Newspapers / St. Andrews University Student … / Sept. 22, 1982, edition 1 / Page 2
Part of St. Andrews University Student Newspaper / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
THE LANCE BCniglit views opinions — editorials New Alcohol Policy Brews Controversy Sept. 22, 1982 DUI Seminar Brings National Dilemma to SA This summer the ad ministration at St. Andrews passed a new policy that for bids the purchasing of any alcoholic beverages with any “college, generated fees.” The resolution was passed after two Student Life Com mittee Task Force investiga tions into the possibility of alcohol abuse on campus. The first Task Force was headed by Emily Ellsworth in the spring of 1980 and the se cond study was headed by Professor Neil Bushoven in 1981. The administration felt that they were being inconsis- tant in their policy concern ing alcohol abuse by allowing college generated funds to be used in buying alcoholic beverages. The new policy is listed in the supplement to the Saltire, which is the stu dent guidebook concerning the college’s rules and regula tions. By BILL LIDE This summer, while most St. Andrews students were basking in the fun of a much needed vacation, the ad ministrative powers, that have such an extreme effect on the student’s lives, were planning to drop another bombshell to raise the students’ ire when they came back to school this fall. Last year the controversy sur rounding visitation hours greeted the returning students, this year it is the new policy that states funds from any student association account can not be used in the purchasing of any alcoholic beverages. Secretly, the students have had another privilege ripped from their grasp as easily and as fairly as the American in ternment of the Japanese- Americans during the second World War IL It has been understood that no money should be released from the College Union Board to pay for alcoholic beverages. This is a good rule because the CUB needs their funds to pay for the other entertainment needs that the school has.The part of the newly established policy that I strongly disagree with is that no dorm funds can be used to pay for alcohol. I believe that students being intelligent and responsible enough to attain the grades that will later establish them in the society in the future, should have the right to decide whether they want to spend their dorm money on alcohol or not. To further strengthen the point, the dorm fund is established at the beginning of the year when the students received their room key. It is their money and no other dorm may spend it, so each dorm should be able to spend it the way they want to. The administration has made their point now we should make ours. An in tersting point to the new policy is that it does not ef fect the faculty at all. When the administration wants to have alcohol at a faculty par ty they can go to an ad ministrative account and charge the alcohol to that ac count. With such a blatant double-standard it is hard to accept such a repressive policy. In a nutshell, the ad ministration can use our tui tion money to buy their alcohol, but the students can’t spend their own money for their own alcohol!!! There have been great strides made in bridging the- gap between the administra tion and the students over the past few years. Does the ad ministration want to burn those bridges it so carefully helped construct? We, the students, must let the ad ministration know that we will not be coerced into ac cepting a policy that we have no say in. When I spoke to Dean Hannis and President Perkinson on the matter, both of them said that they were open to any recommen dations or alternative plans. We need to come up with such plans, but the ad ministration must also be willing to help in creating those plans. If any students feel as strongly as I do about this injustice, then I suggest you get in touch with your dorm’s student government representatives and let them know how you feel. Remember that freedom of speech is the heart of any democratic institution, so let our opinion be heard ff Anyone who wishes to res pond to this editorid please send your response to: The By DREW HAYES & TOM WILSON On Saturday, September 11, 1982, St. Andrews Col lege was the site of the Scotland County DUI (Driv ing Under the Influence) Symposium. The purpose of the symposium was to stimulate the listeners think ing on DUI, to move his heart, and to jar his cons cience. The thought on DUI was directed by the speeches of Sen. Bob Jordan, Steve Hicks, and Keith L., a reformed alcoholic. The movement of the heart was produced by the testimonys of Geannie Epting and Marilyn Suggs whose son and grandson, respectively, were killed by drunk drivers. The jarring of the conscience was touched off by demonstrations, exhibitions, and the infamous “wet run.” When one approaches a symposium, one often feels as if the subject of the sym posium has been ‘blown out or porportion. It is with this view that I attended the DUI symposium. Before it started, I felt that DUI was a problem in this country, but no more important than any other problem in our society. I was soon to learn how wrong my assumption had been. The problem of drinking drivers is very serious in our country. More people die each year in our nation due to DUI (25,000) than from all forms of homocide (20,000). Alcohol-related ac cidents kill well over 400 North Carolinians every year, and injure 20,000. And these figures are growing. DUI is the major factor in traffic fatalities, and the no. 1 cause of death for young people, aged 16-19. There is no doubt that the country has a problem with drinking and driving. This problem is evident in Scotland County were 750 people were arrested for DUI in 1981-1982. Estimates show, however that only ONE of every TWO HUN- So, what do all these ac cidents and arrests amount to? What they amount to is in May of 1981 Marty Az- carte, a repeat DUI offender, was convicted of eight counts Azcarte got the maximum in his state: nine years. The women who killed 11 year old Mark Suggs of Albemarle had a blood alcohol level of .12 and she admitted also taking tran quilizers. She never spent a day in jail. She was fined $250 and lost her license for two years, Susan Vick Leviner, a 29 year old Scotland County nurse was killed on April 13, 1981 by a DUI driver. The man who killed her will be eligible for parole on June 15, 1983. The list goes on and on, but the point made here is that DUI does not result in the loss of your license, but in the loss of life. At the symposium, the volunteers for the dry and wet runs showed the effects of alcohol on driving when after one hour of drinking, they ran their car over pylons, curbs, and grass on the track behind the LA building. Whereas one hour earlier, the volunteers ran smoothly through the course with relatively few errors. Brent Williams and Becki Kimbrell, students at St. An drew’s participated in the runs with other prominent men and women in the com munity. The question of what can be done to insure safety against the drunk driver does not lay with the government, it does not lay with federal commissions on crime, and it does not lay with the local enforcement agencies. The question and answer lie within you the reader. Offer a drinking friend a ride home, or a place to stay over night. Call a law enforce ment officer promptly, if you spot a DUI driver: give a description of the car, loca tion, and license plate number. As a host, if you serve alcoholic drinks, don’t push them. Don’t let the bar stay open all evening. Show others by example that you believe drinking and driving is unacceptable. achieved when those who are not injured by crime feel as indignant as those who are.” Keith L., speaking about the alcoholic driver, said, “We must press people who are alcoholics, they must be ac countable for themselves.” \ Editor Layout/Copy Editor .. Dwayne Snowden Sports Editor Photo Editor ADVISOR The opinions expressed on this page are not necessari ly those of THE LANCE, college, or student body, but 1 are of the signed individuals. THE LANCE welcomes , and encourages responses to the material in this publica- Uon,'but reserves the right of . editorial freedom as governed by responsible journalism. — y Editor, P.O. Box 757 SAPC in the campus mail box. We will try to print as many responses as possible. of vehicular manslaughter and four other charges. Eight people died, and a ninth was crippled for life in this crash. And s5, we too, iniist press ourselves and make ourselves accountable for “the killer on the road.” As Solon stated 2500 yeariS DRED drunk drivers is ago, “Justice will only be caught.
St. Andrews University Student Newspaper
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
Sept. 22, 1982, edition 1
2
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75