Alcohol: Unjust busts? Part 2 of 3 Chips Special

Carrie Albrecht (‘10) planned a Super Bowl party with eight friends in her Baker Village unit. Like many Americans, her party would consist of eating, drinking and watching the game. However, prior to kickoff, at approximately 3:30 p.m., the Baker residents received a house call from a resident assistant, a campus security officer and Towers Area Coordinator Seth Miner.

“They knocked and came right in saying ‘Where’s the keg? We know there’s a keg here,’” Mitch Schaben (‘10), a guest at the Super Bowl party, said.

There was an untapped sixth-barrel keg of Blue Moon beer in the room, and while all students attending were of the legal drinking age, kegs are specifically outlawed in Luther’s official alcohol policy. The party’s participants, however, thought they were in the clear.

“What we had purchased isn’t technically a keg,” Schaben said. “It’s a sixth-barrel, which holds much less alcohol.”

A sixth-barrel keg holds 5.23 gallons of liquid, or the equivalent of approximately 58 cans of beer.

“We also figured because we weren’t having a big party and that it was in the middle of the day, we would be fine,” Schaben said.

However, the group was not fine. All in attendance received level-three alcohol citations, which is the most severe punishment Luther issues for alcohol-related offenses. The punishments initially given included $50 fines for each individual, as well as community service, a paper on the incident and mandatory time spent with Res Life staff.

“It was ridiculous,” Albrecht said. “Way too severe for what happened. We had the equivalent of two cases of beer, but those would have been fine to have. It’s not like it’s the container that makes you drunk.”

Luther’s policy does not address amount, but rather specifically the exclusion of kegs. Towers Coordinator Seth Miner states that the Luther’s policy keg policy is in accordance with Iowa code.

“According to policy, large quantities of alcohol in a keg or otherwise are considered a violation of policy,” Tim Schurring, Staff Chemical Health and Wellness Educator said when asked about the difference between containers.

The Super Bowlers are not alone in their criticism of the alcohol policy. Jenna Nordschow (’10) had a similar grievance after she experienced a comparable scenario this past fall.

“It was before 11:00 [p.m.] and we had the window open to get some air and we were playing ‘September time’ and singing along,” Nordschow said. “It was a group of people sitting around tables and on couches drinking wine and eating cheese.”

Resident Assistants and Campus Security broke up the party at her Baker residence not long after. More than 15 tickets were issued to Luther students, some of whom were not drinking, but not of the legal age and in attendance, thus violating the alcohol policy. Nordschow, an of-age resident of Farwell Hall received a Level three violation.

“I take responsibility for what happened at that party but at the same time I feel like I did nothing wrong,” Norschow said. “What I have issues with is that people who legitimately were not drinking were punished because they were in the room. Most of the underage people showed up literally 10 minutes before the bust happened and just because their physical body was in the room they were given a penalty.”

Will Layton (‘11) is a junior who attended Nordschow’s party.

“The Resident Assistant was just doing his job, it’s the policy that’s the problem,” Layton said. “It’s naive to claim that underage drinking can’t or doesn’t happen at such a party, but it’s also too simple to assume everyone present is guilty.”

Nordschow, like Schaben, feels the alcohol policy is too vague to be fair to everyone.

“I didn’t fit in to either level two or three completely so I was again in that gray area,” Nordschow said. “If you are going to have a policy, then create one that is easy to follow and leaves little room for error. This policy needs to be revisited and revised.”

Schaben similarly had issues with the appeal process.

“I never got the chance to discuss my appeal with anyone and my efforts to address the issues surrounding the alcohol policy were halted,” Schaben said. “Even worse, those in charge returned our sixth barrel to the store and kept our deposit money. No one would answer my questions regarding that either.”

Miner defended the appeal process.

“Our hearing officers determine which sanctions to go with based on Luther’s alcohol policy, and our appeal process is outlined in the sanction letters that the residents receive,” Miner said. “The details of the incident are then revisited with the individual appealing.”

Schurring feels the ambiguity of the policy is a positive aspect, allowing for more discretion among the Res Life staff in certain situations.

“Several portions of the Luther College Code of Conduct are not technical for good reason,” Schurring said. “Specificity in policy is just not what we are about. A code with specificity and technicality would only hamper the use of sound judgment and logic so valued by an educational institution like Luther.”

Despite the vagueness of the policy, Miner defends it as practical and flexible.

“The current policy was put in place with the understanding that there may be circumstances involved that need to be considered and there was a great deal of student involvement in the creation of our current alcohol policy,” Miner said. “I believe that the current policy puts responsibility on the students in that they make good decisions and if not, they know what the consequences are and will hopefully make more conscientious decisions in the future.”