National Media Energized by Drink Ban

Dining Services’ announcement to cease the sale of energy drinks on campus following a proposal from the Community Council has caught the attention of the national media and been the focus of a range of scrutiny.

The debate held by the Community Council and the ensuing decision first gained the attention of Susan Donaldson James, a Vermont­-based NBC freelance journalist. She interviewed three students on campus and published an article about the ban. From there, news sites including Time Magazine, the Bowdoin Orient and almost 100 others picked up the story and covered it from a variety of angles.

Many sources published statistics and quotations provided by Myles Kamisher-­Koch, a dining software intern at the College, who first proposed the idea to the Community Council. Much of the language in the coverage also came from Executive Director of Food Services, Dan Detora, who released the announcement about the ban.

Cosmopolitan reporter Megan Friedman took a more humorous approach, opening her article by saying students “will have to rely on lots and lots of coffee during final exams from now on,” without the help of energy drinks for staying awake. She added that, “it’s a major blow for all­-nighter study sessions in the library.”

The Huffington Post, on the other hand, challenged the validity of the health risk correlation that Detora cited in the announcement. An article in the Bowdoin Orient, reassured students that Bowdoin College plans to continue the sale of energy drinks, which, according to Bowdoin Director of Dining and Bookstore Services, Mary McAteer Kennedy, have declined in popularity in recent years but still sell at high rates during exams weeks.

On March 4, Yahoo News published information from the American Heart Association’s recent research showing the negative effects of energy drinks to the heart. In their article, Yahoo mistakenly reported that the College banned both the “sale and consumption of energy drinks on campus.” The College has not banned the consumption of these drinks.

Since the consumption of energy drinks on campus is still allowed and the drinks are easy to come by, those in opposition to the new rule have instead voiced concern with the College’s infringement on students’ ability to make personal decisions rather than anger over limiting the actual acquisition of the energy drinks.

Prior to being approached by NBC in Wilson Cafe, Phil Hoxie ’17.5, not an energy­ drink consumer but an opponent of the ban, was unaware of the new ban and was shocked by the media response. “There’s too much going on in the world right now, they should have better things to cover ... and yet energy drinks,” he said.

Additionally, he disagrees with the ban, saying, “If the Community Council thinks that we aren’t responsible enough to make good choices as far as how much caffeine we consume, are they doing us any favors? I would say no, they’re not.”

By banning the drinks, he believes the College is not only doing a disservice to the students by robbing them of an aspect of their educational environment, but also doing a disservice to the College’s image.

“As far as the coverage goes,” Hoxie said, “I think what [the College] administration should be worried about is, are they playing into framing [the College] as an over­controlling environment toward their students?”

Although students like Hoxie offer a valid argument, Community Council Co-­Chair Tiffany Chang ’17.5 and Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of the College Katy Smith Abbott draw attention back to the original impetus and facts behind the recommendation and subsequent ban.

According to Smith Abbott, Dining Services had the power to unilaterally stop the sale without notification to the Council or student body, but the research showing the health risks that Kamisher-­Koch presented persuaded the Council members that this action, as Smith Abbott said, “was really about being consistent with our mission statement and our dining statement, which is on the books.”

Both Smith Abbott and Chang agreed that it was clear the media used this as an opportunity to publish a sensational story that would tap into a broader national conversation, turning it into something much larger than it really is.