This article is part of a series on the drinking culture at Fairfield University. See the first part of the series.

Despite being written up several times, I never actually thoroughly read the school issued student handbook, where all the rules and regulations regarding drinking were clearly written. Within seconds of glancing over the elaborate language that was probably written by a lawyer, some synapses began to fire off in my head.

Squinting closer to make sure I didn’t misread anything, right in the introduction to the alcohol policy something very scary stuck out to me, “Those who are 21 years of age or older may purchase and consume alcohol; however,” the handbook read. “All students are responsible for discouraging alcohol-related behavior that is abusive to themselves or to others.”

No, that wasn’t what scared me; it’s what was written right after that really had me at a loss for not just words, but a reaction. I didn’t know whether to laugh out hysterically or to truly be worried, not just for the sake of my fellow students, but also for the sanity of the administration.

Right after the statement that defined the discouragement of alcohol-related behavior as the responsibility of the college students, was one that inevitably made it illegal to even be drunk at all, even if the students were of age.

“Moreover, drunkenness and intoxication are prohibited regardless of age,” the handbook states.

This means that any student enrolled at this university who drinks alcohol to the point at which they become drunk are in direct violation of the school policy and are liable to its sanctions.

But wait, it gets better.

Under “Aiding, Abetting, or Complicity, the handbook states, “helping or encouraging another person to engage in violations of University policy constitutes aiding and abetting. Witnessing policy violations and failing to report such inappropriate behavior constitutes complicity. All such occurrences are subject to disciplinary action.”

What does that translate to? It means that any student who witnesses any student drinking (again, regardless of age) and does not report this to the property authorities, (be that the RAs or Public Safety) is in direct violation of the student conduct code as outlined in the handbook and open to its sanctions.

There seems to even be a punishment for those who are good Samaritans or who acknowledge that they’ve had too much to drink.

“If a student brings another student to the Health Center because of concerns about alcohol or drug consumption, if a student brings him/herself to the Health Center for such reasons or calls for help, or if a student initiates getting help for another student by contacting University officials, those students generally will not be subject to formal disciplinary action,” the handbook continues.

The keyword in that statement is “generally”. There is absolutely no medical immunity provided to students, as was illustrated two years ago when an RA in Gonzaga (who was indeed 21) was fired for taking herself to the health center after a night of drinking.

There seems to be nothing a student can do regarding alcohol that will not result in a violation. The fact that being drunk is a violation despite being 21 seems to beg the question, why make it ok to posses alcohol at the appropriate age if you can’t use it for it’s intended purpose? And if being drunk is going to be banned on this campus, how are students supposed to learn how to handle alcohol? Where is the cura personalis in that? The Jesuit goal is to educate, but how can one learn what’s not shown?

The school handbook seems to promote a puritanical mindset that infantilizes students, repressing more than educating them.

Sanctions for violation of alcohol policy

The sanctions regarding possession or consumption of alcohol in violation of University policy are: “First offense: $100 fine (maximum), formal warning, alcohol education or educational activity, letter to parents/guardian (at the discretion of the Office of the Dean of Students).”

The second offense results in the same sanction only this time the fine is $200 (maximum) and by the third offense it lists as possible penalties, “$300 fine (maximum), Disciplinary, probation, referral, for evaluation (and possible required stipulations), letter to parents/guardian.”

After an asterisk, it states, “additional offenses will jeopardize a student’s status at the university.”

Given how easy it seems to violate the school’s alcohol policy, and how little room for error there was in terms of sanctions, I began to wonder how the school distinguishes typical students from alcoholic students who genuinely need help with their disease. It seems all to easy to become ensnared in the web of sanctions that people who legitimately cannot control their problem are overlooked and eventually expelled without being given a chance at rehabilitation.

Do the sanctions work?

The handbook says that there’s alcohol education or an educational activity that comes with each of the sanctions, but what more is there to learn about alcohol after the first educational course? Is it skimping out and waiting for students to return before revealing the truth? Shouldn’t the next step after education be rehabilitation?

In a conversation with Kevin Curry, the substance abuse counselor at Fairfield, I asked if the school policy aimed to rehabilitate students to which he responded:
“I’d say at that level [alcohol education classes] very little of it is aimed at rehabilitating, it’s more of an education.”

Again I wondered, what good is education without rehabilitation? I asked him what is personal opinion of what an alcoholic was and he responded that it was someone who lost control when they drank.

“Loss of control is not necessarily having to drink everything in sight every time they see it, but loss of control is probably easier defined as someone who drinks to the point where drinking becomes unpredictable,” Curry said.

I was under the impression that losing control was part of being drunk, but according to the substance abuse counselor, that’s an alcoholic. It makes me wonder how many of my peers fall under this category; my guess would be the majority.

Binge Drinking’s Many Definitions

His definition of binge drinking also took my by surprise. To him anyone who had more than four drinks within a few hours was a binge drinker.

When I told Michelle Onofrio, a junior at Fairfield who had recently been written up, what the substance abuse counselor’s definition of binge drinking was, she said, “That’s ridiculous, a couple hour time frame? Then you wouldn’t even be buzzed. How is that binge drinking?”

I asked myself the same question, to me, four beers was just the warm up to the night but as I talked to the night shift nurse Diane Widak, I became even more surprised with what she thought was too much for students. To her, anyone who had more than two drinks or shots already had too much alcohol in their system. In addition to that, her idea of an alcoholic was “someone who drinks in excess and doesn’t make wise choices.”

Surprised? So was I. When I had interviewed officer John Ritchie of Public Safety, and asked him what an alcoholic was, he told me: “To identify a true alcoholic, we turn to the medical field for that answer.”

But I thought I had done that. I had asked a genuine nurse whom weekend after weekend treats countless students who are sent to the health center for alcohol reasons and her definition was someone who drinks in excess and doesn’t make wise choices?

Something seems very wrong with this picture. Just like the alcohol policy and violations, it seems too easy to fall under the category of an alcoholic. Ritchie would later tell me that his personal definition of an alcoholic was “someone who dedicates too much of their time and lifestyle to alcohol.”

How to cure a drinking culture

But isn’t culture a lifestyle? And if we have established that this institution has a culture of drinking in which students repeatedly weekend after weekend go and drink to the point of drunkenness, then wouldn’t that imply that those students are alcoholics?

Perhaps the school needs to take a closer look as to what constitutes an alcoholic and what constitutes normal drinking before it punishes those who suffer from a disease unfairly. The Jesuit ideal of cura personalis is caring for the whole person and if all we do is educate, then we’re failing to live up to our motto on so many levels. Alcohol affects more than just the mind and the reasons for drinking are just as complicated as trying to get someone to change their habits.