New alcohol policy, change we can?t believe in

BY Eric Meyer
It seems that something must be impairing Dean Morgan Levy’s judgment; for in just over a month, this Dean has managed to turn the University into a more dangerous place for students and has lowered the credibility of her office more than any dean in our history. An office that was before held in high regard in the minds of students, parents and alumni has now become nothing more than a good punch line.
To begin, let us examine the major flaw in Dean Levy’s policy of imposing a security fee of $160 for a fourth registered party on any given night.
According to Dean Levy, the security fee is ‘just to make sure that we’re being safe” and is designed ‘to make sure there are enough Security officers to handle the situations at parties.”
While her intention of enhancing the safety of students is a good one, she has miscalculated the actual outcome of her new policy.
The security fee has many possible consequences, but one for certain; it will be successful in guaranteeing that fewer college parties will be registered, not that fewer college parties will take place.
Therefore, because of the new fee, Security will actually have a distorted idea of the party scene on campus on any given night; more unregistered parties will be taking place throughout campus that Security won’t know about and therefore won’t be prepared for.
Hence, Levy has achieved a result that is in complete contradiction to her aim; she has actually guaranteed that more dangerous situations will develop and that Security will be spread too thin to properly handle them.
I hope she is prepared to accept responsibility for the dangerous consequences of her misguided actions.
If Dean Levy was truly concerned with the safety of students, she would instead create an incentive for registering a party on campus so that a proportionate number of Security officers would always be on campus to respond to possible incidents at parties.
Moreover, the decision to fine students guilty of policy violations $25 in order to balance the Dean of Students Office budget sets a dangerous precedent.
Because the budget was not able to accommodate her the paperwork processing software, the Dean of Students Office has decided to make the students assume the cost. What is to say she could not do the same if she fancies a more comfortable office chair? The financial documents regarding the Dean of Students Office should be released to the public, and Dean Levy should disclose the exact financial projections of paying for the program and the cost of the program.
A final question: Will the fines be rescinded after the program has been paid for? Or will the office continue to generate new revenue year after year, which can be spent on frivolous and unnecessary expenditures such as a nice new office chair?
Dean Levy’s careless policy decisions signify a level of negligence typically associated with a lack of executive experience. Had Dean Levy involved students in the process of designing and adopting these new policies, such flaws would have been brought to light and her office would have saved itself a great deal of embarrassment.
The choice to disregard the will and ideas of the students was hers to make, although it was not a wise one.
Meyer is a member of
the class of 2012.