Stanford bans liquor from parties after sexual assault case shocks campus

[garbon]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/22/stanford-university-liquor-ban-sexual-assault-brock-turner

New rules banning 'hard alcohol' and 'shots' from campus events were unveiled months after Brock Turner blamed his sexual assault on school's 'party culture'

Stanford University has banned liquor from campus parties with a new policy that critics say is a tone-deaf response to growing concerns about sexual assault.

The elite northern California school – which faced widespread scrutiny after former swimmer Brock Turner was convicted of sexually assaulting an unconscious woman outside a fraternity – announced on Monday that "hard alcohol" and "shots" of liquor would be banned from all on-campus parties open to undergraduates.

The new rules – which also prohibit certain "high-volume" liquor containers from undergraduate housing – were unveiled months after Turner blamed his sexual assault on Stanford's "party culture ... surrounded by binge drinking and sexual promiscuity".

In its announcement, Stanford said the policy change is designed to "reduce the availability and accessibility of hard alcohol" and is part of a broader effort to "meaningfully change the campus culture around alcohol".

Critics on campus said the new rules appeared to be a clear public relations effort to respond to the Turner controversy, and some said they were worried that the changes may only increase safety risks associated with drinking.

One concern is that by banning liquor from public parties, the university is inadvertently encouraging students to binge drink in dorm rooms where perpetrators of sexual assault may be even more likely to attack vulnerable victims. Additionally, critics of the policy worry that students will drink much more heavily before parties, meaning that once they show up, there will be greater risks that someone might take advantage of them.

"I actually think this is putting students in danger," said Michele Landis Dauber, a Stanford law professor and vocal critic of the university's sexual assault policies. "It's going to drive it underground ... and encourage this super quick consumption not in a public area."

By targeting drinking at parties, it opens the door for juniors and seniors who are 21 and older to entice younger women to come to their dorms and drink there, she said.

Turner, who was convicted of multiple felonies, assaulted a woman by a dumpster after a fraternity party and was caught when two bystanders saw him "thrusting" on top of the motionless woman and intervened.

The case received international headlines after the victim released an emotional statement about the trauma of the assault and trial. She wrote about how painful it was to hear Turner and others suggest that the assault was her fault and that alcohol was to blame.

"Brock Turner said he was a victim of Stanford's alcohol culture ... and I believe Stanford was really stung and embarrassed," said Dauber, who is a family friend of Turner's victim and is leading a campaign to recall the judge who gave him a light sentence.

She said she feared the rule could also increases risks of alcohol poisoning.

Critics say that instead of focusing on preventing excessive drinking, which is inevitable on college campuses, universities should be working to shift the culture around sexual assault, provide thorough education on consent and hold perpetrators accountable in meaningful ways.

If the university was serious about changing alcohol rules in an effort to stop sexual assaults, then administrators should be reevaluating how it regulates fraternity parties and social events for athletes, Dauber added.

Stanford spokeswoman Lisa Lapin did not respond to questions about the criticisms and emailed the Guardian an earlier statement from president John Hennessy and provost John Etchemendy in which they noted that more than 1,800 college students die each year from alcohol-related incidents and that nearly 100,000 experience sexual violence tied to alcohol consumption.

"We need new solutions – solutions that reduce risk for students, that reduce the pressure on students to drink, and that meaningfully change our culture around alcohol," they wrote.

Interesting policy change given that 1) underage people at parties technically couldn't drink at the campus-wide (aka officially registered parties) anyway and (at least during my day) beer was the main thing that was available anyway. Also 2) Stanford used to have a policy of letting underage people drink in common areas of dorms. During my last year, on the back of parental outrage, they forced underage drinkers to keep it to their dorm rooms, there was a large spike in binge drinking and hopsitalizations. 3) It does seem like this 'policy' will have little impact other than to encourage exactly the situation of young women being enticed to do shots in male dorm rooms.

[CountDeMoney]

Learning to rape at a better school is a premium that pays off all your life.

[Martinus]

I think this is compounded by America's ridiculous insistence of allowing people to drink only once they turn 21 (as opposed to 18, which is the case almost everywhere in Europe or Canada).

[Martinus]

Learning to rape at a better school is a premium that pays off all your life.

Drinks do not rape people. Dicks rape people.

[garbon]

I think this is compounded by America's ridiculous insistence of allowing people to drink only once they turn 21 (as opposed to 18, which is the case almost everywhere in Europe or Canada).

I don't think most states prevent people under 21 from having/consuming alcohol, they prevent them from purchasing it (and also can punish people who provide it). I don't think it really prevents anyone 18-20 who wants to drink.

[garbon]

Learning to rape at a better school is a premium that pays off all your life.

Well we don't have a 'right to be forgotten' so probably not a great investment for Brock Turner.

[dps]

I think this is compounded by America's ridiculous insistence of allowing people to drink only once they turn 21 (as opposed to 18, which is the case almost everywhere in Europe or Canada).

I don't think most states prevent people under 21 from having/consuming alcohol, they prevent them from purchasing it (and also can punish people who provide it). I don't think it really prevents anyone 18-20 who wants to drink.

In most states, it's legal for a person under 21 to be given alcohol by a parent or guardian, but generally not by anyone else.  Actually, I'm not sure any state makes it illegal for a parent to serve alcohol to their own children.  OTOH, I do agree with Marti on this--the legal drinking age should be 18, not 21.

[Martinus]

Do people over 18 have legal guardians in the US?

[Valmy]

Do people over 18 have legal guardians in the US?

Nope. You can chuck the kids out at 18.

18 year olds can buy cigarettes, have sex, join the military, and vote. They just cannot buy booze. I think that is then only difference between 18 and 21.

[Barrister]

Do people over 18 have legal guardians in the US?

Their parents.

And (to explain why universities care about this stuff) universities are also considered to be in loco parentis to their students.

[Martinus]

Do people over 18 have legal guardians in the US?

Their parents.

And (to explain why universities care about this stuff) universities are also considered to be in loco parentis to their students.

What if someone doesn't have a parent? And what if someone doesn't go to the university?

I mean, this all sounds like a weird mismatch to me. Presumably, if you turn 18 and on the same day your parents die, you do not need to have a new legal guardian appointed because you are of age, right? But then you cannot drink unless your "guardian" approves it.

So, bizarrely, someone who is 16 can be allowed to drink (because they have to have a legal guardian) but someone who is 19 cannot.

[Valmy]

What if someone doesn't have a parent?

Like say they are wards of the state? They are turned loose when they turn 18. I am not sure what BB is talking about here. Parents are under no legal obligations after 18 unless the person is incapable somehow.

Oh one more thing: if you are 18-20 and do not have a parent your spouse can count if they are above 21 themselves. So you can bribe 18 year olds to marry you for booze! Ah America.

Ok for real last thing: I realized that this thing probably varies wildly by state, as everything does. Sure enough: http://drinkingage.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002591

In Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, New Hampshire, and West Virginia you cannot drink under any circumstances what-so-ever under 21. So that should at least be fair

[derspiess]

In most states, it's legal for a person under 21 to be given alcohol by a parent or guardian, but generally not by anyone else.  Actually, I'm not sure any state makes it illegal for a parent to serve alcohol to their own children.  OTOH, I do agree with Marti on this--the legal drinking age should be 18, not 21.

I liked the deal WV had back when I was 18-20 years old-- you had to be 21 to purchase alcoholic beverages, but only 18 to consume.  So I went out to bars with my brother or someone else who was 21, had them buy it, and I drank it.  Worked out pretty well at most establishments.  They closed the "loophole" a few months before I turned 21, but I was moving out of state anyway.

[Valmy]

I liked the deal WV had back when I was 18-20 years old-- you had to be 21 to purchase alcoholic beverages, but only 18 to consume.  So I went out to bars with my brother or someone else who was 21, had them buy it, and I drank it.  Worked out pretty well at most establishments.  They closed the "loophole" a few months before I turned 21, but I was moving out of state anyway.

Yeah they are one of the five most restrictive states in the union now. Which is rather hilarious given WV's reputation.

[Martinus]

I liked the deal WV had back when I was 18-20 years old-- you had to be 21 to purchase alcoholic beverages, but only 18 to consume. 

This seems like tailor-made for 21 y.o.s to get rich fast.