Dusty Rulebook Needs a New Party Dress

    Even better: ‘Whenever alcoholic beverages are served, at least an equal volume of non-alcoholic beverages must be made available at the site of the function. It is strongly suggested that food also be made available at these functions and may be required by an approving authority.’ From there, it becomes systematically more and more vague who exactly is allowed to oversee and approve the events, leading to inefficient build-ups of paperwork at each stage in the process.

    In addition, alcohol brands are prohibited from sponsoring events where that poisonous youth-killer is served, but are allowed to sponsor events where alcohol isn’t served ‘mdash; effectively eliminating most chance of profit and creating a paradox as ridiculous as Red Bull being strictly relegated to promoting tea parties.

    Now, if UCSD’s reputation for sluggish talks (see: Grove Caffe oversight committee) holds up even halfway, it could be years before campus orgs and nonaffiliated renters are freed of the beaureacratic straightjacket that keeps them from the advertising and sponsorship they need to make alcoholic events a success. But, optimistically, there seem to be enough screwed-straight heads in on this one to possibly reach some resemblance to cohesive revisions, and they’ve agreed to meet every two weeks until the proposal is ready.

    What committee members must remember in rewriting the policy ‘mdash; and, really, it must be rewritten from scratch, with an emphasis on more easily granting permits under a solidified and cross-campus standard of security requirements ‘mdash; is that the least productive and most dangerously backwards approach the university can take toward student-life regulation is denial. You want designated drivers? Let us know we’ll be drinking, so draw-straws doesn’t happen once we’re already all wasted. You want to avoid uninhibited dorm-room binges on Sun God? Let them do it in the open air.

    As always, transparency is key, and reality checks are a must. Though it’s probably a good thing that only two student representatives sit on Rue’s new committee, seeing how much we rowdy youngsters love to squabble with not much but our own freedom in mind, hopefully they will be able to communicate what an inevitability it is that students will drink in any case, and that all efforts would be best funneled toward facilitating the safest possible environment. Since it’s a time-told reality that anyone can pretty much get drunk whenever they want, whether that be by means of an overpriced beer or snuck-in vodka water bottle ‘mdash; and that nothing can come close to promoting campus togetherness like a good, long drink between classes ‘mdash; there seems no remaining reason to prohibit student orgs and local businesses from profiting off that thirst.

    Readers can contact Simone Wilson at [email protected].

    ” />

    STUDENT LIFE ‘mdash; Above all ‘mdash; according to Assistant Vice Chancellor of Student Life Gary Ratcliff,’ and pretty much any other higher-up you might ask ‘mdash; ‘campus priority is always the safety and health of students and the community.’

    Well said. Unfortunately, it’s all too often the case that in shooting for perfection, administrators form idealistic policies in over-official language that altogether avoid getting their hands dirty in the real grit of the situation ‘mdash; and, in doing so, only facilitate a dangerous hush-hush policy that’s successful neither in the department of neither safety nor enjoyment.

    Luckily, after being called out for double-standarding the recent ad campaigns of Bear Garden ‘mdash; an Associated Students keg event ‘mdash; and Sip ‘mdash; a classy ‘vine-tasting’ affair at university-sponsored campus venue the Loft ‘mdash; Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Penny Rue took it upon herself to sound the Triton conch at last, summoning a diverse committee to the round table with the mission of revising UCSD’s horribly stale procedure manual on campus ‘consumption of alcoholic and/or malt beverages.’

    The current alcohol policy and event-request paperwork ‘mdash; a nearly uncrackable puzzle of a form required of anyone looking to host an alcohol-enhanced shindig on campus ‘mdash; has been called out by every remotely affected department as a muddled affair desperately in need of a 21st century makeover. Originally drawn up in 1987 and barely tweaked in 2003 after yearlong committee rustlings (um, deja vu), the policy prohibits even the implication of potential boozing in event advertising and lays down such intangible laws as ‘The amount of alcoholic beverages available shall be reasonably limited by the size of the target population which may legally consume alcohol.’

    Even better: ‘Whenever alcoholic beverages are served, at least an equal volume of non-alcoholic beverages must be made available at the site of the function. It is strongly suggested that food also be made available at these functions and may be required by an approving authority.’ From there, it becomes systematically more and more vague who exactly is allowed to oversee and approve the events, leading to inefficient build-ups of paperwork at each stage in the process.

    In addition, alcohol brands are prohibited from sponsoring events where that poisonous youth-killer is served, but are allowed to sponsor events where alcohol isn’t served ‘mdash; effectively eliminating most chance of profit and creating a paradox as ridiculous as Red Bull being strictly relegated to promoting tea parties.

    Now, if UCSD’s reputation for sluggish talks (see: Grove Caffe oversight committee) holds up even halfway, it could be years before campus orgs and nonaffiliated renters are freed of the beaureacratic straightjacket that keeps them from the advertising and sponsorship they need to make alcoholic events a success. But, optimistically, there seem to be enough screwed-straight heads in on this one to possibly reach some resemblance to cohesive revisions, and they’ve agreed to meet every two weeks until the proposal is ready.

    What committee members must re
    member in rewriting the policy ‘mdash; and, really, it must be rewritten from scratch, with an emphasis on more easily granting permits under a solidified and cross-campus standard of security requirements ‘mdash; is that the least productive and most dangerously backwards approach the university can take toward student-life regulation is denial. You want designated drivers? Let us know we’ll be drinking, so draw-straws doesn’t happen once we’re already all wasted. You want to avoid uninhibited dorm-room binges on Sun God? Let them do it in the open air.

    As always, transparency is key, and reality checks are a must. Though it’s probably a good thing that only two student representatives sit on Rue’s new committee, seeing how much we rowdy youngsters love to squabble with not much but our own freedom in mind, hopefully they will be able to communicate what an inevitability it is that students will drink in any case, and that all efforts would be best funneled toward facilitating the safest possible environment. Since it’s a time-told reality that anyone can pretty much get drunk whenever they want, whether that be by means of an overpriced beer or snuck-in vodka water bottle ‘mdash; and that nothing can come close to promoting campus togetherness like a good, long drink between classes ‘mdash; there seems no remaining reason to prohibit student orgs and local businesses from profiting off that thirst.

    Readers can contact Simone Wilson at [email protected].

    Donate to The UCSD Guardian
    $0
    $2500
    Contributed
    Our Goal

    Your donation will support the student journalists at University of California, San Diego. Your contribution will allow us to purchase equipment, keep printing our papers, and cover our annual website hosting costs.

    More to Discover
    Donate to The UCSD Guardian
    $0
    $2500
    Contributed
    Our Goal