Beverages no more?

The UC administration’s growing role in regulating behavior

By Andrew R Quinio
From the December 2004 Print Edition

It’s a typical Friday night. The end of the week calls for a celebration, and the typical Cal undergraduate celebrates at one of the nearby fraternity parties. A drink or two won’t hurt, but be warned: A stranger-turned–drinking buddy could actually be an officer with the Berkeley Police Department.

Since the beginning of the semester, the Berkeley Police Department has been cracking down on underage drinking, and has consequently put the fraternities in the crosshairs. Plainclothes or undercover operations have been used to sniff out young drinkers as part of the Alcohol Beverage Control program. Such undercover busts aren’t what an incoming freshman would expect at his or her first fraternity party, as popular movies and television shows have generated images of the unrestricted flow of beer at most college soirees. At the Berkeley campus, law enforcers are damming the generous stream of Coors and Budweiser.

Before one rushes to label Berkeley’s finest as intrusive party poopers, it must be known that their marching orders came from outside the department. Any frustration or anger should be reserved for the University and not the police officers, who are merely doing their job. The recent crackdown on alcohol was prompted by a $50,000 grant from UC Berkeley and the state, as well as an additional grant from the federal government. It is the University’s role which brings elicits some major queries.

UC Berkeley’s ability to set the priorities of the Berkeley Police Department may divert the department’s attention from other issues of necessity. According to the University Police Crime Statistics of 2003, property crime constituted about 97 percent of all crime during that year. Of all property crime, theft dominated with 69 percent. Aggravated assault made up 48 percent of violent crime, while rape or attempted rape accounted for 15 percent of that category. According to the Berkeley Police Department statistics from 2003, theft was the most common crime with more than 6,000 incidences, followed by burglary with 1,240 incidences. As far as direct safety is concerned, the University should allow the police to handle these salient cases.

Though it cannot be completely determined that the alcohol operation is damaging efforts on other crime, the area of underage drinking is indeed being given special attention. In the Greek community, where alcohol is a must at every fraternity party, student leaders are taking special precautions.

The Interfraternity Council (IFC) has been working with the Berkeley Police Department to educate all members of the Greek community about the consequences of unregulated alcohol distribution. According to IFC President Taz Patel, the police and the students of the Greek community have engaged in a fair and mutual cooperation. “We have police checks during parties to ensure the safety and minimize any technical problems that may occur.”

Additional measures that fraternities have taken include limiting the attendance at parties, requiring bids to enter certain functions, and hiring private security agents to regulate who enters. As a further safety measure, some fraternities require partygoers to show proper identification to receive an alcoholic beverage.

Ian Richardson, IFC Vice President for Risk Management, has a positive outlook. “Greeks and local law enforcement share a common goal in protecting the safety of our members and guests, and we actively cooperate with them to accomplish that goal,” Richardson said.

The special focus on underage drinking at UC campuses like Berkeley has been a state policy stemming from Governor Gray Davis’ administration. Beginning in 2001, the Davis administration entered into partnerships with the University of California and California State University systems to address the problem of student alcohol consumption. If college-age partiers needed a reason to recall Davis last year, this could have been it. Governor Davis, the CSU Chancellor’s Office, and the UC Office of the President signed Memorandums of Understanding, agreeing to commit state resources to individual campuses in order to address the alcohol problem. One solution, giving grants to universities to distribute to local law enforcement, has come to fruition at Cal.

With such a program, there appears to be confusion as to the University’s role. Is UC Berkeley an educator or a babysitter? Using funds to regulate the private acts of its students seems to be counterintuitive to the University’s role of educator. The essential resources of the Berkeley PD could be concentrated in more important areas, rather than preventing students from partying as they wish to. It is true that alcohol poisoning kills college students each year, but this unfortunate and deadly outcome can be prevented without forcing an already-busy police department to get involved if students learn to behave responsibly.

The University setting fosters independence and self-discipline. No one tells students when to study, when to eat, or when to behave like good boys and girls. Each one of these actions is reached through personal choice, and each action results in either a negative or positive consequence. Similarly, overindulging in alcohol has natural consequences. The police department does not need to be hassled by the University to prevent undergraduates from learning from their mistakes.

Regardless of what should be and what could be, the Alcohol Beverage Control operations will exist as long as there is an underage student thirsting for a Heineken, and a University eager to take away his or her personal responsibility.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting the Patriot