Advocating the use of alcohol
Gary Lowell
Issue date: 11/5/09 Section: Opinion
Bridgewater State College does not allow postings which advocate the use of alcohol or illegal substances. This is a viewpoint biased policy, and it seems to me that it is unconstitutional for that reason. Even if it is not unconstitutional, I will argue that it should be removed.
According to Dr. Dana Mohler-Faria, tough policies on alcohol were created at BSC after there were large problems with drinking on campus. Dr. Mohler-Faria said that the policies are needed to prevent such drinking problems from happening again. I think this is not necessarily true. Dr. Mohler-Faria seems to be incorrectly assuming that either the college has a lax alcohol policy and has large drinking problems or it has a zero tolerance policy and has less drinking problems.
This seems to be committing the fallacy of the false dilemma: assuming that there are only two options when there in fact may be others. I would think that there is some middle ground where the college has policies that are somewhere between lax and zero tolerance that could still be effective in preventing underage drinking. Whatever policies are in place, however, there will always be a substantial amount of drinking on campus; though this does not mean there should be zero regulation. It shows to me that more restrictive policies do not necessarily make the college a safer place.
That brings me to the college's prohibition on postings that advocate the use of alcohol. If the purpose of the policy is actually to lower drinking on campus, it seems that the policy is in place for two possible reasons, or both: lessening the amount of drinking through not allowing people to post the flyers or lessening the amount of drinking through not having people see the flyers.
If this policy was created to lessen drinking on campus, I do not see how this policy is related to that. There is a difference between advocating something and actually engaging in that thing. Just because a student may advocate the use of alcohol, he or she is not necessarily engaging in the use of alcohol.
According to Dr. Dana Mohler-Faria, tough policies on alcohol were created at BSC after there were large problems with drinking on campus. Dr. Mohler-Faria said that the policies are needed to prevent such drinking problems from happening again. I think this is not necessarily true. Dr. Mohler-Faria seems to be incorrectly assuming that either the college has a lax alcohol policy and has large drinking problems or it has a zero tolerance policy and has less drinking problems.
This seems to be committing the fallacy of the false dilemma: assuming that there are only two options when there in fact may be others. I would think that there is some middle ground where the college has policies that are somewhere between lax and zero tolerance that could still be effective in preventing underage drinking. Whatever policies are in place, however, there will always be a substantial amount of drinking on campus; though this does not mean there should be zero regulation. It shows to me that more restrictive policies do not necessarily make the college a safer place.
That brings me to the college's prohibition on postings that advocate the use of alcohol. If the purpose of the policy is actually to lower drinking on campus, it seems that the policy is in place for two possible reasons, or both: lessening the amount of drinking through not allowing people to post the flyers or lessening the amount of drinking through not having people see the flyers.
If this policy was created to lessen drinking on campus, I do not see how this policy is related to that. There is a difference between advocating something and actually engaging in that thing. Just because a student may advocate the use of alcohol, he or she is not necessarily engaging in the use of alcohol.
Viewing Comments 1 - 6 of 7
Frank M
posted 11/05/09 @ 12:40 PM EST
In response to Mr. Lowell's dissertation on the policy of Bridgewater State College to prohibit the use of postings which promote the consumption of alcohol, I have the following opinions and questions. (Continued…)
Matthew Dovell
posted 11/05/09 @ 1:35 PM EST
"Stop and think about his intent before you try and roast him for being anti-American, anti-constitution."
There is nothing within the context of what Mr. (Continued…)
Nick
posted 11/05/09 @ 4:42 PM EST
I think Frank is off point a bit with the "have you ever lost someone to a drunk driver" speech. This isn't about drunk driving. Drive around BSC at 1AM (when the bars close) and you'll find a vast majority of students walking back from (after having walked to) the bar. (Continued…)
Frank M
posted 11/05/09 @ 5:08 PM EST
Ok Nick, I appreciate your scolding of me for daring to bring reality into the conversation. Why don't we try to get me back on track, because I am interested in what the problem is here that prompted Mr. (Continued…)
Gary Lowell
posted 11/06/09 @ 1:25 PM EST
I did not say that the school should remove its tough policies on alcohol, I only said that this policy does not seem to be directly related to reducing drinking on campus. (Continued…)
fmac316
Frank M
posted 11/06/09 @ 5:02 PM EST
Let me again try to clear up MY words so that we can all understand each other, since it appears I have this all wrong and that I am making up fictitious and irrelevant scenarios to explain my position on why it is that the president of the college should stick to his policy of not allowing postings on campus which "advocate" the use of alcohol. (Continued…)
Post a Comment