The Guilfordian does not, in any way, support or condone the irresponsible or destructive use of alcohol and illegal drugs. We understand that the frequency of incidents on this campus involving the over-consumption of alcohol has risen to an unacceptable level. We sympathize with the concerns expressed by graduating seniors regarding the effects of alcohol and illegal drugs on the quality of life in the residence halls. Moreover, we acknowledge that some students on this campus do have a tendency to use alcohol and drugs in a way that is dangerous to themselves and detrimental to the community.

With that firmly established, however, the Guilfordian would like to offer the following two concerns regarding the newly revised Substance Abuse Policy: first, that the system of punishing violations with fines is inherently unfair, and second, that the policy as it stands may not be effective in reducing the types of behaviors it was designed to combat.

The most obvious and drastic change made to the policy is that fines have been established as punishment for violations. Any underage student caught with alcohol, or even a student who is over 21 but not in an authorized area, is now fined $75 if it is their first offense. Students caught with illegal drugs or paraphernalia are fined $200, as are repeat offenders caught with alcohol.

The amounts of these fines were established, apparently, to reflect the amount that an average student will spend on drugs or alcohol in one month.

If the economic situations and substance abuse habits of everyone on campus fell within a narrow range this method would have been more appropriate. This, however, is not the case. There are students at Guilford who will easily spend $75 on alcohol in the course of a month, and others who may have been unfortunate enough to get caught with the only beer they were planning to drink all semester. There are students at Guilford whose parents will easily be able to cover an extra $75, and others who will pay their fines out of their minimum wage work-study paychecks.

Previously, the penalty for a first-offense alcohol infraction was a day of community service. And while it may be true that this punishment was not taken seriously enough to make a significant impact, at least it was fair, regardless of economic considerations.

Our second point of concern involves exactly what sort of behavior the increased enforcement of the alcohol policy is designed to combat. Under the letter of the law, a 21-year old student could receive a fine for quietly drinking a beer on the walkway in front of his apartment. Were the same 21-year-old, however, obviously, belligerently intoxicated, but remained on the porch, he would not be breaking any rules.

According to the policy itself, “the college is deeply concerned about the many social costs of substance abuse including rape, other forms of violence, poor academic performance, disrespect for persons and property damage.” All of these costs, however, are potential consequences of the misuse of alcohol, not from the possession of alcohol in an unauthorized area.

While the Guilfordian recognizes the need for a substance abuse policy, we would also like to emphasize the need for this policy to be fairly and effectively enforced, and ask that the offices involved examine the revisions made this summer in light of the concerns we have raised.