When it comes to campus alcohol policy, the administration rightly prioritizes student safety. When administrators discuss revisions to the University’s health and safety intervention policy May 16, student safety should still be front and center.
The current alcohol “amnesty clause” guarantees that students who seek medical attention for themselves or others will not receive disciplinary action against them for violating the alcohol policy unless other University rules are concurrently broken. The administration is considering altering the policy so that conduct records reflect when a student has used the “amnesty clause” in the past two calendar years.
The amnesty policy should seek to enhance student safety. The new policy should not seek to punish students. Instead, the new information should be used to address the underlying issues of students with histories of alcohol abuse.
So far the amnesty policy debate has focused on students’ rights. Reframing the issue in terms of safety, however, will lead to more productive reflection and debate.
The new policy claims to enhance safety by disincentivizing heavy drinking and allowing the Undergraduate Conduct Board to reflect upon students’ past alcohol abuse—behavior that is often a sign of deeper psychological problems.
But, as many have pointed out, there are difficulties in this line of thought. With the new disincentive in play, students might spend time weighing the costs and benefits of calling Emergency Medical Services for a student in need of medical attention. This becomes especially problematic when students cannot decide whether or not medical attention is necessary. In these situations, students might allow fear of getting their friend in trouble to influence their decisions in a life-threatening situation.
Clearly, the proposed policy might put student safety at risk. Given that, a high burden of evidence needs to be placed on advocates of the new policy to ensure that its bad consequences do not outweigh its benefits.
Modifying the proposed policy could mitigate the potential backlash and make it more palatable to students. It is important for the UCB to have information about alcohol abuse. But the new information should not be used to punish students or to enhance punishments for other violations. Instead, the UCB should turn a sympathetic eye toward students with a history of alcohol abuse. If the UCB is aware of a student’s previous EMS calls for alcohol abuse, they will better understand the student’s past and future needs and can more appropriately make judgments on remediation.
Under the University’s current health and safety intervention policy, students who receive medical assistance for alcohol abuse are sometimes required to seek help from Counseling and Psychological Services, and may get a phone call home to boot. This is a good policy. When students persistently endanger their safety, however, despite the involvement of their parents and CAPS, stronger, more targeted interventions may be needed. These are exactly the sort of interventions the UCB could recommend with information about past alcohol abuses.
An educational initiative should follow a modification to the policy. Students need to know that student conduct records have no meaning in the world outside of Duke, and that the new information will be used sympathetically.
A new amnesty clause could enhance student safety—if it’s done right.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.