[1740] in Discussion of MIT-community interests
Re: [Mit-talk] Seeking feedback on alcohol policy
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steve Kelch)
Fri Feb 10 16:03:41 2006
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:02:16 -0500
To: "Pius A. Uzamere II" <pius@alum.mit.edu>, Sam Korb <skorb@mit.edu>
From: Steve Kelch <kelch@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <2aec93810602101055v592deb85v3b585cff49de61db@mail.gmail.co
m>
Cc: Brian Sniffen <bts@alum.mit.edu>, mit-talk@mit.edu
Errors-To: mit-talk-bounces@mit.edu
On that note, the dorm system might take something from the
fraternity system in this case. There are numerous reasons why the
fraternity system has evolved greater measures to ensure that nothing
'bad' happens, and in some respects it might even be safer for a
frosh to be in a fraternity house.
Because of the vested interest that members of a fraternity have in
their house and, of course, not losing it, they are more wary of
strangers and letting people into parties, or even letting people
leave. Risk managers have cab numbers programmed into their phones,
door security rejects people who seem tipsy, designated people are
assigned to staying sober to help those in need...
Naturally, residents of a dorm hall or suite do not always feel the
same inclination to protect their living space, as they may not feel
like they 'own' it and therefore not responsible for any part of it
except their own room. (This isn't to say, Jessie, that dorm
residents don't care about the fate of their hall, just that fewer
tend to step up and accept responsibility for it).
Perhaps some dorms can implement a simpler system? Designate people
to stay sober for the evening and wander the halls on high risk
nights, making sure that people are ok? It may not stop people from
migrating from one party to another, but it might help identify those in need.
Steve
At 01:55 PM 2/10/2006, Pius A. Uzamere II wrote:
>That characterization seems a bit disingenuous. The problem being
>solved is not a lack of empathy for fellow students in trouble;
>rather, it's a lack of knowledge of how to help a drunk student
>without jeopardizing one's own disciplinary record or housing
>situation. This is a problem that transcends the type of living
>group in which one lives. A key difference between how potential
>solutions manifest at dorms and how they manifest at FSILGs is that
>FSILGs have been forced to evolve more comprehensive educational
>programs and precautionary measures due to post-Krueger pressure and
>scrutiny. The implication that this issue only arises because dorm
>residents are so "insular" as to step over sick hallmates on the way
>to their singles brings the discourse down into a cliched "dorm vs.
>frat" argument that is not useful at all for the problem at hand:
>saving the lives of students in trouble.
>
>-Pius
>
>On 2/10/06, Sam Korb <<mailto:skorb@mit.edu>skorb@mit.edu> wrote:
>
>The flipside to what you term "collective responsibility" is
>consideration for others. It seems like a lot of this discussion has been
>focused on ways of convincing students in DORMS to take the time to deal
>with a drunk in the proper manner, not merely step over the inebriated
>hallmate on the way to their singles. Independence strays too easily into
>insularity.
>
>_______________________________________________
>MIT-talk mailing list
>MIT-talk@mit.edu
>http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
_______________________________________________
MIT-talk mailing list
MIT-talk@mit.edu
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/mit-talk
