. . . because much of the content relates both to Washington, D.C., and "outside the beltway" -- the heartland, specifically Iowa -- and because after going from Iowa to Washington via Texas and California I subsequently returned, From DC 2 Iowa.
Showing posts with label binge drinking solutions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label binge drinking solutions. Show all posts
Special thanks for yesterday's events go to Dr. Victoria Sharp, UI's special assistant to the provost for alcohol safety, and Sarah Hansen, director of assessment and strategic initiatives in the Division of Student Services.
Yesterday's Nebraska delegation included Linda Major, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, assistant vice chancellor for student affairs (who's played a major role in the creation and evolution of the effort since the beginning); Ian Newman, Ph.D., the Wesley C. Meierhenry Distinguished Professor in Educational Psychology at UNL and director of the Nebraska Prevention Center for Alcohol and other Drug Abuse; and Captain Joy Cita of the Lincoln Police Department.
Whatever the visit cost the University, it was worth it. Given my schedule, the only time I was able to spend with them was the media briefing over the noon hour. But from what I gathered, we worked them from dawn to dusk with separate meetings including University officials, faculty, staff, students, City Council members, downtown merchants, bar owners, media, and neighborhood association representatives. (There may have been other individuals and organizations as well.)
I have been critical in the past of the University's and City's lack of leadership on this issue. Nor have I been alone. Even former Mayor Ernie Lehman expressed a comparable frustration:
In the 12 years that I spent on the council, I tried several times to get the council to pass a 21 ordinance. University of Iowa presidents Mary Sue Coleman and David Skorton also encouraged the council to pass such an ordinance -- along with the UI College of Public Health, the public school system and numerous others within the community. In fact, every piece of credible evidence presented to the council called for a 21 ordinance -- all of which the council ignored, choosing instead to listen to the bar owners and patrons of the bars.
So it's a great pleasure to be able to spread a little praise over the community's leadership today.
Of course, it's a little premature to say Iowa City has now solved its alcohol problems. Clearly, being curious about, and willing to learn from, the successes of others is a big improvement over ignoring them. But it's a long way from implementation -- as the Nebraska delegation has been the first to acknowledge.
1. To be successful in actually doing anything about binge drinking (or anything else for that matter) -- as distinguished from talking about it -- it cannot merely be "one of my 325 highest priority projects." It needs to be, if not number one, at least one of the top three or four. There needs to be a community-wide agreement that (a) binge drinking is a really serious problem, along with (b) a commitment to actually sticking with it until there has been a measurable reduction in its adverse effects on students and community alike.
2. There needs to be both an involvement of, and a buy-in by, every relevant group of stakeholders: university administrators, faculty, staff and students; parents; downtown merchants; bar owners and liquor stores; the City's council members and staff; university and City police; the faith community; and other organizations.
3. There's no cookie cutter approach or master plan. Each community needs to put together the components that best work for it.
4. Don't expect overnight miracles. Lincoln hasn't eliminated binge drinking; it has cut it by one-third. The University of Iowa's binge drinking rates (and its serious consequences) are among the highest in the nation (as formerly were those at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln). If we could also bring our rates down to the national averages, as Lincoln did, that would be a significant improvement.
Could the Lincoln lessons work in Iowa City? It's too early to tell. For one thing, the bar owners in Lincoln were a very important part of the project's success. Among other things, they imposed 21-only limitations on themselves and used peer pressure to bring the deviants into line. How likely is it that Iowa City bar owners would be as cooperative?
But clearly it's worth a try. Yesterday's briefings from Lincoln is the first step. This blog will continue to monitor whether Iowa City's "journey of 1000 miles" either begins -- or both begins and ends -- with this single step.
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
March 27, 2010, 9:00 a.m. [Top Four, recent and most hits: This blog entry (with its link to source of 30-plus related blog entries), plus "Unemployment Answer is Jobs Not Bailouts," February 6, 2010 (with links to 30-plus related blog entries); "Broadband: Save Us From the Broadbandits," March 24, 2010 (includes Johnson's Des Moines Register column that day, "Much at Stake for Iowa in FCC Broadband Plan," and related blog entries); "Obama's Health Care Three Years Later," March 23 and 26, 2010 (includes 2007 entry, "Sen. Obama Unveils Health Plan," May 29, 2007, and links to photos from both events).]
What the City Council is proposing to do -- and the University is encouraging -- is the legislative equivalent of a law prohibiting rape between the hours of midnight and 6:00 a.m. (in fact all too similar to such a law), or prohibiting the armed robbery of banks from 3:00 p.m. to closing time, when they need to complete the day's paperwork.
Two and a half years ago Iowa City was confronting a referendum on a "21-only" ordinance. University and City officials provided something between a hands-off deafening silence and outspoken ridicule and opposition for the proposal (with the exception of the campus and City police chiefs who were the only officials who actually have to deal with the consequences of students' binge drinking).
Now the City Council is stepping up to the plate with a "21-only" ordinance of its own, and University administrators are seemingly supporting the effort.
Look, I understand the economic and political power of landlords (who can charge higher rent for bars than virtually any other use of downtown property) and bar owners. I think President Obama is entitled to a lot of credit for getting any health care reform at all out of today's Washington legislators and lobbyists (even if we're still denied the industrialized world's universal single-payer systems and won't even have a public option). Similarly, I think the City and University are entitled to credit for going this far.
But the fact is that the referendum in October 2007 was not "21-only" and the ordinance currently under consideration isn't "21-only" either.
"It's not?" I hear you exclaim. "That's right," I respond. "It's not."
What, then, is it?
It's a four-hour restriction, a requirement that four hours out of every 24 bar owners will be required to comply with Iowa law -- the hours from 10:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. closing time.
Like the collection of health care reforms in the law President Obama just signed, enforcing Iowa's drinking-age law for four hours a day is clearly better than never enforcing it.
But think about it. What the City Council is proposing to do -- and the University is encouraging -- is the legislative equivalent of a law prohibiting rape between the hours of midnight and 6:00 a.m. (in fact all too similar to such a law), or prohibiting the armed robbery of banks from 3:00 p.m. to closing time, when they need to complete the day's paperwork.
For the City Council, University, mass media, supporters and opponents to call this "21-only" is not only a misrepresentation of what's involved, it makes it sound much more appealing to those who think it is true "21-only" when it is far from it, and gives the opponents a decided public relations advantage in their efforts to characterize it as a compulsive and draconian commitment to law enforcement.
Not only is it a misrepresentation, the proposal makes no logical sense. If it's ridiculous to permit those who cannot legally drink to enter or be in establishments after 10:00 p.m., when the bar's sole purpose is to profit from the sale of alcohol, why is it all right for them to be in an alcohol-dispensing business before 10:00? In terms of effectiveness, to the extent the ostensible purpose of the ordinance is a reduction in the awful consequences of binge drinking, doesn't it become merely a bit of slight-of-hand time-shifting, producing roughly equivalent drunkenness earlier in the evening? And in terms of enforcement, won't it be an administrative nightmare for bar owners, young customers, and police alike to clear out the bars at 10:00, and assure there are no violations of the four-hour restriction -- compared with the relatively much simpler administrative task of insuring that no one under the age of 21 ever enter a bar in the first place?
(Indeed, based on the ordinance as drafted, see below, unless there is a prohibition elsewhere -- as there may very well be -- it would seem to permit entry by kids of any age (19, 16, 13) during all the hours bars are open, except for the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.)
Don't get me wrong. If I were in Congress I would have done what Dennis Kucinich did: oppose the health care bill, insisting on at least a public option, until it was futile to do so, following which I would have also voted for the law that passed. Similarly, were I on the City Council I would have voted with the majority and supported this ordinance. In the world of special interest politics the reality often becomes one in which a little progress is all that is possible.
But "universal health insurance" isn't "universal, single-payer health care." And a four-hour enforcement of Iowa's law is not "21-only."
Because I laid all of this out in a blog entry in 2007, and the issues are unchanged, this is one of those rare occasions in which I'm going to merely embed that earlier blog entry here, rather than say all the same things with updated citations to the more current, and equivalent, news reports of a "21-only" proposal. (See, e.g., the following headline and lead, Josh O'Leary, "City council moves on 21-only ordinance; Measure passes 6-1 on first vote,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, March 24, 2010, p. A1, "Six of the seven members of the Iowa City Council, saying they were fed up with allowing downtown bars to serve as a destination for underage and binge drinking, made the first move toward raising the bar entry age to 21 on Tuesday.")
[The day following the publication of this blog entry, March 28, a Press-Citizen editorial took at least a half-step toward clarifying the confusion. The lead continued the misrepresentation: "We were cautiously optimistic during Tuesday's first reading of a proposed ordinance to raise the bar entry level to the legal drinking age." "The bar entry level." No, no, no; it's not "the bar entry level"! By the second sentence, however, the editorial got it right: "A majority of the councilors already had expressed their support for 21-only after 10 p.m., . . .." So we can be grateful, and thank the paper, for that correction. Editorial, "Our Quick Take on Last Week's News Stories,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, March 28, 2010.]
Below that prior blog entry I have also reproduced the actual text of the ordinance before the City Council, and provided some links to other blog entries about Iowa City's alcohol problems.
_______________
"Why '21-Only' Isn't"
October 19, 2007, 12:45 p.m.; October 20, 2007, 8:30 a.m.
"21-Only"? Nonsense!
There's lots of action -- or at least discussion -- about the so-called "21-Only" proposal. Why "so-called"? Because it's not about "21-only" at all -- notwithstanding that characterization by supporters and opponents alike.
The Daily Iowan editorializes this morning, with a headline reference to "21-Only," "As most people are well-aware, this election will decide the fate of a proposed ordinance banning anyone under the age of 21 from the Iowa City bars" -- a brazenly inaccurate characterization. Editorial, "21-Only Voting Might Spur Increased Student Engagement,"The Daily Iowan, October 19, 2007, p. A6.
Under this proposal the Iowa law would continue to be openly violated in Iowa City's bars up until 10:00 p.m. You may think that's a good idea, you may think it's a bad idea, but it is clearly not "banning anyone under the age of 21 from the Iowa City bars."
A columnist in this morning's Press-Citizen spreads this mischaracterization further by calling it "a proposal that would prevent anyone younger than 21 from entering a bar." Jesse Tangkhpanya, "When Political Opposites Join Forces," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 19, 2007, p. A11.
Most newspaper stories about the proposal ultimately get around to a factually accurate description, but not before headlines and leads speak of "a 21-only ordinance," Rob Daniel, "Sides Clash on 21-Only Proposal; Few Students Attend Forum," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 19, 2007, p. A1; "the 21-and-older bar issue," Gregg Hennigan, "Supporters, Opponents Air Views on Bar Law at Forum," The Gazette, October 19, 2007, p. A1; or "21-ordinance," Abby Harvey, "Group Targets 21-Only; The UI Student Health Initiative Task Force Rallies Students, Encourages Voters in Hopes of Defeating the 21-Ordinance, Which is on the Nov. 6 Ballot," The Daily Iowan, October 12, 2007, p. A1.
Bob Patton's editorial cartoon of October 13, 2007, depicts a deteriorating "downtown Iowa City" going down a sewer designated "21-only." Patton's Pad, Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 13, 2007, p. A15.
Even supporters of the proposal have it wrong, as evidenced by one author's assertion that "the 21-ordinance . . . raises the bar-admission age to 21." Christine Allen, "Don't Get Scared by Anti-21-Only Rhetoric," The Daily Iowan, October 16, 2007, p. A6.
So, what are the facts?
Under the present "restrictions" of the City Council, from the time bars open -- 6:30 a.m. on football game days for "breakfast" -- until 10:00 p.m. there are essentially no restrictions on who can enter.
And if the so-called "21-only" proposal passes? That will still be the law!
Think about that for a moment. Calling this a "21-only" proposal is a gross distortion of what it's about, designed to frighten with this characterization those voters who wish to perpetuate the bar owners' profits from operating businesses at which the law is routinely violated.
All the proposition involves is what happens between 10:00 p.m. and closing time. Under the present "restrictions" the illegal provision of alcohol to those who are under the age of 19 can only continue up until 10:00 p.m.
If the so-called "21-only" proposal passes, the illegal provision of alcohol can still continue up until 10:00 p.m., but from 10:00 p.m. until closing time the Iowa law will be enforced.
Iowa law prohibits the sale of alcohol products to anyone under the age of 21.
I'm perfectly willing to consider any independent, reliable data regarding the advantages and disadvantages of lowering the drinking age to 18. (Among other things, setting the age at 18 would eliminate what may be for some students the appealing notion of getting away with something illegal.)
But I don't think arguments that "those old enough to fight for their country ought to be able to buy a beer" have any relevance whatsoever as to why it should be OK to violate the present law -- which very clearly is "21-only." In order to avoid disrespect for law generally, I believe whatever the law may be should be enforced -- until, if desirable, it is changed.
Given that what bars do is sell alcohol, it would not be unreasonable for Iowa City, like a great many sensible cities around the country, to provide that no one under the age of 21 could enter establishments the sole purpose of which is to prosper from the consumption of alcohol by those who enter. Actually, that's kind of a no-brainer if you think about it.
Iowa City's City Council, however, proud of this university community's reputation as one of the underage binge drinking capitals of the nation, with a wink and a nod has been able to expand students' access to alcohol from a mere 7 bars not long ago to 51 today. Think of the profits. Think of the "economic development." Think of the "vibrancy" of the downtown. Wow!
Now those are City Council members worth voting for, aren't they? (The only reason we need the referendum is because the Council members thought it too much of a burden on wealthy bar owners to have to comply with the law after 10:00 p.m.)
It is apparently relatively easy for underage students to obtain alcohol in bars, what with fake IDs, reimbursing legal-aged friends who buy them drinks, and undoubtedly other methods of which I am unaware. Once they have entered the bars it is virtually impossible, with or without the assistance of the police, to comply with the Iowa law.
In fact, if illegal sales were not being made, if bar owners' underage patrons were not consuming alcohol illegally, why would bar owners care if the additional (19- and 20-year-old) underage students had to leave at 10:00 p.m.? Why would the 10:00 p.m. expulsion of those who shouldn't really be there at any time of day have an adverse impact on the economy or "vibrancy" of the downtown? The only reason it might have an economic impact is because bar owners have been flagrantly violating the law all along and would like to be able to continue to do so 24/7.
If this were truly a "21-only" proposal I could understand the bar owners' objections to the loss of such a substantial portion of their total, ill-gotten gain. I wouldn't agree with them, but I would understand.
But the ordinance is not a "21-only" law.
It is rather, it seems to me, an excessively modest compromise.
We have a very serious problem of binge drinking by young students that leads to sexual assaults and other violence, adverse impacts on health including the possibility of more alcoholism than might otherwise exist in their lives, and a devastating impact on their educations -- up to and including more dropouts than would otherwise occur -- not to mention the adverse impact on the community generally and its residents. Critics of Iowa City's lax approach to the law note two student deaths -- one from a student inhaling his own vomit, another from a drunken student falling off a balcony -- plus "drunken driving deaths, countless drunken assaults and attacks and a 2005 Harvard School of Public Health study that states UI has a binge drinking rate of nearly 70 percent." Lee Hermiston, "Iowa's Drinking Called Epidemic; Experts Say Bingi9ng Affects Health Later," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 13, 2007, p. A1.
As UI Public Safety Director Chuck Green said, "alcohol consumption does exacerbate the problem of assaults and sexual assaults in the community. 'We know there's a whole host of other issues that accompany intoxication. Sexual assaults go up, criminal mischief goes up, assaults go up. Anything we can do to reduce those crimes would be beneficial." And Iowa City Police Chief Sam Hargadine reports, "'After 10 o'clock at night [Iowa City's downtown] has a different personality. And most of it is due to alcohol. Alcohol affects everything we do after 10 p.m.' . . . Hargadine said the downtown area becomes more violent, disruptive and unsafe. There's fighting, littering, uprooting trees and all kinds of mischief-related activities that have alcohol as the common denominator." (The foregoing is from the October 20 piece in Lee Hermiston's four-part series about the proposed ordinance. Lee Hermiston, "21-Only to Affect Police; Pass or Fail, Proposal Will Change Law Enforcement; Most Reported Offense in Downtown is Underage Possession of alcohol," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 20, 2007, p. A1.)
Here are the two most relevant administrators of law enforcement in the community supporting this ordinance, and providing graphic data and reasons why, and some of the same folks who are willing to support whatever the police want -- from arming campus police to providing more city police officers -- are unwilling to listen to them when it comes to the criminal and otherwise costly consequences of underage drinkers in bars after 10:00 p.m.
(And see also the October 20 letters to the editor: Sarah Hansen, "21-Only Will Make Iowa City Better," and Christine Allen, "Iowa City Has a Drinking Problem," Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 20, 2007, p. A16.)
Iowa City's drinking establishments have, among other things, deliberately set fire to a bar where customers were sitting, staged fights inside the bar, and more recently staged an event described as a "party" at the Union Bar with a "mandate of matching lingerie for cocktail waitresses [that] endangered the young women's welfare [creating] a haven for the objectification of women, an environment in which lewdness is an encouraged standard." Patrick Bigsby, "'Sex Sells' Excuse Sold Out," The Daily Iowan, October 10, 2007, p. A6
A true "21-only" would produce a significant reduction in binge drinking, notwithstanding opponents' canard about it "just going elsewhere" (something that is going on now anyway).
This ordinance will not have such a substantial impact. But it should result in an improvement -- without a significant adverse impact on the legitimate, legal profits of any bar owner. A requirement that bar owners obey the law a couple of hours a day cannot seriously be argued to be a very onerous imposition.
Let's give the proposal a chance. As Iowa City Police Chief Hargadine says, "There's only one way to know for sure [how much it will help] and that's to do it." (From Lee Hermiston's October 20 story.)
But to do that, the media, and the voters they inform, need to know precisely what it is this ordinance does, and does not, provide. And the fact is that no one is going to be voting on "21-only." Not in this town.
Prepared by Eleanor M. Dilkes, City Attorney, 410 E Washington St., Iowa City, IA 52240; 319-356-5030
ORDINANCE NO. _______
ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 4 ENTITLED "ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES", CHAPTER 5 ENTITLED "PROHIBITIONS AND RESTRICTIONS", SECTION 8 ENTITLED "PERSONS UNDER 19 YEARS OF AGE IN LICENSED OR PERMITTED ESTABLISHMENTS" OF THE CITY CODE TO PROHIBIT PERSONS WHO ARE UNDER LEGAL AGE (CURRENTLY TWENTY-ONE (21) YEARS OF AGE FROM ENTERING OR REMAINING IN ESTABLISHMENTS WITH LIQUOR CONTROL LICENSES OR WINE OR BEER PERMITS BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 10:00 P.M. AND CLOSING
WHEREAS, the "legal age" to drink alcoholic beverages in the State of Iowa is twenty-one (21) years of age and said definition, as now or hereafter amended is incorporated by reference in the City Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Code currently provides that, unless otherwise exempted by law or ordinance, a person shall have attained nineteen (19) years of age or more to lawfully be on the premises between the hours of 10:00 P.M. to closing of any Iowa City establishment holding a liquor control license, a wine or beer permit, that authorizes on premises consumption; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interests of the citizens of Iowa City to change the bar entry age to the legal age which is currently twenty-one (21) years of age,
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IOWA CITY IOWA
Section I AMENDMENT. Title 4 Chapter 5 Section 8 -- entitled Persons Under 19 Years of Age in Licensed or Permitted Establishments -- shall be amended by replacing "nineteen (19) years of age" wherever and however it appears within such Section 8 with "the legal age".
Section II REPEALER. All ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict with the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby repealed.
Section III SEVERABILITY. If any section provision or part of the Ordinance shall be adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a whole or any section provision or part thereof not adjudicated invalid or unconstitutional.
Section IV EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect June 1, 2010.
Passed and approved this ____day of __________. 20__.
_______________ MAYOR
ATTEST: _______________ CITY CLERK
Approved by:
_______________ City Attorney's Office annen\ord\under21(2010).doc
Sec. 17.16. MINORS PROHIBITED ON CERTAIN PREMISES.
(1) It shall be unlawful for the holder of a license or permit issued pursuant to the 'Iowa Alcoholic Beverage Control Act' for premises where more than fifty percent (50%) of the business conducted is the sale or dispensing of alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, and for any person employed with respect to such premises to knowingly permit or fail to take reasonable measures to prevent the entry onto such premises of any and all persons who have not yet attained the age of twenty-one. It shall be the duty of the licensee and of the person or persons managing such premises to cause to be posted and maintained at all times an easily readable notice in the English language stating that persons less than 21 years of age are prohibited from entering the premises. . . .
_______________
Links to 30-Plus Additional Blog Entries on Alcohol Issues
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
Will Courage and Common Sense Finally Win Out? (brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
Think about it.
Iowa law forbids those under 21 from consuming, buying or possessing alcohol.
Bars are in the business of profiting from the sale of alcohol.
Given that both are true, isn't the exclusion of under-21-year-olds from bars a kind of no-brainer?
One can argue that the law should be changed -- though I've never found those arguments slam-dunk persuasive, especially in light of the data. But whether or not you find the line, "it's not just a good idea, it's the law," appropriate in this context, it is the law.
About the time of that blog entry, Iowa City Mayor Ernie Lehman summed up the UI-Iowa City problem:
In the 12 years that I spent on the council, I tried several times to get the council to pass a 21 ordinance. University of Iowa presidents Mary Sue Coleman and David Skorton also encouraged the council to pass such an ordinance -- along with the UI College of Public Health, the public school system and numerous others within the community. In fact, every piece of credible evidence presented to the council called for a 21 ordinance -- all of which the council ignored, choosing instead to listen to the bar owners and patrons of the bars.
The pressure from bar owners and students hasn't let up, so the only question is whether the UI administrators' and councilors' courage has been strengthened in the interim.
Watch this space to see. _______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
In the 12 years that I spent on the council, I tried several times to get the council to pass a 21 ordinance. University of Iowa presidents Mary Sue Coleman and David Skorton also encouraged the council to pass such an ordinance -- along with the UI College of Public Health, the public school system and numerous others within the community. In fact, every piece of credible evidence presented to the council called for a 21 ordinance -- all of which the council ignored, choosing instead to listen to the bar owners and patrons of the bars.
There's good news and bad news about the University of Iowa's serious alcohol problems.
The good news is that UI isn't the only American university with this problem. The bad news is that the UI isn't the only American university with this problem. The devastation of young peoples' lives from alcohol abuse starts in the high schools and spreads across the nation's campuses.
Fortunately, there's even better news. There are solutions.
Last week, Penn State students' alcohol abuse -- and the solutions being used on other campuses -- became the subject of an hour-long NPR radio program of great relevance to Iowans.
"This American Life," with host Ira Glass, is a weekly radio program from Chicago's WBEZ-FM carried nationwide by some 500 NPR stations each week. This award-winning program will soon have been on the air continuously for 15 years. Acknowledging that the program is hard to describe, its Web site makes this effort: "There's a theme to each episode, and a variety of stories on that theme. It's mostly true stories of everyday people, though not always."
Last week's program certainly involved the "true stories of everyday people" and had as its "theme" the scourge of alcohol abuse by college students -- with a focus on those at Penn State, the nation's "number one party school." "#1 Party School,""This American Life,"No. 396, December 18, 2009.
You can listen to the entire program from that linked site. And if this is an issue for which you have actual responsibility you probably should. However, Ira divides the show into "Acts," and for my purposes at the moment I'm going to concentrate on "Act Four" (the last 19 minutes). (If you'd like to limit your listening to that "Act," and your player enables you to see how many minutes into it you are, slide it to minute 46 and start there. Unfortunately, the show does not make transcripts available; although I wish it would do so at least occasionally, and this would have been one of those occasions. What follows is based on my relatively thorough notes from Act Four.)
Act Four focuses on what we can do about it -- here in Iowa City, as well as on other campuses.
Perspectives on Penn State's Problems.
First, some of the facts from Penn State -- most of which are reflected at the UI as well.
Every year 1700 college students die of alcohol related injuries. And the problem seems to be increasing. What used to be five drinks a night at Penn State has become 8, 9 and 10. Students admitted to the Penn State hospital for alcohol poisoning, or other alcohol abuse-related conditions, have been coming in with steadily rising levels of blood alcohol -- now some three times the legal limit. The show notes that normal drinkers could never reach those levels; they would either throw up or fall asleep first.
Like Iowa, Penn State has spent millions attacking the problem. Administrators have tried to teach students about safer drinking, created alcohol-free halls and dorms, task forces and town-gown commissions, alcohol-free late night activities (including stand-up comics and movies) -- but "obviously, this hasn't gotten the job done."
Linda LaSalle, Penn State's coordinator of health education services, has tried teaching students about blood alcohol levels and alcohol poisoning, offers a mandatory online alcohol education program for incoming freshmen ("Alcohol Edu"), and a social norms media campaign that makes the point that most students drink less than incoming first years think they do.
The result? Great knowledge gains (after all, they've been admitted to the university on the basis of their ability to retain and repeat what teachers say) -- but no significant behavior changes. LaSalle says they still drink as much or more than they ever did, and acknowledges that there are many things that contribute to this problem that are out of her control.
As Bob Saltz of the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation puts it, universities are not well suited to resolving these problems; academics tend to think they can simply teach kids to drink less; as Penn State's (and Iowa's) experience shows, they can't. Moreover, while Penn State and other schools may have lots of programs, they often fail to evaluate what they're doing, and therefore don't know what works and what doesn't.
Dead drunk. Universities do tend to launch a range of campus responses following alcohol-related student deaths -- and the adverse publicity they bring the school.
But it turns out that even alcohol-related deaths seem to have little impact on students' actual alcohol consumption. This past September a Penn State student died from a fall while climbing a wall at 3:30 a.m., drunk after a frat party. There were similar deaths in 1993, 1987, 1984, 1983.
So what is the student reaction? When a girl fell to her death from sixth story window in 1997 the newspaper expressed it: the death, it said, "may prompt party goers to keep a closer eye on each others' safety." This year students said of the most recent death, not that the dead student shouldn't have consumed so much alcohol, but that "he would be alive today if only he didn't drink alone."
Sadly, this appears to be the primary message of the otherwise very informative, powerful and emotionally moving quality documentary, "Haze," which I watched only after uploading this blog entry. Indeed, the final screen says, simply, "Save a life. Make the call" -- meaning, when your fraternity brothers pass out and are at risk of dying from alcohol poisoning, don't ignore how serious this can be, take some responsibility for them, a major part of which is a call to 911.
In fairness, "make the call" is certainly good advice. Moreover, it's an understandable focus for the film, given that the Gordie Foundation had its genesis in the aftermath of a student's death from alcohol. And as the This American Life program makes clear, to have devoted the film to solutions, rather than the problem and its consequences, would have been a different documentary. Nonetheless, it is a long way from a presentation of solutions, let alone those of UNL and Lincoln, described below.
However, that, and the seemingly constant interruptions from very loud commercials, are the only downside to this otherwise excellent documentary.
It's available near the bottom of this blog entry, and from the Web site of the Gordie Foundation, named for Gordon Bailey, who died from excessive alcohol in a University of Colorado fraternity in 2004. The award-winning documentary was produced by the Colorado Springs film company, Watt Imagination! and directed by Pete Schuermann.
Of course the 1700 college student deaths that are alcohol related are tragic for everyone involved, as this film so dramatically shows. (The knowledgeable John Neff challenges this figure as too high in a comment on this blog entry. My response: (1) it is certainly a widely accepted number, (2) whatever the actual numbers may be, even one death is too many. As Penn State's Linda LaSalle says, no college student should ever die because they had too much to drink, and (3) my instinct is that there is a greater likelihood of under reporting of alcohol-related deaths than over reporting, for example, a student who falls to her death while drunk may be recorded as having died from "an accident" rather than from an "alcohol-related accident." Ditto for injuries from a fight, a reported rape, or an unwanted pregnancy; those reporting, or otherwise discussing such occurances, may not know, or not mention if they do, that alcohol was very much involved.)
But as tragic as college students' needless deaths may be, regardless of their number, they are but a very small percentage of the total number of college students who suffer the unwanted consequences of their own, or others', excessive drinking in the form of alcohol-related accidents, fights, unwanted sex and pregnancy, failing or dropping out of college, alcohol addiction, drunk drivers, crimes of various kinds (alcohol is involved in roughly half of all crimes, give or take), alcohol poisoning (from which they recover rather than die), or other undesirable medical consequences.
And that is where this film shines. It sets out to make the case that college students' excessive alcohol consumption is a serious problem, and it does so with a power I've never before seen in a mere 81 minutes of film and scenes of which most parents are presumably unaware.
You can watch it from this blog, if you wish. It's available near the bottom of this blog entry. Regardless of your attitude about college drinking, I challenge you to watch it and still come away saying the equivalent of, "What's the problem? Boys will be boys. Let the kids have their fun."
Who is most involved in binge drinking? First year entering students who are white and male; the emergency room admissions in September are much higher than for the rest of the year.
A further complexity is that while the heaviest drinkers are naturally at the highest risk of getting hurt, there really aren't that many of them. It is the moderate drinkers, who vastly outnumber them, who are also victims from a rare over consumption by themselves or others -- incidents for which it is very hard to predict who will be involved and when they will occur.
The Solutions
Bob Saltz, from the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, says the answer is sort of a no-brainer: "You reduce risk by limiting kids' access to alcohol; the less alcohol is available the less kids drink; the less they drink the fewer bad things happen." (The Institute is a public health research organization that includes the causes and consequences of college students' alcohol abuse in its definition of "public health.")
Well, great. But how do you limit "kids' access to alcohol"?
In practice what this means is a police crackdown and, just as important, the students' perception of one. Until recently there wasn't much research to back up Saltz' hunch. Now there is.
Saltz' has completed an NIH-funded study at 14 California campuses.
Half the campuses instituted police "party patrols" that broke up large off-campus parties, stepped up drunk driving enforcement, and enforcement of laws against sales to minors in bars. Moreover, they heavily publicized this stepped up enforcement, so students would start self-policing rather than risk getting busted.
The results? Fewer kids were getting drunk. Campuses where the police cracked down reported 6000 fewer drunk students from off-campus parties and 4000 fewer from bars.
Contrary to the oft-repeated theory that strict enforcement will just cause students to select new venues for their binge drinking (see, e.g., John Neff's comment, "advantages and disadvantages of a 21 only ordinance," on my prior alcohol blog entry), the enforcement of the law in bars and at off-campus parties did not lead to those parties just moving elsewhere, such as a public park, or dormitories.
"Go West, young man -- to Nebraska." The show's Sarah Koenig asked Saltz if he could tell her of any university with sustained success. "Yes," he replied, "University of Nebraska, Lincoln."
In 1998 the University of Nebraska teamed up with the City of Lincoln and together they declared a data-driven, goal-oriented all out war on out-of-control drinking.
What did they do?
Everything. There was a police crackdown. They enlisted the help of bar owners, legislators, liberal arts students, business students, and high school principals. They lobbied to digitize Nebraska's drivers licenses. They even tried to knock down the average number of drinks on a student's 21st birthday from 14 to 7.
Linda Major, Assistant to the Vice Chancellor at UNL, was the general in this war. Breaking up wild parties in residential neighborhoods was one of the most controversial things they did early on, but also one of the most effective. "Over time the party patrol went out very few weekends, but people believed it could happen any weekend."
The results? There have been far fewer complaints from Lincoln residents about UNL students' drunken behavior. Students report they are studying more and getting more sleep. There were fewer drop outs, reports of unwanted sex, and arrests for driving drunk. Way more freshmen were abstaining entirely from alcohol. And the proportion of UNL students engaging in binge drinking sank from 63% of the student body in 1997 down to 42% by 2007.
Why haven't Penn State (and the University of Iowa) had results like this? Because, says Saltz, they refuse to do what UNL has done: "join with the town and declare total war." Why won't they ban alcohol from the dorms? Or take on the widespread underage drinking? Or punish students more harshly; expell them even, when they break the law?
Damon Simms, is Penn State's VP for Student Affairs. He has met with virtually everybody: the town manager, editor of the local paper, city council, student government, university police, faculty, and fraternity leaders. He has a list of ideas that is 72 items long, and says that sacred cows need to be reconsidered: grade inflation, troublesome fraternities, out-of-control tailgating. So far he's established new sanctions for students who break alcohol laws; fraternities have new rules (such as no more Wednesday night parties; on other nights a photo ID required for entry, and there must be bouncers to enforce the rules). But he is not optimistic any, or all, of these ideas will make a major difference.
Proposal and Conclusion.
I have long argued, in some 30 blog entries on this subject, that the University of Iowa's inability to solve its alcohol problem is not the result of a lack of possible solutions or resources. It is the lack of will. There's nothing in This American Life's "#1 Party School" program to change my assessment.
But I do think that the results of Saltz' California study, and the impressive results from the UNL-City of Lincoln effort, help to reenforce my assertions that there are solutions available.
Here are some summary suggestions:
1. Keep in mind Saltz' simple insight and implied goal: "You reduce risk by limiting kids' access to alcohol; the less alcohol is available the less kids drink; the less they drink the fewer bad things happen."
2. Recognize the painful truth that even though we can successfully increase our students' knowledge about the adverse consequences of alcohol abuse, not even the best of this planet's world class universities can "teach" their students into drinking less.
3. As with any successful human undertaking, whatever we decide to do it should be sufficiently data driven and goal oriented that we can evaluate our results and become better informed regarding "what works" based on our own experience here in Iowa City. (UI's Provost Wallace Loh has made some suggestions in this direction.)
4. Recognize that until the leadership of the University (Regents, President and Vice Presidents) and City (City Council and City Manager) really want to actually change student behavior, as distinguished from public relations efforts, it is unlikely any meaningful change in that behavior will occur.
5. If and when that focused determination and agreement occur, it will be useful to designate a "general" to (a) come up with the "data driven, goal oriented" plan, (b) including the range of most promising approaches, and (c) involving the widest possible array of potential stakeholders in the solution.
6. Anything short of "an all out war on out-of-control drinking" is unlikely to be successful in significantly moderating students' drinking behavior. What the data from California and Nebraska suggest is that the most effective strategy for such a war is a combined City and University police crackdown on off-campus parties as well as drunken behavior, and underage drinking, in the bars -- including the enactment of a meaningful "21-only" ordinance. At the outset it would need to be relatively constant; but this could soon become more random (and less demanding of police resources) -- so long as the students' perception is that it could happen to them at any time, and that the consequences are severe. (Note that, while "underage drinking" remains an offense and is included as a target of the "war," the primary focus is on "drunk and disorderly" behavior and its tragic consequences.)
7. Football weekends are their own problem and it, too, is severe, especially for those in neighborhoods adjacent the stadium. It also needs to be addressed. But the football problems are limited to a half-dozen or so weekends a year.
8. From the standpoint of student health and safety (as distinguished from adverse impact on Iowa City residents), the far more serious problem involves the other 45 weekends of student alcohol abuse each year -- "weekends" of what The Daily Iowan describes as "80 Hours" (in a week of 168 hours) that run from Thursday through Sunday nights. There may be some overlap of strategies between the football and other weekends, but the focus of this blog entry -- and the success in California and Nebraska -- is on those far more numerous weekends when we don't have 70,000 additional potential drinkers in town.
Well, here's a plan for doing something meaningful about Iowa City's alcohol problem. Based on the California and Nebraska experience, it looks like it would work as well for Iowa City as it has elsewhere. If you have a better idea, put it in a comment on this blog entry.
Meanwhile, if you're a University administrator, or City Council member, or just generally interested in the issues, I seriously urge you to watch "Haze," the film discussed above, before speaking out, let alone voting, on matters related to alcohol. Here is the film:
If after watching it the leaders of the University of Iowa and City of Iowa City continue to do nothing meaningful about the problem we will then at least know that it is a purposeful and deliberate decision on their part to put the interests of bar owners over the health and safety of our students. It is not for a lack of available remedies. _______________ * Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
In the 12 years that I spent on the council, I tried several times to get the council to pass a 21 ordinance. University of Iowa presidents Mary Sue Coleman and David Skorton also encouraged the council to pass such an ordinance -- along with the UI College of Public Health, the public school system and numerous others within the community. In fact, every piece of credible evidence presented to the council called for a 21 ordinance -- all of which the council ignored, choosing instead to listen to the bar owners and patrons of the bars.
Unfortunately, even that report doesn't seem to have had much effect in stiffening the spines of those who, if they were to do anything meaningful, would have to stand toe-to-toe with the powerful alcohol industry, bar owners, and their landlords.
Meanwhile, the latest in a decades-long string of alcohol committees and task forces has now decided the subject is so sensitive that they have to exclude the public from its meetings and conduct their conversations in secret. Regina Zilbermints, "Alcohol group meets — in private,"Daily Iowan, December 15, 2009.
The Iowa City City Council is unwilling to enforce the law in the way that rational cities do: with ordinances providing that those who are legally forbidden to possess, buy, or consume alcohol cannot be admitted to establishments the sole purpose of which is to profit from selling them alcohol. See, e.g., Rachel Gallegos, "Ames 21-only ordinance 'piece of a larger strategy,'"Iowa City Press-Citizen, October 27, 2007. (The Council and UI were even unwilling to support an ordinance that would have permitted them to consume alcohol illegally up until 10:00 p.m., but required them to leave the bars during the hours when the fights break out, from 10:00 p.m. until 2:00 a.m.) So it focuses on the number of underage drinkers found in the bars, and refuses to grant liquor licenses to the worst offenders. In addition to being irrational, there are three other things wrong with this approach: (1) with 50 bars within walking distance of the campus, closing one or two won't have much effect on the levels, and consequences, of binge drinking. (2) The bars aren't closed, they are permitted to continue to operate while they appeal. (3) And how's even this weak-kneed approach been working for the City? Not well. Josh O'Leary, "Judge: Bars should be allowed to serve alcohol,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, December 16, 2009; Nicole Karlis, "Judge overturns liquor-license denials,"Daily Iowan, December 16, 2009.
The Council's other worthless effort is the requirement that bars can only be within a given distance of each other. Why worthless? No bars are closed; they are all grandfathered in. Moreover, as I understand it, if any bar owner ever did want to give up his or her liquor license, this license to print money, all they would need to do is to sell the bar to another bar owner. That would not be considered the establishment of a new bar.
Fortunately, there is one adult in Iowa City who is internationally recognized for his research and knowledge of this subject. That's the good news. The bad news is that little more attention has been paid to his findings by Iowa City's powers that be than has been paid to my comparable suggestions (which are, admittedly, less worthy of attention than his). Peter Nathan, "Guest: To curb drinking problem, look to research and parental involvement,"Daily Iowan, December 15, 2009.
I cite, and am about to quote from, this op ed column not for the specifics of what it contains. There's no way that a lifetime of Peter Nathan's research can be presented in a brief op ed column.
No, I refer to it for the broader observation I have often made in writing about this subject over the years: In dealing with problems of alcohol abuse and its consequences on college campuses, the challenge is not one of finding possible solutions. It may be science, but it's not rocket science. The solutions, the data, the best practices, are out there. Indeed, in addition to the results from colleges and cities around the country (and the world) the U.S. Department of Education has an entire center devoted to the subject: The U.S. Department of Education's Higher Education Center for Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse and Violence Prevention.
No, the challenge, Iowa City's challenge, is figuring out how to get those who could implement those solutions to do so.
The Dec. 7 Daily Iowan article “The siren song of alcohol” brought home with great immediacy the terrible consequences of high-risk drinking at the UI. Admittedly, a good deal of what was written is familiar: Iowa’s dubious standing as one of the nation’s leaders in abusive drinking, the high rates of student self-reports of adverse consequences of this drinking, the growing numbers of arrests for alcohol-related events in Iowa City, and the proliferation of bars in the city. But interwoven with these familiar observations were the graphic, eyewitness reports chronicling the suffering of UI lethal drinkers because of their drinking. That was new on the pages of the DI. . . .
It’s hard to read about the college-age man crumpled and abandoned on the curb outside One-Eyed Jakes, his body immobilized by alcohol. Or the Code 3 young woman, disoriented and covered with blood, unsure of where she is. Or the bloodied student outside Summit Bar and Restaurant, punched by someone he didn’t know. . . .
[I]t’s hard to deny that high-risk drinking takes a huge toll on UI students. . . .
The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism has compiled a list of programs that “have proven effectiveness.” . . .
[S]trategies include increased enforcement of the minimum drinking-age laws, enforcement of other laws to reduce alcohol-impaired driving, restrictions on the density of alcohol outlets, increased prices on alcoholic beverages, and more responsible beverage-server policies. . . . [A] more rigorous and consistent effort to change the drinking environment here may be worth the effort.
[It] could well include a solicitation for greater involvement of parents . . .. Research done at universities elsewhere suggests that increased parental involvement in their students’ decisions about drinking may help moderate abusive drinking.
As I noted earlier, it's neither Nathan's purpose nor mine to itemize and explain even the best, let alone all, of the strategies supported by research and other universities' experience.
As I wrote over a year ago on the occasion when a number of university presidents were proposing lowering the drinking age to a 18 (a movement that UI's President Sally Mason, commendably, refused to join):
The problem is that when these academic leaders are called on the fact they are ignoring the scientific literature on the subject that has come from research at "America's Best" academic institutions, they do the little sidestep . . .
[The preceding one-minute fair use clip is from the delightful 1982 R-rated full-length musical comedy, "Best Little Whorehouse in Texas," staring Burt Reynolds and Dolly Parton, among a great many other accomplished and well-known actors, and still available for rental and sale. It's based on a true story of a brothel outside LaGrange, Texas, that was ultimately closed down in 1973, following the work of investigative reporter Marvin Zindler of KTRK-TV, Houston. The writing was done by Larry King (whom I remember from Austin in the 1950s), the Governor was played by Charles Durning, and the studio was RKO Pictures. The film is copyright by, presumably, RKO. The use of this miniaturized, very brief clip is for non-commercial, educational and commentary fair use purposes only. Any other use may require the permission of the copyright owner.]
. . . and say, "Oh, we're not really proposing the age be dropped to 18, our statement just calls for 'an informed and dispassionate public debate.'" Which, indeed, it does.
But for a group of academics to say they want an informed debate while simultaneously excluding from that debate any and all solid evidence that is contrary to their position, and urging little better by way of support than one could get from any drunken undergraduate at one of their campus bars on a Friday night, does not speak well for "the academy."
Perhaps most telling is this statement under "Interventions for Preventing Underage Drinking": "Increasing the age at which people can legally purchase and drink alcohol has been the most successful intervention to date . . .."
The "most successful intervention to date" and these 114 "higher education leaders" (a) make no reference to the finding, and (b) pick doing away with it as their top priority for treating the binge-drinking problem?
No, the purpose of this blog entry is simply to make the point again, as I have over and over during the past couple of decades, that until the Council and UI administrators demonstrate the willingness to take whatever political heat may result from effective action, illegal alcohol consumption by UI's undergraduates will continue to cause all too many to continue to flunk out, drop out, and pass out.
_______________
For other recent blog entries you may be looking for, go to "There Is No War in Afghanistan," December 4, 2009, and look through the links at the bottom of that blog entry. _______________ * Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
# # #
Here are 31 prior blog entries regarding Iowa City's alcohol problem, its consequences, and possible remedies:
"More College Football Conflicts & Concerns," October 7, 2006 ("The University of Iowa, ranked even highter nationally for the quantity of its students' drinking than for the quality of its football team (now 15th), professes to be making efforts to curb student drunkenness. It has something called the 'Stepping Up Project, which encourages students to avoid alcohol.' The co-chair is Jim Clayton. He was not enthusiastic about the 'University of Iowa plan to sell alcohol to people in Kinnick Stadium’s luxury seating areas this year,' because as he says, 'It’s a cultural message that we send to young people that alcohol has to be part of a sporting event.'");
"I'll Drink to That; Binge and problem drinking by college (and high school) students," October 10, 2006 ("Finding ideas regarding what can be done to alleviate college students' excessive drinking is not a tough research job. Put both "alcohol" and "college" into Google . . . and you get 29,700,000 hits in 3/10ths of one second. . . . But the one at the top of that list, 'College Drinking,' is not a bad place to start. The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism of the National Institutes of Health seemed to me an especially rich repository of information, research data, and best practices. And if that's not enough, as noted, there are another 29,000,000 to explore.");
"'Hat's Off' to the Press-Citizen," October 12, 2006 ("Both the Press-Citizen and The Gazette editorialized this morning (October 12) regarding the recent task force proposals about UI undergraduates' binge drinking. . . . Both took positions consistent with my blog entry yesterday, that the problems, and recommendations, have been around for decades and that nothing gets accomplished, not for a lack of solutions, but for a lack of will on the part of the Iowa City City Council, seemingly beholden to the local owners of the 42 bars competing for student drunks.");
"Public Officials and Private Actions," August 7, 2007 ("However serious DWI may be, however appropriate editorial and other campaigns to prevent it may be, I don't think it's warranted to select and publicize such an offense as a means of attacking an 'enemy,' and calling for his or her resignation (which the attacker would have wished for anyway, with or without the DWI) -- unless there is reason to believe the official's performance in their job has been impaired in some way.");
"We're Number 5! and Athletes Crowding Jails," August 21, 2007 ("by golly we're 5th in the nation for students' consumption of hard liquor according to the Princeton Review (not to mention number of bars per student and "most profitable market in which to operate a bar with the least City Council and University oversight" according to me). Hey, at least we're known for something positive around here. Hieu Pham, "UI Again Ranks Among Party Schools; School Also Ranks 5th for Hard Liquor Use, 18th for Beer Use," Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 21, 2007, p. A1. . . . The University's own statistics reveal that 'nearly 70 percent of U of I students surveyed last fall by Student Health Services said they had participated in binge drinking in the previous two weeks.'");
"Abu Ghraib, Rumsfeld, and Athletes' Facebook Photos," August 23, 2007 ("'The Facebook pages of more than 20 underaged University of Iowa football players have photos appearing to show them engaging alcohol in various ways, from drinking to posing with liquor bottles or beer cans. . . . "She can't say no if her mouth is taped shut," is posted as a favorite quote on one player's page.' Brian Morelli, "Alcohol Abundant on Players' Sites; Review Shows Questionable Material," Iowa City Press-Citizen, August 23, 2007. You see, the problem is not that athletes (and other students) might feel that way, think those things, or even say those things. The problem is that when they put them up on their Facebook page it risks embarrassing the University. . . . Is it that we really care one way or the other whether our students are abusing alcohol, consider rape a matter of right, and credit cards free for the taking? Or is it just that we don't want to suffer the institutional 'embarrassment' of having our students' behavior -- and our obvious attitudes about it, as reflected in our inaction -- reported by the media or otherwise widely known?");
"Hawkeye Football's Externalities," September 9, 2007 ("[My intention] is simply to try to portray, through pictures, the impact that the football program has on one of Iowa City's most historic residential neighborhoods when the football machine is fueled on alcohol and left to run without supervision.");
"Serious Reflections on "Football's Externalities," September 13, 2007("the most serious aspect of out-of-control, unsupervised, drunken mobs is their potential to create significant, regrettable disasters. You name it, you imagine it, it could happen. Fights between fans of rival teams that involve increasing numbers of people, and the resulting serious injuries or death as guns or knives are ultimately involved. When a drunken student suffocates to death on his own vomit, or falls from a building to his death (it's usually a 'his'), it may make the news. The hundreds of injuries from assaults and accidents do not. We've seen the extent of injury and death from drunken, out-of-control mobs of soccer fans around the world. It could happen here. Excessive alcohol can encourage deliberate vandalism and property damage, possibly even involving accidental or deliberate fire damage.");
"Iowa City's 'Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms,'" September 22, 2007("[There is] some question as to why the local bar owners (and their advocates on the City Council) are fearful of less revenue, since presumably they would assert they're not selling to under-age patrons now anyway -- either before or after 10:00 p.m. Iowa City's version of '21-only' doesn't even go so far as to enforce the laws already on the books in a rational way -- as is done in Ames! It leaves open the opportunity bar owners have to sell as much alcohol to under-age drinkers as they can possibly get away with up until 10:00 p.m.! And you call that 'prohibition'??!! Give me a break.");
"Music Management Revenue Alcohol -- and Good News/Alcohol and 'A Tale of Two Cities,'" October 6, 2007("As evidence that it doesn't have to be this way, that other cities take a different approach, consider what Marion, Iowa, has just done. It doesn't wink at illegal sales of alcohol to underage patrons of bars. It doesn't try to represent that kicking them out of the bars at 10 p.m. is a meaningful restriction on binge drinking. Its idea of a real loosening of restrictions on a meaningful '21-only' restriction is to permit underage patrons to enter bars (a) that do "a majority of their business in food sales," not prior to 10 p.m., but (b) between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. for those who want to buy lunch! 'Underage Patrons OK in Bars During Midday,' The Gazette, October 6, 2007, p. B1.");
"Why '21-Only' Isn't," October 19, 2007 ("There's lots of action -- or at least discussion -- about the so-called '21-Only' proposal. Why 'so-called'? Because it's not about '21-only' at all -- notwithstanding that characterization by supporters and opponents alike. The Daily Iowan editorializes [that it's an] 'ordinance banning anyone under the age of 21 from the Iowa City bars' -- a brazenly inaccurate characterization. Editorial, "21-Only Voting Might Spur Increased Student Engagement," The Daily Iowan, October 19, 2007, p. A6. Under this proposal the Iowa law would continue to be openly violated in Iowa City's bars up until 10:00 p.m. You may think that's a good idea, you may think it's a bad idea, but it is clearly not 'banning anyone under the age of 21 from the Iowa City bars.'");
"Sidestepping; 'It's a Possible Maybe,'" October 29, 2007 ("When it comes to . . . arming campus police with handguns it is suggested that this is desirable because (a) the police advise it would be a good thing to do, and (b) 'everybody's doing it' on other Big Ten campuses. (2) But when it comes to taking a position on binge drinking . . . there is absolutely no meaningful action proposed or taken, notwithstanding that (a) the police advise it would be good to support this proposed ordinance, and (b) what "everybody's doing" -- virtually all Big Ten campuses, as well as our own sister Regents' university -- is to . . . use the common sense, no-brainer approach of banning the entry into bars of those who cannot legally engage in the activity that profits the owners of those establishments.");
"Bikes and Ballots," November 7, 2007 ("Bar owners are operating establishments the sole purpose of which is to profit from the sale and consumption of alcohol, knowing that a significant proportion of the consumption of alcohol from which they are profiting is being done by those who are doing so illegally. Therefore, I contend, they are illegal drug dealers -- with a political and economic power, not unlike the MedellÃn Drug Cartel in Colombia, to control our City Council and University.");
"Election Returns; City Votes FOR 10:00 p.m. Drinking Break, 90% of Residential Precincts Favor Ordinance!" November 8, 2007 ("The University is going to appoint a Task Force??!! You're going to have conversations with students and bar owners??!! You've got to be kidding -- except by now it's so damn obvious what you're doing that you're no longer kidding anyone. This University has gone through hundreds of thousands of dollars from foundations and others for its 'Stepping Up' project with no discernible impact whatsoever -- except an increase in the number of students 'Stepping Up' to the bar, binge drinking, and then staggering out (or passing out)");
"Getting Real About Alcohol; Don't Get Tough, Get Effective," January 18, 2008 ("We should not be surprised that our nation's number one hard drug problem by any measure (e.g., economic impact, health/medical consequences, numbers of people affected, involvement in crime and violence, adverse impact on the brain, prison population, unwanted sexual activity ('accidents cause people'), impact on fetus, automobile and other death and injury) is a major problem in Iowa as well.");
"Alcohol, Three Items and a Comment," January 22, 2008; ("So what are [the five] alternative approaches? (1) Enforce the 21-only law; and the most rational and administratively feasible way to do that is to follow Ames' example. If you don't want under-age students to drink you don't permit them to enter establishments the sole purpose of which is to prosper from the sale of alcohol. . . .");
"UI and the ATF II/Alcohol," February 15, 2008 ("Alcohol abuse is still in the news, creating its easily predictable consequences. (And note how many of these stories were all in one day's paper!)");
"Solving Illegal Behavior Problems by Making It Legal; Higher Education's 'Leadership,'" August 20, 2008 ("for a group of academics to say they want an informed debate while simultaneously excluding from that debate any and all solid evidence that is contrary to their position, and urging little better by way of support than one could get from any drunken undergraduate at one of their campus bars on a Friday night, does not speak well for 'the academy.'");
"Alcohol Update," September 6, 2008 ("The Iowa City City Council is responsible for the wink and a nod it all too often gives to Iowa City's alcohol industry -- the radical increase in number of bars close to campus, the drink specials and other practices designed to encourage excessive student drinking, the failure to lift liquor licenses for violations, and the (what better phrase than 'idiotically ridiculous') policy of permitting underage students into bars, the sole business purpose of which is to profit from the sale of alcohol -- presumably assuming that they're not going to drink once there.");
"The Economics of Binge Drinking: A Proposal," September 18, 2008 ("[This is] a sub-set of the focus on keg sales, beer pitcher specials, and what the Council referred to as 'well-drink or mixed-drink pitchers.' Would it be possible for the Council to legislate the elimination of such discounts? . . . Each bar owner could continue to [set prices] -- presumably coming up with prices that would maximize his or her income. But it would be required to be a permanent, fixed price -- per ounce or other volume -- that would not vary by occasion (e.g., 21st birthday), day of the week or year, or time of the day (e.g., "happy hour");
"Drunken Fights and Digital Photos; We're Going to Fight, Fight, Fight at Iowa!" April 13, 2009 ("Unlike the out-of-sight, out-of-mind -- and out of the media -- consequences of alcohol abuse noted in this blog entry's lead, fights inside, and immediately outside, of bars can be witnessed by police and pedestrians and photographed by anyone with a digital camera. They are, therefore, much harder to ignore.");
"Bulls, Bars and Brawls; Red Bull: 'the non-stop party-animal's hot secret,'" May 7, 2009 ("'[The death of a] student who died on a nightclub dance floor [around 3:00 a.m.] . . . may have been triggered by caffeine in the Red Bull she had been drinking . . . around four cans . . . and several VKs - a vodka based drink which also contains caffeine . . . despite efforts from staff and paramedics to revive her.' . . . I've never thought that 'educating' college students with regard to the potentially adverse consequences of alcohol abuse would do much to slow down those youngsters determined to expend their new-found "freedom" on drunkenness. . . . I do hope, however, that to the extent we are trying to provide some useful guidance that at least some mention is being made of 'energy drinks,' how they interact with alcohol, and what the consequences of that interaction can be."); "UI's AA: Alcohol and Athletics; Alcohol, Athletics and the Inevitability of the Avoidance of Responsibility," June 28, 2009 ("We have a serious problem right here in River City, and I've finally and reluctantly come to the conclusion that nothing effective will ever be done about it. I'm referring to the consequences that flow from alcohol abuse by college students, athletes and non-athletes alike. . . . In fairness to the football program . . . the coaches would like to be able to avoid the adverse . . . publicity that comes with the criminal records of their players. . . . [I]t's possible that it would be worthwhile for them to put even more emphasis on knowing more about [their recruits'] . . . anti-social records . . . before they are brought to Iowa City. There are obvious limits to what any athletic program can do to reverse . . . an 'I'm so special the rules don't apply to me' sense of entitlement already firmly ingrained in a 17-or-18-year-old.");
"Some Solutions to College Binge Drinking; More on Binge Drinking -- With Some Suggestions for Solutions," July 2, 2009 ("[I]t turns out Iowa City's binge drinking problem really is both the creation and the responsibility of the University of Iowa -- although it also needs the support of the broader community. Binge drinking was not caused by the 21-only Iowa (and national) law, and it cannot be solved by lowering the age to 18. As I have argued over the years, a little research on the Internet should provide far more solutions than we've ever tried. . . . If we have not made significant strides in resolving the problem -- and we have not -- it turns out that is not because there are no potential solutions available. Since that's not the reason, I will leave it to others to speculate as to what the reasons may be.");
"Alcohol's Impact on Iowa City; Police Toss Bar Closing Recommendation to Council; Loh Talking Tough," July 24, 2009 ("Iowa City Police Chief Sam Hargadine has made a radical proposal to the City Council: don't continue to grant liquor licenses to bars that consistently flout the law. What a concept! . . . Perhaps most impressive to me is Provost Loh's reference to some metrics for measuring 'success': alcohol-related dropouts and emergency room admissions, and blood alcohol levels in students arrested and tested. There's really no substitute for the business adage 'you get what you measure.'");
"UI Has a Drinking Problem; I'll Drink to That," November 18, 2009 ("[Last week a] Drake student with a blood alcohol level of 0.5 . . . 'nearly died' from alcohol poisoning. . . . Students will die -- whether in hospitals from alcohol poisoning, falls from buildings, choking on their own vomit, fights with or without guns, or freezing in an Iowa winter snow drift after passing out. We just don't know who or when. Students will be raped -- or as Loh and Rocklin prefer to call it, suffer an 'unwanted sexual experience.' We just don't know who, or when, or whether it will ever be reported. UI administrators will continue to suffer -- although by comparison with the students, in far less dramatic ways -- as a result. We just don't know who and when. . . . We may not need a Carrie Nation swinging her hatchet at bars and barrels of whiskey, but we do need someone with an equivalent focus, will and political courage if we're ever going to do anything meaningful about these problems. . . . Like the fellow who saw a billboard that said, 'Drink Canada Dry,' and went up there to try to do it, Iowa's students are going to continue to binge drink and they, and all the rest of us, will continue to pay the heavy, heavy consequences.")
For more on the related issues regarding the often-alcohol-induced criminal behavior of football players, see
"Hawkeyes' Criminal Record Lengthens," February 25, 2008 ("Shame on us, if a part of the reason they have become that way is because the adults in their lives have contributed to these young men's belief that skilled athletes are entitled to special treatment; a culture and law of their own; second, third, fourth and fifth chances; a wink and a nod from coaches, high school principals, and judges -- so long as they can contribute to winning teams. That doesn't excuse college athletes' behavior, but it does require us to think about the extent to which it is we who have at least contributed to the creation of the problem we confront -- from Little League through professional sports -- including right here in Hawkeye land.");
"Sexual Assaults, Athletics and the Academy; The Academy and Football: Rape and Risk Management," January 9, 2009 (it turns out that athletes' sexual assaults are sufficiently common to warrant a commercial firm's offer of training for educational administrators regarding ways to minimize the public relations damage; "[There] is a recent story out of California that also involved two football players and an unconscious young woman. . . . [I]n the California case the football players have eased the task of the prosecution somewhat by providing a videotape of their alleged crime. The primary difference between the two cases, aside from the videotaping, is that the California football players are in jail on $100,000 bond, the former Iowa players (although charged) were permitted to transfer to other schools where they are continuing to play football.");
Police Toss Bar Closing Recommendation to Council; Loh Talking Tough (brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
July 29 Update: The Princeton Review has recently provided America's binge drinking high school graduates some guidance with regard to America's top "party schools." The University of Iowa came in 12th. It's too fuzzy a number to qualify as one of Provost Loh's alcohol metrics but, if it were, my recollection is that we were 9th last year. So, aside from the potential loss of tuition from those UI applicants more interested in alcohol and athletics than in academics, it can be chalked up as modest progress of sorts. (The UI's 2002-03 Parent Times Online indicates parents are notified when their kids are ticketed for alcohol violations. Is that still the case?) And see, Chris Rhatigan, "Council denies license renewal for 2 bars; PAULA rates at Etc., Fieldhouse triggered recommendation,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 29, 2009 (As I wrote in this blog entry July 24, below, "It will be a real test for the City Council next Tuesday evening. Are they willing to really stand up to the politically and economically powerful Iowa City alcohol industry?" Well, apparently they were, and in fairness I want to give them credit for doing so.)
Evening update, July 24, 10:00 p.m.: "And the beat(ing up) goes on": more alcohol-related violence and killing, before the day is even out. "Stabbing, Shooting Reported in Iowa City,"The Gazette Online, July 24, 2009, 10:00 p.m. ("According to witnesses, a long-time patron of the Hawkeye Hideaway bar . . . heard a man believed to be a transient drop two bags full of empty pop cans and bottles. The transient then stabbed the bar patron. Kevin Grimm of the Hawkeye Hideaway said the incident was witnessed by an off-duty Iowa City police officer, who then pulled a gun and shot the transient.") _______________
10:00 a.m. (original blog entry): Iowa City Police Chief Sam Hargadine has made a radical proposal to the City Council: don't continue to grant liquor licenses to bars that consistently flout the law. What a concept!
Meanwhile, UI's Provost Wallace Loh is also talking a little tougher.
He [Loh] wants action.
“It’s trial and error, experiment,” he said. “Let’s do things — let’s stop studying it.” “This problem has been studied to death,” he said. “There are hundreds and hundreds of articles with recommendations. What there is very little of is people taking action.”
So the partnership focuses its energies on specific, concrete ideas for gradually changing the culture, he said.
The UI is stepping up with police overtime on downtown patrol, beefing up alcohol safety education training for freshmen and offering even more intensive training to at risk groups.
They plan better communication with parents and cooperation with bar owners. They’ll schedule more Friday classes and fund more alternative activities, he said.
Loh’s goal: fewer alcohol-related emergency room admissions. A drop in blood alcohol levels, reduced incidents of alcohol-related assaults, fewer dropouts and more.
Although the test is "what happens next"? there's some reassurance in Hemmingsen's story and quotes. Perhaps most impressive to me is Provost Loh's reference to some metrics for measuring "success": alcohol-related dropouts and emergency room admissions, and blood alcohol levels in students arrested and tested.
There's really no substitute for the business adage "you get what you measure."
Speaking of which, what are we to make of the statistics regarding student arrests?
The Gazette recently headlined, "Athletes Not Most-Arrested Group." (Fraternity boys are.)
Might it have been more relevant/meaningful to look at some of the sports (and, presumably, fraternities) separately? Is it possible that the percentage of football players who get in trouble exceeds the percentages for members of the UI's teams in, say, cross country, golf, rowing, swimming, tennis, track and volleyball? Is it possible that some fraternities contribute a disproportionate number of fraternity members' arrests?
Here's how the Gazette presented the numbers:
Male student-athletes at the University of Iowa have had lower rates of arrest and citation than members of UI fraternities every year for the past five years, according to UI figures. . . .
Male athletes’ arrest and citation rates in Iowa City during the 2008-09 academic year — 10.5 percent — were nearly the same as those for male students living in residence halls — 10.1 percent. Fraternity members tallied the highest charge rate, at 15.1 percent. . . .
That compares with . . . 4 percent of the total UI student body. . . . Of the 1,504 charges in the categories that were tracked, 75 percent were alcohol related . . ..
Diane Heldt, "Athletes not most-arrested UI group; Fraternity members’ rates higher, though athletes get attention," The Gazette, July 11, 2009, p. A1. And see, Editorial, "Hook students on positive activities," The Gazette, July 16, 2009, p. A4 ("Of the 1,504 criminal charges . . . 75 percent were alcohol related. . . . Yet another reminder of the UI’s struggles with alcohol. . . . [A] 2006 survey . . ., 'Research on Iowa Student Experiences,' found that binge drinking was lower among students who participated in . . . student organizations, honors programs and research projects with faculty. . . . Only students can choose to engage in positive, educationally purposeful activities. But the easier the UI can make that choice, the better.")
Some of the comments on papers' stories in their online editions emphasize individuals' "right" to drink alcohol (a right possessed, apparently, even by those who are legally precluded from exercising it) and the contribution to Iowa City's downtown businesses (i.e., bars) and "vibrancy."
But there are costs associated with our present policies -- economic, medical, social, and moral/ethical.
Universities may no longer have the responsibilities of parents for their students' every action (though they once did), but they do still have some obligation to contribute more to students' lives than freedom, football, and the rote learning and regurgitation of bits of information.
And consider the Gazette's report this morning regarding the Los Cocos bar:
Los Cocos . . . has been a popular hip-hop club since it opened a little more than a year ago, but in that time, the bar has had almost 210 calls to police that consumed more than 200 officer hours and ended in nearly 90 arrests. . . . Los Cocos has alcohol-related arrests, but unlike many other bars, it also has seen a stabbing, numerous assaults and shots fired.
Ashton Shurson, "Tough Crowd: Police Say Los Cocos Bar in I.C. Plagued with Violence; Owner Says It's Unfairly Targeted," The Gazette, July 24, 2009, p. A1.
And see, "Man assaulted in ped mall,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 23, 2009 ("Police say a man was assaulted early Wednesday in downtown Iowa City. Police said a man had fallen down and was knocked unconscious in the 100 block of East College Street about 1:46 a.m. Wednesday. He was intoxicated and had a large cut on his head, police said. Officers determined he had an altercation with someone and that he was tripped by the suspect, who had fled on foot eastbound through the pedestrian mall.").
Taxpayers are subsidizing much of the "externalities" from Iowa City's bar culture. We pay the overtime for the diversion of the police to the violence that is the aftermath of drunk patrons. We pay the City employees who clean up the vomit outside the bars on Sunday morning. We pay for the streets and sidewalks, and their maintenance, that are given (free, so far as I know) to bar owners who'd like to claim the territory for more patrons. We pay, either as taxpayers or in excess health insurance premiums, for the alcohol-related emergency room treatments. We pay for the property damage for whom no perpetrator can be found. We are left with the obligation to clean up our yards after the drunken hoards of bumblebees depart Kinnick. We pay for the prisons. And we pay in having our freedom restrained by needing to avoid some areas of town at some times of the week and day because of risks of alcohol-related violence and just all-round unpleasantness. We pay the "opportunity cost" of what our downtown might have been had the City Council not been so willing to give in to bar owners' drive for ever-increasing profits.
There's much more involved here than the libertarian ideology that individuals ought to be left free to destroy their careers and lives by whatever means they choose, free to reject the opportunities offered them. Even in its purest form, that assumes they are doing no harm to others.
In this case, they are. _____________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
