“Procrastination is the art of keeping up with yesterday.”- Don MarquisThis university has a history of students who die because of untreated drug and alcohol overdoses, and officials are now developing a history of doing nothing to prevent it.
The University Student Conduct Committee voted unanimously to keep the current Code of Student Conduct intact, precluding any changes that would grant amnesty to students reporting drug and alcohol overdoses.
The memorandum explaining the decision is both embarrassing and scary. In it, committee chair Boden Sandstrom admits the committee was “not qualified to recommend solutions” and said it awaited sufficient data to craft a medical amnesty policy. Terry Roach, the university’s top lawyer, recommended the committee wait to ensure the proposed change is “supported by careful research convincingly demonstrating the need for change” before presenting it to the Board of Regents.
What are they waiting for?
In 2002, university student Daniel Reardon died of alcohol poisoning after a fraternity party. Fraternity members watched him throughout the night but didn’t seek medical help.
With each night that passes, countless students play this precarious game of drunken Russian roulette.
Instead of realizing the urgency of implementing an amnesty policy and discussing the merits and drawbacks of possible solutions, the memo listed the committee’s excuses for inaction.
One reason was the existence of extensive disciplinary processes already in place from the Office of Student Conduct, Resident Life Department and Office of Fraternity and Sorority Life. This is exactly the problem: Students feel helpless when their friends have drug and alcohol overdoses because they fear the confusing web of consequences awaiting them if they seek help. The message to students must be clear: Their safety is the university’s primary concern. When a friend becomes unresponsive after a night of partying, students shouldn’t hesitate to contact help.
Another reason was the need to create support programs, such as distributing educational refrigerator magnets – that’s right, refrigerator magnets – and creating an anonymous help hotline for students to call with questions. Students don’t need magnets and hotlines to help them recognize the symptoms of alcohol poisoning – unconsciousness, labored breathing and clammy skin – they just need the unambiguous support of the administration to seek help.
The magnets, hotlines and delays are not only missing the point – they’re dangerously and misguidedly attempting to address a very real problem. The question university policymakers need to ask is: Did we do all we could to prevent an alcohol-related tragedy? Overwhelming research points toward amnesty policies as an important piece of a comprehensive approach.
But, of course, there are pros and cons to every policy. There are alternatives, options and different viewpoints on every issue. It’s just too bad the University Senate has displayed such shocking negligence in failing to define the pros and cons to the campus. It’s clear the answer to whether we did everything we could to prevent would be “no.”
POLICY:The signed letters, columns and cartoon represent only the opinions of the authors. The staff editorial represents the opinion of The Diamondback’s editorial board and is the responsibility of the editor in chief.
