DOCSLIB.ORG

Chief Student Affairs Officers' Interpretation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Clemson University TigerPrints All Dissertations Dissertations 5-2012 CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFICERS' INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MINIMUM LEGAL DRINKING AGE AND THE AMETHYST INITIATIVE: A DISCURSIVE POLICY ANALYSIS Rebecca Caldwell Clemson University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations Part of the Educational Administration and Supervision Commons Recommended Citation Caldwell, Rebecca, "CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFICERS' INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MINIMUM LEGAL DRINKING AGE AND THE AMETHYST INITIATIVE: A DISCURSIVE POLICY ANALYSIS" (2012). All Dissertations. 890. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_dissertations/890 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Dissertations at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHIEF STUDENT AFFAIRS OFFICERS’ INTERPRETATION AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MINIMUM LEGAL DRINKING AGE AND THE AMETHYST INITIATIVE: A DISCURSIVE POLICY ANALYSIS A Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of Clemson University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Educational Leadership by Rebecca Jane Caldwell May 2012 Accepted by: Dr. Pamela A. Havice, Committee Chair Dr. Tony W. Cawthon Dr. James Satterfield Dr. Jason Cassidy ABSTRACT High-risk drinking is an endemic health and safety issue for college campuses in the United States (U.S.). While public health officials have recommended various models for campus alcohol prevention efforts, in 2008 a group of college presidents recommended a controversial strategy: reconsidering the U.S. minimum legal drinking age (MLDA). The primary purpose of this study was to explore how Chief Student Affairs Officers (CSAOs) describe the impact of the Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) on high-risk drinking and alcohol-related issues on college and university campuses. The secondary purpose was to describe the impact of the Amethyst Initiative (AI), the aforementioned effort to re-examine the MLDA, on CSAOs who work on campuses that did and did not sign the AI. Discursive methods of policy analysis (Fischer, 2003) were used to address the research questions, specifically interpretive policy analysis (Yanow, 2000) and discourse analysis (Gee, 2005, 2011). Analyses included a discourse analysis of the Amethyst Initiative Presidential Statement and discourse analysis of interviews with CSAOs. Participants were eight CSAOs from campuses whose presidents signed the AI and eight CSAOs from similar campuses that did not sign the AI. The CSAOs in this study approached alcohol abuse prevention with a focus on preventing dangerous and irresponsible drinking rather than underage drinking. CSAOs attempted to develop a balanced approach to prevention and enforcement efforts, as they simultaneously balanced the complex roles of a CSAO with various campus constituents. ii CSAOs who participated in this study expressed a range of beliefs about the changeability of campus alcohol abuse issues and the possible effects of a lower MLDA. Individually, the CSAOs who participated in this study expressed a variety of viewpoints about the MLDA and the AI, whether or not their president signed the AI. Three-quarters expressed some level of personal opposition to the current MLDA, but all cited policy enforcement as an important tool in addressing alcohol abuse on their campuses. The CSAOs in this study displayed a broad range of involvement by their president in the decision whether or not to sign the AI. Overall, the AI had little impact on CSAOs’ interpretation and implementation of the MLDA. Participants from both AI and non-AI institutions reported that the AI failed to capture the attention and imagination of their campuses and the broader culture. iii DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my wife Cloe and my son Larson; you are my dream come true. Also to my parents, David and Barbara Caldwell, for instilling my love of learning and giving me a lifetime of love and support, as well as my brother Ethan and my nieces Emily Rose and Madelynn Rae and my nephew Taylor David. Thanks to you all for letting me pursue my passion. I offer you all my love and support to pursue yours. iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and foremost, I’d like to thank my chair, Dr. Pam Havice. Thank you for your encouragement, guidance, and positivity. It was a sincere pleasure to work with you. I’d like to thank my entire committee, Dr. Tony Cawthon, Dr. James Satterfield, and Dr. Jason Cassidy. The path wasn’t always clear, but your guidance and wisdom helped this study to come together. Thank you for your encouragement, support, and work alongside me. I’d like to thank my entire Clemson faculty for a great experience in this doctoral program. Special thanks to Dr. Janie Clark Lindle, who helped so much with my writing at the start and helped my final process with crucial conversations at a pivotal moment. My colleagues in the office put up with my crazy schedule and encouraged me to keep going: Becky Stancil, Isis Arrieta-Dennis, Aimee Hourigan, Jen Adler, Diane Edwards, Dee Casey, Kathy Ross, Danielle Dorn, Adam Tate, and Adam Hall. Every day, we suit up and do tough work that really matters. You have my admiration and my gratitude. And to my sweet Ms. B, thanks for sticking it out until I was done. Thank you to the leadership in the Division of Student Affairs at UNCW who made room for me to pursue my degree: Vice Chancellor Pat Leonard, Dr. Mike Walker, and Dr. Brian Victor. Thanks to my work pals who kept me sane and moving forward: Katrin Wesner, Jennie McNeilly, Larry Wray, Amy Hector, Dr. Matt Mayhew, Dr. Nathan Lindsay, Dr. Donna Chapa-Crowe, Dr. Peggy Turner, and Abby Knight. Special thanks to our dear friends Katie Peel, Amy Schlag, Lori Messinger, and Boo Tyson for spending Sunday afternoons with Cloe and Larson during the last crucial months of writing. v I have been blessed with a special group of women in my life who have mentored and inspired me. Thanks to Dr. Ruth Harper for your on-going mentorship. I operate daily based on the values you taught me about work and life. Our relationship is so special to me. Lastly, a special thanks to Tracy Riddle, a woman who taught me to approach this work with equal parts laughter and love. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TITLE PAGE .................................................................................................................... i ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................... ii DEDICATION ................................................................................................................ iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................... v LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... x LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ xi CHAPTER I. NATURE OF THE PROBLEM..................................................................... 1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 1 Statement of the Problem ......................................................................... 5 Purpose of the Study ................................................................................ 6 Research Questions .................................................................................. 6 Theoretical Framework ............................................................................ 6 Research Design and Methodology ......................................................... 7 Significance of the Study ......................................................................... 9 Limitations and delimitations ................................................................ 10 Definition of Terms................................................................................ 11 Organization of the Study ...................................................................... 12 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............................................................. 14 Introduction ............................................................................................ 14 College Alcohol Use .............................................................................. 15 Prevention Theories ............................................................................... 18 Amethyst Initiative................................................................................. 28 Minimum Legal Drinking Age (MLDA) ............................................... 33 Chief Student Affairs Officers (CSAOs) ............................................... 41 Theoretical Framework .......................................................................... 48 Chapter Summary .................................................................................. 53 vii Table of Contents (Continued) Page III. METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................... 55 Introduction ............................................................................................ 55 Study Design and Research Paradigm ................................................... 55 Research
Recommended publications
  • Calculating Lives Saved Due to Minimum Drinking Age Laws John Kindelberger*

    Calculating Lives Saved Due to Minimum Drinking Age Laws John Kindelberger*

    Traffic Safety Facts Research Note March 2005 DOT HS 809 860 Calculating Lives Saved Due to Minimum Drinking Age Laws John Kindelberger* Currently (2004), every State in the United States prohibits study can be found in Arnold.2 The cumulative estimated purchase or public possession of alcoholic beverages for number of lives saved through 2002, based on Arnold’s those under the age of 21. Each year, the National Center methodology, is displayed in this note’s appendix. for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA) of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) publishes an estimate1 of lives saved due to such bans, referred to more generically Calculation as “minimum legal drinking age” (MLDA) laws. This note NCSA calculates its estimate of lives saved due to MLDA describes the methodology used, and introduces a slight laws as follows: change in that methodology. The described change will be implemented for the first time in the calculation of the estimate Let F = the actual number of fatalities in target crashes of number of lives saved during the year 2003. recorded in NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis Recording System (FARS); Let P = potential fatalities: the number of fatalities that would Background have been expected in target crashes absent the MLDA 13 Between 1970 and 1975, 29 States lowered their drinking ages percent effect to 18, 19, or 20. By 1983, safety concerns had led many of P is computed from F by finding the number which, when these States to reverse course. In 1984, the Uniform Drinking reduced by 13 percent, gives F. Thus F must be (1-.13)*P, or Age Act reduced Federal transportation funding to States 87 percent of P, so not prohibiting alcohol “purchase and public possession” for those under age 21.
  • Title 21 - Liquor

    Title 21 - Liquor

    TITLE 21 - LIQUOR CHAPTER 2 - ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES REGULATIONS Legislative History: Resolution No. 04-514, "Exempting the Tohono O'odham Gaming Enterprise (Formerly known as the Tohono 0 'odham Gaming Authority) from Additional Provisions ofArticle III of Ordinance 05-82, and Adopting Amended Regulations Pursuant to Article IV, Section 2(K) of Ordinance 05-82, "was approved on October 25, 2004. Related History: The regulations adopted by Resolution No. 04-514 superceded those previously adopted by Resolution No. 01-119, "Exempting the Tohono 0 'odham Gaming Authority from the provisions ofArticle Ill Sections (2) and (4) of Ordinance 05-82, and adopting regulations pursuant to Article IV, Section 2(K) of Ordinance 05-82, " which was passed by the Tohono 0 'odham Legislative Council on March 9, 2001, presented to the Nation's Chairman on March 9, 2001, and returned unsigned on March 15, 2001. ,. To,hono 0' odham Nation Alcoholic Beverages Licensing and Control Regulations October , 2004 (1st ed. 2006) 1082 Alcoholic Beverages Licensing and Control Regulations Table of Contents Definitions ................................................................... l Section 1.1. Purpose ...... ., ....................................... l Section t .2. Definitions ........................................... 1 1.2.1. "Act of violence" ............................... -1 1.2.2. "Beer" ......................................... l 1.2.3. "Broken package" ............................... l 1.2.4. "Control" ...................................... 1 1.2.5.
  • Breaking the Link Between Legal Access to Alcohol and Motor Vehicle Accidents: Evidence from New South Wales∗

    Breaking the Link Between Legal Access to Alcohol and Motor Vehicle Accidents: Evidence from New South Wales∗

    Forthcoming in Health Economics Breaking the Link Between Legal Access to Alcohol and Motor Vehicle Accidents: Evidence from New South Wales∗ Jason M. Lindo Peter Siminski Oleg Yerokhin Abstract A large literature has documented significant public health benefits associated with the minimum legal drinking age in the United States, particularly because of the resulting effects on motor vehicle accidents. These benefits form the primary basis for continued efforts to restrict youth access to alcohol. It is important to keep in mind, though, that policymakers have a wide variety of alcohol-control options available to them, and understanding how these policies may complement or substitute for one another can improve policy making moving forward. Towards this end, we propose that investigating the causal effects of the minimum legal drinking age in New South Wales, Australia provides a particularly informative case study, because Australian states are among the world leaders in their efforts against drunk driving. Using an age-based regression-discontinuity design applied to restricted-use data from several sources, we find no evidence that legal access to alcohol has effects on motor vehicle accidents of any type in New South Wales, despite having large effects on drinking and on hospitalizations due to alcohol abuse. JEL Classification: I18, K32 Keywords: health, alcohol, minimum legal drinking age, drunk driving ∗Lindo is an Associate Professor of Economics at Texas A&M University, a Visiting Principal Fellow at University of Wollongong, a Faculty Research Fellow at NBER, and a Research Fellow at IZA. Siminski is an Associate Professor of Economics at University of Wollongong and a Research Fellow at IZA.
  • The Drinking Age

    The Drinking Age

    Vermont Legislative Research Shop Lowering the Drinking Age The minimum legal drinking age fluctuated throughout the second half of the 20th century, yielding mixed results. After prohibition was repealed in 1933, almost every state set the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) at 21 years.1 In 1970 Congress lowered the voting age to 18, which began a movement to lower the drinking age, as well. During the Vietnam era, many people were outraged that 18 year‐olds were fighting overseas yet could not have a drink. In the period between 1970 and 1975, 29 states lowered their MLDA to 18, 19 or 20. A study by Alexander Wagenaar revealed that in states that had lowered their minimum age there was a 15 to 20% increase in teen automobile accidents.2 This information influenced 16 states to raise their MLDA to 21 between 1976 and 1983. Pressure from groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) led to the signing of the Uniform Drinking Age Act by President Ronald Reagan on July 17, 1984.3 This act mandated a significant decrease in federal transportation funding for states that did not raise their MLDA to 21. Worldwide, the United States has the highest MLDA, with others ranging from birth to age 20.4 The majority of countries have a MLDA of 18. In most of these countries, however, the family teaches responsible drinking from a very young age. Since 1960, over one hundred studies have been conducted to analyze the effects of raising the MLDA. This research was examined by Alexander Wagenaar to determine the trends that appeared in the conclusions.5 Some of these studies provided evidence supporting a MLDA of 21, while most others found no conclusive results.
  • Minimum Legal Drinking Age Saves Lives

    Minimum Legal Drinking Age Saves Lives

    Minimum Legal Drinking Age Saves Lives The Policy After Prohibition, nearly every state designated 21 as the minimum legal drinking age (MLDA). In the 1970s, 29 states lowered their drinking age to 18, 19 or 20, which led to increases in alcohol sales and consumption, as well as alcohol- related traffic injuries and fatalities, among youth.1 By 1983, 16 states raised their MLDA back to 21 to address the increased drinking and driving traffic fatalities among youth. In 1984, the federal government enacted the Uniform Drinking Age Act, which reduced federal transportation funds for those states that did not raise their MLDA to 21. By 1988, all states had set the minimum legal drinking age at 21.2 The goal of the MLDA is to curb youth drinking and reduce its related problems, especially traffic injuries and deaths.3 l Alcohol is the number one drug of choice among America’s youth.4, 5, 6 Every day in the U.S., 7,000 youth under age 16 have their first drink of alcohol.7 l More than 4,300 youth under age 21 in the U.S. die each year as a result of alcohol-related injuries, shortening their lives by an average of 60 years; 38% of those deaths involve car accidents, 32% result from homicides, and about 6% (300 deaths) are suicides.5 l The highest prevalence of alcohol dependence among U.S. drinkers is people 18-20 years old.4 l Nearly 2,500 young people 12-14 years old initiated alcohol use each day in 2010.5 l A stunning 25.9% of underage drinkers meet the clinical criteria for alcohol abuse or dependence, compared to 9.6% of adult drinkers.8 l Countries with lower MLDA have binge drinking9 rates for youth 15-16 years more than double the U.S.
  • Alcohol Consumption Among Children

    Alcohol Consumption Among Children

    II.4. RISK FACTORS ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION AMONG CHILDREN Alcohol use in adolescence continues to be very Approximately a third of European adolescents common in Europe, with beer being by far the most report negative experiences while under the influence popular alcoholic beverage, even though the of alcohol. These include accidents or injuries (9% of percentage of 15-16 year olds reporting heavy episodic boys and girls) and unprotected sex (8% of boys and drinking has come down at least slightly in recent 5% of girls). years in several countries (ESPAD, 2016). A number of policies have proven to be effective to Two adolescent drinking patterns are specifically reduce alcohol drinking among adolescents, such as linked to negative health, education and social limiting accessibility (e.g. through restrictions on outcomes – early initiation of alcohol consumption and location and hours of sales, and raising the minimum binge drinking. About half of European adolescents age to drink alcohol), increase prices, and advertising started drinking alcohol at the age of 13 or even regulations. In January 2018, Lithuania, which has one of younger, and almost 10% have been drunk at least once the highest level of alcohol consumption among by the age of 13 (ESPAD, 2016). Children who report adolescents based on another children and adolescent early initiation to alcohol and having been drunk on survey (Inchley et al., 2016), introduced a new legislation several occasions are more likely to develop alcohol on alcohol control particularly targeting young people. dependence later in life (Spear, 2015). This legislation raised the legal drinking age from 18 to By age 15-16, over 80% of adolescents report 20, restricted opening hours for sales in retail stores, and having tried alcohol at least once in their life, and half banned all advertising for beers, wines and spirits.
  • Alcohol Policy Initiatives of Post-Secondary Institutions in the State of Kentucky: an Evaluation of Best Practice Strategies to Reduce Binge Drinking

    Alcohol Policy Initiatives of Post-Secondary Institutions in the State of Kentucky: an Evaluation of Best Practice Strategies to Reduce Binge Drinking

    Eastern Kentucky University Encompass Online Theses and Dissertations Student Scholarship January 2018 Alcohol Policy Initiatives of Post-Secondary Institutions in the State of Kentucky: An Evaluation of Best Practice Strategies to Reduce Binge Drinking Deniece Bell Eastern Kentucky University Follow this and additional works at: https://encompass.eku.edu/etd Part of the Higher Education Administration Commons, and the Substance Abuse and Addiction Commons Recommended Citation Bell, Deniece, "Alcohol Policy Initiatives of Post-Secondary Institutions in the State of Kentucky: An Evaluation of Best Practice Strategies to Reduce Binge Drinking" (2018). Online Theses and Dissertations. 508. https://encompass.eku.edu/etd/508 This Open Access Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at Encompass. It has been accepted for inclusion in Online Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Encompass. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ALCOHOL POLICY INITIATIVES OF POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS IN THE STATE OF KENTUCKY: AN EVALUATION OF BEST PRACTICE STRATEGIES TO REDUCE BINGE DRINKING BY DENIECE BELL DISSERTATION APPROVED: Date: 04/09/2018 ALCOHOL POLICY INITIATIVES OF POST-SECONDARY INSTITUTIONS IN THE STATE OF KENTUCKY: AN EVALUATION OF BEST PRACTICE STRATEGIES TO REDUCE BINGE DRINKING BY DENIECE BELL Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Eastern Kentucky University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION 2018 @ Copyright by DENIECE BELL, 2018 All Rights Reserved. ii DEDICATION This Dissertation is dedicated to my parents who are with me in spirit. Thank you for teaching me the importance of discipline, perseverance, the fundamental values of achieving goals and most importantly being my spiritual guide and moral compass.
  • Alcohol on Campus: Who's Responsible for the Party?

    Alcohol on Campus: Who's Responsible for the Party?

    ALCOHOL ON CAMPUS: WHO’S RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PARTY? Deliberation Guide Introduction Ronald Thomas, Natasha Roberts, India Smith Alcohol and America have a love/ hate relationship. Americans love to consume alcohol which is why the temperance movement could not stop the population from drinking. Drinking is associated with many of societies’ traditions and norms. At football and baseball games many enjoy ice cold beers, on New Year’s many celebrate the new year with champagne, a nice dinner with friends or coworkers involves nice wine and let’s not forget about the big 21st birthday. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention states that in the U.S. 51% of adults 18 and over are current relevant drinkers (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/alcohol.htm). This fact helps show that alcohol consumption is the norm which is why the prohibition of alcohol was unsuccessful. Americans love to drink! Alcohol is considered a gateway drug that has led to many fatal and horrid incidents in America. In 2012, 10,322 people were killed in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (31%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States. The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes totals more than $59 billion according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. In addition, according to the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence, 36% of those under correctional supervision at the time were drinking at the time of their conviction offense. To add to that, federal research shows that for the 40% of convicted murderers being held in either jail or state prison, alcohol use was a factor in the homicide.
  • Htemships Offer Popular Afternative Creased to 15 Counts in 2008 from Focused on Removing the Veazie 11 in 2007

    Htemships Offer Popular Afternative Creased to 15 Counts in 2008 from Focused on Removing the Veazie 11 in 2007

    ALUMNI NEWS \ D1WALI FESTIVAL Campus Kulik '76 crime stats counts published river fish By MICHAEL BROPHY By EMMA CREEDEN ASSISTANT NEWS EDITOR CONTRIBUTING WRITER Earlier mis month, College Se- The Penobscot River Restora- curity submitted the College's tion Project is an assertive, ag- 2008 Campus Crime Statistics to gressive, public-private attempt to the U.S. Department of Educa- restore native fish populations in tion and posted the information the Penobscot River. on the Department of Security Over 150 years of land clear- web page. ing, sewage waste and industrial In accordance with federal law, pollution by pulp, paper, textile the report must list the counts for and lumber mills turned the river an array of potential campus into what Brandon Kulik '76 crimes, ranging from burglary all refers to as a "biological desert." the way to murder and arson for The Penobscot River contin- the calendar year of 2008. The ued to succumb to extreme statistics from 2008 are listed amounts of sludge and contami- next to the same statistics for the ¦ nation until the passage of the — CHRIS KASPRA1VTHE CWBY ECHO calendar years 2006 and 2007. Clean Water Act in 1972 and a se- Students danced for a crowd in Foss on Friday to celebrate the holiday of lights. The event featured traditional Indian song and dance. The statistic that stands out ries of hydro quality reforms in most in the report is the signifi- the 1980s. cant increase in larceny, which Today, the Penobscot River increased to 86 counts in 2008 Restoration Project is issuing a from 53 in 2007.
  • Alcohol Policies & Expectations

    Alcohol Policies & Expectations

    Alcohol Policies & Expectations DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY ITALIAN CAMPUS PROGRAM THE RESIDENCE LIFE HANDBOOK The Duquesne University Residence Life Handbook (http://www.duq.edu/Documents/residence- life/_pdf/Residence_Life_Handbook.pdf) is clear about on what is not allowed by students as a Duquesne University student: “All students of legal drinking age are responsible for their actions while drinking alcoholic beverages, including being intoxicated while being in public. Any student may be cited by a University official for public intoxication. It is to the University official's discretion whether or not a student may be considered publicly intoxicated. Public intoxication includes, but is not limited to, endangering the safety of other students or the self. All alcohol policy violations will result in disciplinary action and/or educational programming by Duquesne CARES.” (pg. 4) – YOU ARE NEVER TO BE INTOXICATED/DRUNK. THE ALCOHOL AGREEMENT POLICY The Alcohol Agreement Policy, which you all signed and is available to you in your Italian Campus Student Handbook (pg. 35 & 36) is clear in section “3” when it states: “Each student is responsible for knowing the country’s laws, Duquesne University’s rules, the Italian Campus rules, and understand one’s own personal limits before using or consuming alcoholic beverages.” – YOU MUST UNDERSTAND AND KNOW YOUR OWN LIMITS AND NOT EXCEED THEM. AMENDMENTS The Amendments to the Duquesne University Residence Life Handbook (pg. 28-29 of the Italian Campus Student Handbook) is clear that the Italian Campus is a “dry campus”: “No alcohol is allowed on the actual Italian Campus, except for special events when alcohol will be provided by the Italian Campus staff.
  • Drug-Free Schools and Campuses Regulations [EDGAR Part 86] Biennial Review: 2019

    Drug-Free Schools and Campuses Regulations [EDGAR Part 86] Biennial Review: 2019

    Mayville State University Mayville, ND (Member of the North Dakota University System) Drug-Free Schools and Campuses Regulations [EDGAR Part 86] Biennial Review: 2019 November 2019 1 Table of Contents I. Introduction / Overview .................................................................................................................................................. 2 II. Biennial Review Process .................................................................................................................................................. 4 A. Biennial Review Preparer ...................................................................................................................................... 4 B. Location of Biennial Review .................................................................................................................................. 5 III. Annual Policy Notification Process .................................................................................................................................. 5 A. Content of Alcohol/Drug Abuse Prevention Statement. ..................................................................................... 5 B. Notification Process for Employees ..................................................................................................................... 5 C. Notification Process for Students ........................................................................................................................ 5 IV. Alcohol and Other Drug (AOD) Prevalence
  • Cocktails on Campus: Are Libations a Liability? Susan S

    Cocktails on Campus: Are Libations a Liability? Susan S

    Barry University School of Law Digital Commons @ Barry Law Faculty Scholarship 2015 Cocktails on Campus: Are Libations a Liability? Susan S. Bendlin Barry University Follow this and additional works at: https://lawpublications.barry.edu/facultyscholarship Part of the Civil Law Commons, Education Law Commons, Higher Education Administration Commons, Litigation Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Susan S. Bendlin, Cocktails on Campus: Are Libations a Liability? 48 Suffolk L. Rev. 67 (2015) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ Barry Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Barry Law. Cocktails on Campus: Are Libations a Liability? Susan S. Bendlin* "It would be unrealistic to impose upon an institution of higher education the additional role of custodian over its adult students and to charge it with responsibilityfor preventing students from illegally consuming alcohol and, should they do so, with responsibilityfor assuring their safety and the safety of others." I. INTRODUCTION An estimated 1,825 college students die each year from alcohol-related, unintentional injuries.2 Roughly 599,000 students between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four are injured every year while under the influence of alcohol.3 More than 100,000 students have reported that they were too intoxicated to know whether they had consented to having sex, and an estimated 97,000 students annually are victims of alcohol-related sexual assault or date rape.4 * Associate Professor, Barry University School of Law, and former Dean of Students at Emory University School of Law, Duke University School of Law, and Barry University School of Law.