By: Shannon Kaminski Being my first experience of a deliberation, I was not sure what to expect as a couple of group members and I walked to the church on College Ave and made our way into the upstairs room of the attic.
I was welcomed inside by free donuts and coffee, and a big room where people sat in a single, large circle. I was also handed a packet that delineated three separate approaches for affecting the current status of binge drinking at our Penn State: The relaxed approach, the current approach, and the strict approach. Students began by introducing themselves and describing why they were attending the deliberation. Then, we began the discussion with Approach #1. Approach #1- The Relaxed Approach In order to fix the negative effects of binge drinking, the group first suggested a more relaxed approach-- one which the University would release the reigns, become a wet campus, allow parties with alcohol with specific regulations, and/or decrease the amount of underages given out as long as students are drinking responsibly. Additionally, we discussed what would happen if PA was to lower the drinking age. We were able to reach the general consensus that the relaxed approach, while it would certainly result in a large spike in binge drinking immediately after initiation, would actually decrease in binge drinking, and the dangers behind it. We came to this conclusion by discussing our personal experience with drinking, and how, in high school, have a parent that is very strict can often result in a teen that is overly rebellious and more inclined on breaking the rules for the thrill. Meanwhile, having a european style family, which begins drinking at an earlier stage, helps young adults understand their limits, and principle of drinking as a whole, or relaxed parenting style, where teens feel comfortable coming to their parents if they need help with a bad situation. Similarly, we thought that students would find the relaxed, wet campus approach to make drinking a more casual and safe activity. The thrill of having a wet campus would go away quickly and people would drink on a more casual level without having the feeling of being rebellious and law-breaking. Also, and more importantly, if students did run into danger involving binge drinking, they wouldn’t have to hide it behind the walls of their dorms, they could ask for help from an RA who could help control the situation without the fear or risk of getting cited or in trouble with the University. Approach #2-- The Current Approach We also discussed how the current approach of PSU affects binge drinking, and whether it does a good job with keeping the students safe. In opposition to the relaxed approach, we decided that the current approach of a wet campus adds to the thrill of drinking and not getting caught. We also assessed that the current consequences of drinking do not deter students who get cited from continuing to drink. So, the current approach isn’t all that effective in terms of driving students away from binge drinking. We also noticed that the current forms of educating students on drinking safely are not very effective because it is an unrelatable, online course that many students click through without paying much attention. Approach #3-- The Strict Approach This approach includes the addition of more strict policies and consequences for underage drinking on and off campus. We had a general consensus that stricter policies might deter some students from binge drinking/drinking at all, but also decided that students would only find better ways to dodge the authorities while they continue to drink heavily. Possible consequences would include expulsion after getting an underage or citation for drinking. Clearly some students would not be willing to risk their enrollment at the university, however it is very likely that this implementation would drive a lot of students away-- both students already enrolled, as well as prospective students-- which would decrease the amount of students here and cause a decrease in applicants in the future as well. Conclusion Altogether, the deliberation drew several conclusions. The main consensus was that implementation of a more relaxed approach by the university towards drinking could result in less binge drinking. With this said, the University could educate the students with a more relatable teaching method on safe drinking in order to ensure that students know how to handle themselves and certain situations in this environment. Of course, no matter what approach is taken, students will inevitably experience the negative effects of binge drinking and there is not yet a foolproof solution to control each and every individual’s drinking habits.
0 Comments
By: Carly Lassa On February 27th, I attended a deliberation held in the attic of a church on College Avenue in State College, PA. Walking into the deliberation, the group definitely had not accounted for the number of people that were going to be there. It was a small room and more people had shown up than they had anticipated. They quickly got more chairs and tried to form into one large group. However, there were so many people that a few were left outside of the circle. Those people did not speak very much throughout the deliberation and I think part of it was definitely the seating arrangement. The group did not accommodate very well and therefore accidently gave off the impression that those few people on the outside did not have an opinion of importance. There were donuts and coffee which was a nice little snack for all of the students attending.
They started off by introducing themselves. Then they went around the circle and asked all of our names and why we had decided to come out to the deliberation that night. Personally, I am interested in the topic of underage drinking and party culture because it is such a huge part of the Penn State lifestyle. So, I introduced myself and explained why I was interested in the topic of how to stop binge drinking. Once everyone went around and said their personal stakes, they began with their introduction. They opened with interesting statistics about the number of students that drink at Penn State on any given weekend. That gave them a nice Segway into how partying on the weekend can quickly turn into a dangerous trip to the Emergency Room. We continued into their first approach, which was the idea to make the rules regarding drinking more relaxed. The logic behind this was that a lot of students drink because it is a thrill and being rebellious is what college students do best. If Penn State were to become a “wet campus” and allow alcohol on campus as well as make the rules more relaxed, they suggested it might actually make the risky drinking behavior of students go down. If the rules are no longer so strict, students may not find drinking as attractive as they did before which in correlation would bring the amount of binge drinking down. Now this is only an idea but the group as a whole discussed it. We agreed that we thought implementing more relaxed rules would actually probably have a positive effect on Penn State’s campus in the long run. However, in the short run, students would most likely take advantage of the relaxed policies and “go crazy.” Then we spoke about leaving the policies just the way they are right now. As we talked, we all came to the conclusion that if just leave the policies alone, nothing will change. The whole point of a deliberation is to get people talking about change and differences they can make in their communities. Their third approach was to make policies stricter on campus and down town about alcohol use. As we discussed, we all came to the conclusion that making policies stricter would probably not make a positive difference unless the policies were so strict that it could hurt the future of a student forever. The idea came up that stricter policies might even provoke students to go and drink more just because they like the thrill of rebelling against authority. Because we were in a large group the entire time, there wasn’t really a need for a recap of everything we talked about because we were all present for all ideas. I think that group definitely would have got more people involved if they had a better set up. There were also only about 4 people talking the entire time, so they dominated the conversation. Overall, it was interesting but logistically could have been set up better. By: Billy Gault On Monday, February 27 I attended the deliberation titled: “School Spirits: Regulating Drinking Culture At Penn State.” While I was required to attend another deliberation, I found this one piqued my interest. The topic is very controversial and something that I feel strongly about. The setup was unique, and something that I had never experienced before. The entire group had one big deliberation with about 30 people sitting in a circle. Each attendee introduced themselves before the discussion began. Then, we began discussing the first approach.
The beginning approach was to regulate drinking at Penn State from a more relaxed standpoint. We decided that this approach could be very effective because it limits the “badass” mentality that many young adults have. Super strict rules can cause student to go out with the purpose of breaking these rules. On top of this, the most effective way to learn how to drink safely is by experience. Learning your personal limits is only possible if you reach those limits. Instead of deterring kids from drinking, the rules will give students a way to learn how to safely drink. In addition these relaxed rules can create a safe environment for students to drink. Many students are harmed by alcohol because they don’t want to get in trouble by asking an RA for help. A relaxed approach will make reaching out for help more appealing. Students won’t feel threatened by asking for help which can cause safer drinking with less alcohol related injuries. The next approach was a very strict regulation of drinking. This means no drinking at all, and, if drinking was discovered, the punishment would be extremely harsh. As a group we decided that this approach has many drawbacks. College kids are bound to drink. It’s just the way college is. This means that kids will be drunk and definitely less likely to reach out for help. Also If administration completely bans alcohol, students will transfer. College students want t drink, and if they can’t do it here, they will do it somewhere else. The Penn State student body will completely shift to students who have no inclination to drink. Instead of strict rules, more education on drinking can be more effective. However, like I said before, it all depends on the individual. If that individual wants to drink, they will. If they don’t want to drink, they won't. Finally we discussed the current regulation of drinking at Penn State. Many people decided that the current system is fine how it is. However, others saw it as problematic being the recent events and death. Many people described this event as a “freak accident” and it could have happened anywhere. One student brought up how the fraternity where the tragedy occurred was an on campus “dry” house. This means that technically there was not supposed to be alcohol at the house. This proves that the choice is up to the individual. If he/she wants to drink it is possible. Making stricter rules will only deter students from asking for help instead of teaching them the proper way to drink safely. I learned a lot from this deliberation and how to better myself as a deliberator. The deliberation was one big group. This made it very awkward for one person to speak. Thirty people were listening to one person which is often very intimidating. On top of this, one person speaking limits the flow of ideas. My deliberation group decided to break our audience into smaller more intimate speaking groups. This not only made the discussion less intimidating, but it also allowed for more ideas to flow as many people could speak at the same time. Discussing issues is the point of a deliberation and I feel as though our approach is more effective in doing this. By: Alexandra Daley The second deliberation I attended was called, “School Spirits – Regulating Drinking Culture at Penn State.” This deliberation was not one from Cynthia’s class, but it was an overall very informative deliberation about college drinking. This group tackled a very difficult topic that not only affects Penn State, but college campuses all over the country. The culture of drinking has become a problem countrywide and this group took control and decided to hold their deliberation on college drinking and discussed ways to resolve the problem if possible. The group atmosphere set a good environment for people to speak up about the issues at hand. The moderators based their deliberation off of pre-written questions and the audience responded with ideas on how to resolve or answer the questions at hand. Because it was a very controversial topic with no right or wrong answer, many people had different ideas to add to the deliberation. During the beginning of the presentation, the group took time to introduce themselves and asked the audience to introduce themselves which led for a more open and comforting environment for people to discuss ideas and speak up about certain things that troubled them about this topic. When we got into the discussion portion of each approach, the audience members, including myself, were very talkative and added a lot to the discussion because this topic affects each and every one of us. We are college students, so it was a very relatable topic to discuss and many people had relative ideas on whether the problem behind binge drinking and drinking on campus could truly be resolved.
The three approaches that we discussed as a whole included relaxation of tensions, moderation, and strictness. Each of the approaches had many smaller ideas and conversations within each. The benefits and drawbacks to each approach were discussed. Overall, the audience as a whole brought up many ideas. The overall idea that everyone kept coming back to was that it is inevitable that people are going to drink on college campuses. It is the culture of college and it is one of the reasons people love college so much. This controversial topic cannot be tamed easily, but a lot of the problem has to do with how to handle alcohol properly and what to do in a situation if someone is in trouble. A lot of people should be more educated on their alcohol limits and what they should do if they or one of their friends is caught in a dangerous situation due to the copious amounts of alcohol consumed. Many problems arise from the lack of knowledge of how to help others in trouble, especially when they do not want to get in trouble nor do they want to get their friends in trouble with the institution or the law. Another point that was heavily talked about was the fact that if a school completely banned alcohol, the number of students that would want to attend that school would significantly drop hurting admissions for the school. The deliberation brought up many great ideas on what the main problem is behind alcohol consumption on college campuses. The deliberation brought up many points on why it is such a problem and how it could possibly be changed. By: Adam Kleiber On February 27, 2017, I attended a public deliberation titled: “School Spirits: Regulating Drinking Culture at Penn State.” This deliberation took place from 7:00 to 8:30 pm at Asendorf Hall, Faith United Church of Christ, 300 E. College Avenue. The event was hosted and moderated by Penn State students named Andrew, Chae, Chris, Courtney, Erin, Hope, Jessica, Matt, Nikhil, Paige, Sarah, and Sierra. I attended this deliberation with several members of my deliberation group: Shannon, Carly, Billy, and Ale. This was the first deliberation that I had attended, so I wasn’t entirely sure what to expect. The moderators began by having everyone go around and introduce themselves and briefly share their personal reasons for attending the deliberation. If I had to guess, there were approximately 20 people in attendance, so by the time the introductions were finished I think I had heard the phrase, “Uh, yeah, I’m here because the topic is interesting, you know, and it’s just really relevant to college students,” about 20 times. However, the awkwardness of the introduction quickly subsided as the moderators began to talk about their first approach for tackling the drinking culture at Penn State: “Relaxation of Tensions.” As the name suggests, the premise of this approach is reducing the legal and university-based consequences for underage drinking. One of the major talking points was that by reducing the consequences of getting “caught” drinking, you may increase the willingness of individuals to call an ambulance for their friend who might have had a little too much to drink. This is especially relevant considering the recent death of Tim Piazza at Beta Theta Pi. The second approach for addressing the drinking culture at Penn State was “moderation.” This option would uphold current university policies, while also increasing the education available to students on the dangers of drinking. A number of people spoke up to say that this option doesn’t really matter because, regardless of how much information you give to someone, they’re either going to choose to drink or choose not to drink. All these statistics are just abstract formalities that nobody pays attention to. Also, in my opinion, the BASICS and SAFE programs are useless anyways, because the only way you can actually determine your limits is by drinking relatively frequently. Somewhat ironically, the less you drink, the more likely you will push yourself past your limit when you do choose to drink. Furthermore, the programs don’t include any information on jungle juice which I would argue is the most dangerous of any alcoholic beverage. The third approach for dealing with the drinking culture at Penn State was “strict enforcement.” This option would increase the consequences for getting caught drinking underage. The argument presented was that by increasing the consequences, people would be less willing to take the risk to drink. However, as I briefly mentioned in my last point, people are either going to choose to drink, or choose not to drink. While increasing the consequences may deter some people from partaking in underage drinking, I doubt it would have a lasting effect. However, a more immediate effect would be that people would be less willing to call for help when their friends drink too much because nobody wants to get their friends in trouble. In conclusion, I thought this deliberation was really interesting. The moderators were successful in driving the conversation and getting everyone involved. The audience was made-up of entirely Penn State students which may have limited discussion somewhat, since we all share a similar perspective. However, the difference in perspective from members of Greek Life, non-Greek life, club sports, etc. were different enough to drive conversation in whatever direction they wanted it to go. I definitely learned some things and was exposed to some perspectives I had not previously considered. |
Categories
All
|