Illegal underage drinking is fuelling many of the disputed sexual encounters that are roiling college campuses around the country.
And university administrators don’t have the guts to confront this issue directly because it would make them unpopular with students who regard the right to get drunk and “hook up” as fundamental to the college experience.
Many if not most of the she-said-he-said controversies about whether a sexual encounter was consensual involve one or both parties being drunk. In these situations, memories are blurred and the woman is almost always believed. Moreover, women aren’t charged when they have sex with a drunk man. It’s a one-way street.
Colleges that knowingly permit drinking by underage students are not only morally complicit, they may be legally complicit. They claim they can’t stop it. They are lying. It wouldn’t be easy to stop all illegal underage drinking, but it would certainly be possible to reduce the incidence of drunkenness among students.
Colleges could have a zero-tolerance policy toward underage drinking: If you’re caught, you’re automatically suspended.
They could have university police monitor local bars and card all undergrads.
They could ban alcohol in dorm rooms and actually enforce the ban.
They could require dorm supervisors to report drunken conduct.
Already many dorms have video cameras that record the entry and exit of students. These videos could identify drunk students, just as such footage is utilized in contested sexual assault cases.
Fraternities, sororities, and other clubs that today serve as alcohol mills should be required to stop providing booze to teenagers.
Tailgate parties could be monitored for underage drinking.
There is nothing ideological about drinking. Moreover, it is gender neutral — women are as much at fault as men.
None of this would be easy or popular but it could have a dramatic effect on reducing sexual assaults. It would also reduce the number of questionable cases in which both parties are drunk and lack clear memories of what happened.
I am not suggesting that colleges adopt Brigham Young University’s blanket prohibition on all premarital sex, or even its blanket prohibition on all drinking, regardless of age. But to be effective, a ban on underage drinking would have to be somewhat over-inclusive — it would have to apply to all undergraduates, even those who have reached the drinking age of 21. Otherwise it would be too easy for 21-year-old undergrads to become the providers and facilitators of underage drinking. The slightly over-inclusive ban would permit colleges to have an absolute rule against any alcohol in undergraduate dorms, at undergraduate parties, and other social events. It would require 21-year-olds to wait until they graduated before drinking on their alma mater’s campus.
But it would be worth it, if it cut down on the number of sexual assaults and complaints. It is difficult to come up with hard statistical evidence of cause and effect when it comes to alcohol and sex, because the data on drinking and sexual assaults is unreliable. But clinical evidence points to a close association between excessive drinking and disputed sexual encounters.
An effective ban on underage drinking would also save colleges a small fortune. Today, there is an entire bureaucracy in many colleges whose primary job is to monitor the sexual behavior of students to assure that every sexual encounter meets the varying standards of consent articulated by different colleges. It would also improve the quality of the education provided by colleges, since students who come to class with hangovers are not in the best position to learn. Finally, it would reduce the number of fatalities and serious injuries associated with alcohol consumption.
So why is there no movement on campuses to allocate more resources to regulating drunkenness rather than sex? Because an entire industry and political movement has been built around punishing alleged sex offenders rather than preventing sex offenses. There is nothing ideological about drinking. Moreover, it is gender neutral — women are as much at fault as men. So there is no political or ideological benefit in focusing on the alcohol component of sexual encounters. But the cost of tolerating pervasive drunkenness on campuses — especially to women — is too high. Difficult and unpopular as it would be, it is imperative that colleges take responsibility for tolerating the crime of underage drinking.
