The University standardized common alcohol violations last week through an elaborate series of flow charts that outline punishments for common college-age offenses including hosting parties and hospital transports.
Many first time offenses – such as underage possession and consumption of alcohol – are now more likely to result in a peer-to-peer meeting and an administrative record, a departure from the previous policy of establishing a disciplinary record.
The new graphics indicate a broader philosophical transition by the University toward student education with a “flavor” of disciplinary action in the aftermath of common violations, instead of primarily relying on sanctions, Assistant Dean of Students Tara Pereira said.
Of the disciplinary actions that took place on campus last year, between 70 and 80 percent were drug and alcohol related, Pereira said. The resulting disciplinary records previously banned students from studying abroad and participating in University programs like Colonial Cabinet and President Administrative Fellowships.
“It’s more realistic,” she said. “It is meeting students where they’re at in their behavior. I know people are going to underage drink, and that’s not the battle I’m trying to fight.”
The series of charts, entitled, “The University’s Response to Alcohol Related Incidences,” was created to outline the disciplinary results of misconduct, while considering prior violations, Pereira said.
The charts – one each for first, second and third-time offenders – have several columns that correspond with low, moderate and high-risk actions.
Under the new system, “low and moderate risk behaviors,” including underage possession of alcohol and hosting a party, will more often result in speaking with a peer educator and creating a Civility Agreement – a personal plan to avoid future violations.
The old procedures allowed for a maximum of three altercations with drugs or alcohol before expulsion or suspension from the University.
“If what you are doing is baseline – essentially breaking the 21 law – we’re going to talk to you, we’re going to educate you. We are not going to beat you over the head,” Pereira said. “I know college students drink, so with that, I’m going to respond in kind.”
Hosting a party where an attendee is transported to the hospital for intoxication will result in an administrative record, mandatory alcohol education, a fine and a conversation with a staff member in the Office of Civility and Community Standards, the graphic shows.
First and second violations of underage drinking or possession of alcohol will not result in a disciplinary record, according to the chart.
Two instances of hospital transport for alcohol result in a referral to the University Hearing Board, a disciplinary record and possible suspension.
Mitigating and aggravating circumstances – including violent behavior, level of compliance with University officials and severity of the offense – are considered before final punishments are doled out.
Student Judicial Services morphed into two offices, Civility and Community Standards and Student Rights and Responsibilities, early this semester as part of a sweeping department overhaul.
The Alcohol Medical Amnesty policy – which allowed intoxicated students to seek help without creating disciplinary records during their first violations – has not changed, nor have the $50 and $100 fines associated with most alcohol violations.
Despite the graphic, Pereira said the disciplinary system will remain flexible on a case-by-case basis.
A similar graphic about the consequences of drug violations is forthcoming.
This is a ridiculous policy. When I went there (’72 through ’76), the drinking age was 18, and I never saw nor heard of a problem with student drinking. We all know that college age kids will drink. As a parent of three of them (not GW), I would FAR PREFER that my kids drink in their dorms with their friends, rather than be roaming the streets or, worse, driving to a bar where they will be served with fake ID. GET REAL!!!
I am not saying that GWU has to condone illegal behavior. However, in my opinion, they and their students would be far better served simply turning a blind eye to this on campus and in dorms. If a student gets out of hand, then diciplinary action would be warranted. If not, there is no reason to have such ridiculous policies.
Nice work GW.
Catch a student drinking one beer alone in his room, all he has to do , is pay a fine, go to alcohol education, have it put on his record, and his parents have to be bothered with this stupidity.
I am an alumnus and I will never donate a dime to GW as long as the university continues to enforce laws for the state. The university should be protecting students from the state, not enforcing for that state. This is especially true when the law they are enforcing in this case does not exist in most of the world.
So is there no more amnesty policy?
Hi Daniel, and “Upset student,”
Just wanted to clear up the question you had. There is still an amnesty. Paragraph below from the article explains:
“The Alcohol Medical Amnesty policy – which allowed intoxicated students to seek help without creating disciplinary records during their first violations – has not changed, nor have the $50 and $100 fines associated with most alcohol violations.”
Thanks for reading,
Lauren
This policy completely eliminates amnesty. If I am hosting a party and make the responsible decision to call help for my friend that gets too drunk I can now get in trouble. Great job GW, this policy is just completely out of touch and it is unlikely that any students were consulted before implementing this policy.
When I was charged with an alcohol violation, my parents were notified. They were upset with the school, not with me. If my own parents are ok with me drinking, why does the school bother with so many useless punishments?
Were you under 21 when you were caught? If so, the answer is…because it’s illegal!
Consider yourself lucky that the fake GW Police caught you and not the Metropolitan Police, your punishment would have been far more severe (loss of driver’s license, permanent criminal record, monetary fine, and/or at least 1 night in the drunk tank with god knows who else)
Lame. The university needs to lighten up on alcohol offenses and redirect its public safety resources aimed at preventing violent crime. Why they have not adopted a more laissez-faire policy continues to confound me. And no, I never got caught in my four years of college, but it always irked me to watch my fellow classmates get busted for a generally trivial matter..
I for one cannot understand the aggressive alcohol policy of GW, which seems to have become even more restrictive since I graduated in 1997. What is their true agenda? Is it to collect revenue by making students pay a “drinking tax”? Is it a power trip? Who knows. Those over 18 are legally adults and ultimately responsible for their affairs. It says a lot when parents want the University to take a hands-off approach to social drinking.
On the other hand, behavior like excessive rowdiness, public urination, vandalism, fighting, etc that is sometimes associated with drinking should not be tolerated. However, these activities stem from consumption of alcohol far more than a few beers with friends.
When I was at GW, we had Mr. Henry’s, a place where “the only ID needed was a picture of a dead president”. Yes some overdid it and hurled in the street, but we had fun. It was a controlled, nearby environment. I carried a few friends home and did not get harassed. I would put on a jacket and tie at 18, go to Georgetown and get served because I didn’t act like a kid. And we had Flicks, where it was 21 to buy but nobody in there cared who drank.
Most troubling are sanctions for seeking help. Why must the University keep a punitive record? And why is UPD writing up students on public streets?
Granted there is a reason for rules for underage drinking but who makes the decisions for possible outcomes?
I am flabbergasted by the university bashing responses above. As a parent, I would not expect the university to condone breaking the law, especially one that brings so much risk for the student and possible liability for the university. Wake up, folks. If you have a problem with the university following the law, get the laws changed. I applaud the university for their consistent even handed and student friendly approach to dealing with a truly delicate area of law and student oversight.
Cathy:
We are not talking about violent crime here, or even condoning any bad behavior that might accompany excessive alcohol consumption like rowdiness or fighting.
Reading the Crime Log, I have serious concerns about the civil liberties of the students of GW being infringed upon by the “University Police Department”. Read through the log week by week and notice that students are not just facing action for alcohol related offenses within University buildings and owned spaces like the University Yard and Kogan Plaza (for which an argument could be made) but are also subject to search and sobriety assessment on public rights of way as well. A number of students have been sanctioned for off-campus activity, which calls into question whether the UPD is over-reaching, with a higher standard of behavior required and lower threshhold of search for students, even when not on University property.
GW has a number of fine graduates now in the employ of the ACLU…where are you? Come help your fellow Colonials.
I would like to point out that in comparison to other institutions, GW has a quite lenient alcohol policy that focuses on student learning and responsible drinking. I currently work at a higher ed. institution with a “zero tolerance” policy regarding alcohol and drugs, and I believe that GW students are far better off. GW has a unique mission- to support student learning and independence while also challenging students to self-evaluate their behavior and reflect on who they want to become in life. In my opinion, this policy provides adequate support and challenge for students who engage in drinking at a low-moderate risk. With this policy, students have the space to make their own decisions about alcohol and drugs, but are still held accountable for their actions in a way that allows them to learn and grow. If you have ever been through the judicial process at GW, then you would know that the hearing officers are reasonable. Just because you are caught with alcohol in your room underage does not mean that all of these things will happen to you- the flow chart just states the possible consequences.
One thing I love about GW is that the institution wants students to prepare students for the real world, while also being realistic about alcohol comsumption in college. In the real world, underage drinkers can be arrested and brought to court. In the GW world, your consequence can be a conversation with a peer educator. What’s with all the complaining?
gw sucks yo