Did I miss something? I know Quinnipiac University has been buying up land to expand the University; I’ve been keeping track of that. However, the last time I checked, the town of Hamden, CT was not purchased by Quinnipiac University. So, why is it that Quinnipiac security is allowed to “off-road” and patrol their students off-campus?
In an article published this past weekend by Kendra Butters of The Quad News, it was learned that there is a special section in the Quinnipiac student handbook that clarifies that Quinnipiac security will venture off-campus, even on to property they do not own, to ensure “the health, safety and welfare of… Quinnipiac students.”
It was reported both in The Chronicle and The Quad News that an off-campus party that was held at a house (not owned by QU) being rented by QU seniors was also attended by QU security – but not to party. According to a student who was present at the house when security arrived, security came and questioned the residents of the house. In the ensuing days the students, also members of the Quinnipiac lacrosse team, were reportedly suspended from Quinnipiac. Is Quinnipiac doing this to protect their students safety, or their public image in Hamden? Better yet, what does the town of Hamden think about this?
As recent as last year, the University chose not to contact the Hamden Police Department after ”acts of hatred” occurred on campus. In an interview printed by The Chronicle last year, the student who was victimized told the student newspaper that she felt the University should have possibly contacted the police. Is Quinnipiac trying to keep things quiet on and off-campus?
What this deserves is a debate. Should Quinnipiac be allowed to do this? Some may argue that what students do off-campus is none of their business. Others may argue that they are looking out for the safety of their students and taking responsibility for their actions.
Students of Quinnipiac: let your voices be heard, and stand up for whatever side you think is right.
Like most universities, a majority of the students living on the QU campus seem to enjoy spending their weekends drinking alcoholic beverages. The National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 (which actually doesn’t prohibit a state from having a lower age than 21, but penalizes them) that states you cannot drink alcohol under the age of 21 doesn’t seem to stop those under 21 and looking for a good time from drinking out of red cups in a triangle formation.
Drinking on campus is inevitable – it is a fact. No matter what happens, it will happen. Sure, universities like QU police it with resident assistants, but for every party that gets broken up in Irma on a Friday night, there are at least 43 other parties hoppin’ somewhere on campus. The choice to drink is a choice every underage student has on any given weekend. Whether it a fake I.D. or knowing a real 21 year old, it isn’t too hard to obtain booze. Unfortunately, many students make the choice of drinking heavily; since the drinking age was raised in 1984 the percentage of college students that are considered binge-drinkers has gone up 40% according to the New Haven Advocate.
Drinking alcohol makes people feel good and let loose – the perfect combination for a stressed out college student. Drinking underage, although some may not realize, may seem cooler solely based on the fact that they aren’t supposed to be doing it. This raises the question: what if the drinking age was lowered to 18? Over 120 college presidents have signed on to the Amethyst Inititative, which was started by former Middlebury College president and Choose Responsibility founder John McCardell that calls for “an informed and dispassionate public debate over the effects of the 21-year-old drinking age.” The initiative has been getting a lot of play in the media, including a full-length feature on the topic in a recent edition of The New Haven Advocate. The initiative has also been met with much dissatisfaction, especially with Mothers Against Drunk Driving.
There are many different arguements on both sides of the issue. If the age was lowered those under 21wouldn’t have to hide the fact that they are drinking from adults and officials. By doing this they don’t see how responsible drinkers drink. Instead, chaos ensues; beer-bongs, 21-cup, shotgunning. Also by hiding, they can not be controlled and kept safe. Many college presidents feel if their students can drink out in the open in a social manner it can be more controlled and it would be a much safer evironment. A student in the Advocate story talks about how binge-drinking is ingrained in American culture, and it is often laughed at outside of the United States. The United States has the highest drinking age out of the 30+ countries in North and South America.
On the flipside, according to the Advocate, statistics show that the 1984 law has significantly lowered alcohol-related accidents among teens. Some MADD supporters believe that the colleges that are promoting the initiative should be automatically labeled “party schools” and parents should keep their children away. Another person interviewed in the Advocate compared lowering the drinking age to abolishing the speed limit in America.
My Take: I think that the government should let the states choose their drinking age, without any penalization for doing so; any age between 18 and 21 – for a five year period. At the end of the five year period a board appointed by the government should anazlyze data (such as alcohol-related car accidents, poisioning, etc. among teens) and decide what would be the best way to go from that point on. I think on the setting of a college campus lowering the drinking age would actually make the campus safer.
If the drinking age was 18 and I ran Quinnipiac I would let students drink inside of the dorms and in specific places outside on Friday and Saturday nights. I would bulk up security and even have Hamden Police stationed on campus. No student would be scared to approach a security guard or police officer if something bad was happening. If anyone was getting out of control that student would be sanctioned for it. I would also have a DUI checkpoint at EVERY gate on campus (Fri. and Sat. nights only), so when every car tries to enter or leave campus they are checked out.
With all of those inforcements in place, allowing students to drink on campus would no doubt in my mind lower the amount of QU drunk drivers on any given night. With DUI checkpoints at every gate, it would force kids to stay on campus to drink, and force kids to think twice about drinking off-campus and entering their car to come back to campus. The most important part of this idea would be that the drinking would be done in a more controlled environment, under the eye of responsible resident assistants and officials of authority (security and police).
This may be wishful thinking on my part, and yes my logic only applies to a college atmosphere. There are flaws in my ideas but there are many flaws in having the drinking age be 21. Having the age 21 keeps students hiding from a responsible atmosphere. The worst part about it is that the law actually forces the students off-campus to drink where they are more likely to drive drunk.
I think it is worth the chance to see how lowering the drinking age goes; it may save some lives. But what do you think? It is healthy to have an open, public discussion on the topic.
Hey everyone, glad to see you have been perusing this little adventure we’ve been embarking on. We had over 1,500 page views in one day last week! Let’s keep it up.
So my plan for this blog is two-fold. One side of the fold intends to give my opinion on the machine that QU often tends to be, and to delve inside student trends and happenings on campus. The other side of the fold (if you can fold a blog) I will share my feelings on a wide array of topics that are hopefully relevent to the QU community and to any interested human being. Sorry, I have to cut my introduction short because I need to leave for class 8 hours early so I can get a spot in North Lot. Ho, too late, got to park in Hogan… Here is a thought — just to make things interesting they should actually have Hulk Hogan stand at the gate of North Lot, and if you can knock him over with some “sweet chin music” or a “big boot” than you are granted entry into North Lot. If you can’t, you are sent to Hogan Lot. Just an idea to spice things up…
