socialization is not simply a way to make friends, but also an opportunity to get a job. It promotes the communication among different groups as well as between alumni and current students. Partying is beneficial not only for students but for the University as well. During homecoming time, it can attract more alumni to come back together with students. Student gatherings can be used as opportunities for attracting the University alumni to the activities, broadening the networks and even raising funds.
The benefits from reducing the partying time are mostly rooted in the widely spread misconceptions. Regarding the University as a platform for developing students’ academic skills, most people evaluate its level by the level of academic achievements of students and grades. Therefore, GPA is one of the important attributes of the schools’ reputation. Consequently, the University administration expects the limitations on partying and drinking to result in improvement of students’ achievements because of putting more emphasis on their studies. Still, some studies have found evidence that the consumption of alcohol cannot be regarded as the main predictor of GPA (Singleton “Collegiate Alcohol Consumption and Academic Performance”). Therefore, there is no direct link between students’ GPA and availability of drinking and partying at campus. Some University administrations are sensitive to the definition of a “Party School”. For example, the USC new president Max Nikias said, “Being, a ‘party school’ isn’t exactly a reputation that goes hand-in-hand with being a top-notch academic institution” (Kaufman “Max Nikias Doesn’t Want You to Get Drunk”). At the same time, goo reputation of an educational institution requires balancing the academic and entertaining activities of learners. Aiming at improving the academic performance of the University, the administration should shift emphasis to the implementation of innovative techniques into the curriculum rather than concentrating on over controlling the students’ leisure time and extracurricular activities.
Actually, the problem of alcohol abuse and the associated risks cannot be ignored but it should be noted that partying is not limited to drinking and there are a wide range of aspects which need to be taken into consideration. One of the most serious problems is the trend that more and more underage students got drunk because of the pressure and negative influence of senior students. It is true that students should not cross the borders. However, we should not deny the right of whole group of students because of a small group of students who choose to break laws in a drunken state. Namely, we should not prohibit the sale of alcohol beverage because some underage young adults may buy the alcohol via using fake IDs. And for the seniors who force those minor to drink alcohol, university should give them serious penalty to warn those seniors. Another problem is the noise, which cannot be avoided during the party. That problem makes university administration limit or prohibit party especially during the night time. In my opinion, we should combine party ensuring the neighbors’ right to enjoy silence. The University administration and the fraternity or sorority can reach an agreement which would be acceptable for all the players. For instance, students can end their party by 2 am or give the neighborhood compensation for the noise.
In general, though partying is associated with a number of problems, universities should not deprive students’ of the right to party because the prohibition is ineffective and limits young people’s opportunities for receiving experience of responsible decision making.
References
Floyd, Jacuielynn. “Colleges Can Only Do So Much about Students’ Risky Partying”. The Dallas Morning News. 12 2007. Web.
Kaufman, Joey. “Max Nikias Doesn’t Want You to Get Drunk”. Daily Trojan. 2010. Web.
Singleton, Royce. “Collegiate Alcohol Consumption and Academic Performance”. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 68.4 (2007): 548-555. Web.
Stepney, Chloe. “Post-Rush IFC Parties Lead to Social Ban”. Daily Trojan. 2010. Web.