House Termination Could Exacerbate Drunk Driving Problem

Author: Danielle Perkins

Has anyone else found themselves wondering where our school is headed? A number of recent issues such as the social houses, parking, the commons and housing, to name a few, seem to be moving in a direction that the student body does not approve. Although I believe all of these topics deserve their own attention, I know both of our time is limited so I will today focus on the injustices that I feel have been placed on Alpha Delta Phi (ADP).

As you all probably already know, ADP has been put on probation until January of 2003. The Community Council has outlined specific criteria that the house and members must meet in order to avoid termination. These include a cap on dorm damage of $2,000, no fall pledge, mandatory alcohol awareness education for members, a rewriting of house objectives as well as an internal judicial body designed to deal with "deviant behavior" of members. The part that they don't write down in the official letters and stipulations is that if you disagree with any of this or refuse to go to the alcohol education program, they will put you personally on social probation. This is the part of the issue that disgusts me — do we live in a country that embodies free speech or not?

While I believe many of these regulations are ridiculous in themselves especially since the majority of dorm damage is due to non-members and probably comparable to any first-year dorm, the implications of these actions are far more important. The four Ridgeline Woods houses were built in response to the drunk driving death of a Middlebury student in 1998. After this student died in a car accident on Route 30 on the way back from an off-campus party and the student's parents sued the school and the administration attempted to remedy a pressing problem. I will be one of the first to admit that social houses may not throw the best parties, often crowded, noisy and difficult to get a beer, but I also believe that they offer a better alternative than driving drunk. Whether the administration will admit it or not, they are attacking the social houses and hope to terminate them. Their avenue this time is dorm damage. Karl Lindholm, dean of advising, commented that, "the important issues in the review should be the acknowledgement of law and of safety. Nobody mandates that social houses have parties" (The Middlebury Campus, "In Midst of Review, Social Houses Defend Niche," April 10, 2002). As a member of a social house I agree that safety is important, but I also believe that dorm damage is a far less price to pay than death, paralysis or other impairments caused by drunk driving. It may not be mandated that we have parties, but that is part of being 'social,' isn't it? Furthermore, that is the initial purpose the houses were designed for. I also particularly object to Lindholm's analogy of the College as a landlord who "doesn't care if you did [the damage] or your guest." My impression of Middlebury College as any reputable and understanding academic institution is to teach and guide learning as well as behavior, not to act as an uncaring landlord that kicks you out when you mess up.

Another issue that arises regards the hypocrisy of these allegations. Multiple commons sponsored parties as well as other College-sponsored events such as the Winter Carnival Ball serve alcohol but bypass many regulations of Training for Intervention Procedures (TIPS), registering and even security that social houses must follow. Why is it acceptable to have underage drinking in these circumstances with threats of dorm and building damage but not at social houses? Why are the regulations social houses already adhere to not enough? In the end, the values and opportunities that the commons and the social houses offer such as leadership, social connection and a sense of community are quite similar, so why should we destroy one?

Social houses may not be the most perfect institutions, but I hope that in the future the administration will try to see the positives that they offer. I agree that we should all work together to make the best possible establishments. More importantly, however, I hope that the College is willing to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. The way things are now, parties here may not be perfect, but they beat drunk driving. The Ridgeline Woods houses were built to solve a problem, so let's not create a new one by disbanding them.