Changing collegiate drinking is a lot like ridding a lawn of dandelions: nothing changes until you address the taproot.

There is an interesting piece on collegiate drinking in the latest edition of Hazelden’s Recovery Matters – see http://www.hazelden.org/web/public/prev70430.page It is “sort of” right, in MHO :) To a certain extent, the article proffers what those of us familiar with the field of collegiate drinking might tend to view as “same ole, same ole.” The impetus for changing collegiate drinking is placed on changing the campus culture that supports that drinking. This is, as far as it goes, fine and not something of concern to me...there are things that campuses and communities can and should be doing to address this concern. What is of greater concern to me is the fact that the focus for such interventions and strategies to affect change is placed on external factors controlled by the administrators and other “adults,” that is, the “dominant culture” on campus, e.g., environmental management, and again this is good. But to solve the collegiate drinking problem is for “us” (adults) to change “them” (students)—and to suggest that all collegiate drinking is a problem necessitating a solution is perhaps misguided and another argument I have outlined in my 3rd monograph on collegiate drinking, “Is Collegiate Drinking the Problem We Think It Is?” (see http://bit.ly/DeeCg).

Although what is suggested in the Hazelden article is sound and appropriate to pursue, it is not all there is that needs to be pursued regarding high-risk and dangerous collegiate drinking. My argument has been that until and unless we understand: (1) the symbolic meaning that alcohol and drinking hold for contemporary collegians, (2) the process by which that meaning is ascribed by students...and more to the point, re-ascribed, and (3) how to employ that information to hasten the process by which students pass through the period of high-risk and dangerous drinking, “the problem” is not going to change. Because students essentially disagree with us that “any” drinking is a problem they will resist efforts by schools and their administrators to change their involvement in this behavior. And because what administrators are trying to change and what students perceived administrators trying to change are two different things, there will be continued resistance.

We need individual-based, campus-based, and community-based intervention as suggested in the article, but until and unless we acknowledge that what students perceive alcohol and drinking to be as icons of collegiate life and recognize the different from what administrators and parents and law enforcement professionals perceive them to be, we will continue to generate more heat than light when attempting to change the campus culture.

It is hubris on the part of administrators to think that they can ever end the use of all alcohol by college students--change how and when and where it is used, yes, but end it, not likely. And it is naïve to state that students do not arrive on campus already prepped if not preordained to engage in the type of drinking that has come to be described as “binge drinking.” The irony is that the very factor that fans the flames of collegiate drinking goes unnoticed if not ignored as an important determinant of this collegiate behavior. It is like the conflict that has existed in PA for sometime regarding efforts to regulate gun sales in Philadelphia.

For 20-years, the City of Philadelphia has tried to regulate the sale of guns. Each time this happens, Philly is told by Harrisburg that such regulation is not within the City’s purview. When the issue is then introduced in Harrisburg by Philly legislators, such efforts are soundly defeated. It would seem that “Philly” hates guns and “Harrisburg” loves them, but that is a biased and overly simplistic assessment of the difference. The issue is that Philly views guns as “weapons,” which it seeks to regulate for purposes of public safety, and Harrisburg views them as “recreational equipment” that are a right for residents to possess, use, and enjoy.

The language used by the legislators in Philly and in Harrisburg is the same, but the perception of these legislators as regards the symbolic meaning of the term being debated is different. A “gun” in Philly is used to break the law and reek havoc on the public whereas in most of the rest of PA, a gun is a sporting person's recreational device used in licensed hunting and recreational target shooting. In short, a gun is what the person referring to it says it is. This understanding will, in turn, affect how that person uses the gun and also how that individual responds to the efforts of another to “change the culture” surrounding the gun and its users. It is no different when we look at alcohol, drinking, and collegiate life.

It would seem logical that we can operationally define “alcohol” and “consumption/drinking,” but we would be wrong. Ask students, as I have for the past 20-years, what alcohol is and what drinking is and what these icons of collegiate life are and how they affect one’s collegiate experience and you will discover a different perspective than if asking student affairs professionals, law enforcement professionals, parents, and residents whose properties are contiguous to campus or student-occupied housing.

To end as I began, I do not take exception with most of what is suggested in the Hazelden article. What I suggest is that it does not look at the root of the issue. Like trying to clear your lawn of dandelions by just picking the blossoms, the next day the lawn is again full of dandelions. Until and unless the taproot is addressed, nothing changes...and the number of dandelions may actually expand. The “taproot” in collegiate drinking is the meaning students give to alcohol and drinking and therefore, the way to change the campus drinking culture is to change this meaning. Study what these icons of collegiate life mean, understand the dynamic that generates that meaning so we can better affect it and you will see a change in student behavior and many such individual changes equals a change in the campus culture. The irony is, this happens naturally in the maturing out phenomenon—I write about this in the 2nd of the 3 monographs I have written on collegiate drinking (see http://bit.ly/qrpJA). The problem is that this maturing out takes 2 to 3 years and a lot of the untoward consequences of collegiate drinking that are showcased on the NIAAA web page cited in the Hazelden article can happen during that time. If we can hasten this process we will not only reduce the untoward consequences, but change the campus culture. As experienced students change their behavior sooner they will influence less experienced students and instead of the negative peer pressure mentioned in the article, positive peer pressure can increase the likelihood of moderating behavior, a.k.a., change the campus drinking culture.