A STUDENT at the University of Maryland-College Park recently died due to acute alcohol intoxication. The drinking took place at a fraternity house where the student's blood alcohol level reached 0.5. It was a life that was needlessly lost. But now, one month later, several other young men's lives hang in the balance. Investigators now are considering bringing criminal charges against the fraternity.
The charges could range from as minimal as hazing to as extreme as manslaughter. The people to be charged could include the fraternity president, the pledge educator, the brothers who were present and the entire fraternity. While certain facts of the night still are being debated, the police have determined this: The event was an unregistered bid night party, the student was a new pledge, and the fraternity provided him with alcohol. Fraternities cannot be held responsible for simply providing an environment conducive to drinking.
Too often in our society we hear the expression "somebody has to pay." We love finding scapegoats and alcohol-related incidents consistently produce them. Alcohol consumption often and easily becomes the responsibility of parties other than the one drinking.
|
Fraternities are always one of the first things people attack. They are social organizations with reputations for debauchery, thanks to movies like "Animal House" and true horror stories about hazing. Drinking and partying certainly are an integral part of Greek life. Fraternities are not usually the most moral organizations on a college campus.
But consider another fact about this particular night: Alcohol was not forced down this boy's throat. In fact, it's highly likely that this student swallowed every drop in a consensual and voluntary manner. He arrived at that party thinking, "I'm getting trashed tonight." So, does it matter?
Most state and federal laws would indicate no. For example, Maryland state laws define hazing as doing any act or causing any situation that recklessly or intentionally subjects a student to the risk of serious bodily injury for the purpose of initiation into a student organization of a school, college or university. But an important clause in that definition is that consent of the hazed student is considered irrelevant. If a situation is created inappropriately, a person could be literally begging to be given alcohol and still not be held responsible for consuming it.
Other examples exist. If a high school student throws a party while his parents are out of town, and someone is injured in a drunk driving accident leaving the party, the out-of-town parents can be held liable.
Beyond the situation with minors, legal drinkers can disown their responsibility as well. If an adult leaves a bar visibly drunk, chooses to drive, and kills someone in an accident, they are not necessarily legally blameworthy. The driver can sue the bartender for serving the driver to an unsafe level of intoxication. After a customer reaches that level, the bartender becomes liable for the customer's actions. The bartender and the customer are both human, meaning rational, thinking decision makers.
So, let's say you ask your friend not to let you drink too much one night. Then, when she's not looking, you down three extra shots. Do you blame her for your hangover in the morning? Can you also blame the guy who bought you the drinks, the waiter who brought them, the bartender who poured them, the owner who employed the two, the company that manufactured the alcohol, and so on. The fact is that there is always someone who can be held accountable, and maybe there shouldn't be. The line needs to be drawn.
Yes, drinking puts a person in an altered, less rational state of mind. But that shouldn't mean that as soon as that point is reached the drinker is guaranteed a babysitter. This is especially problematic because in social drinking situations, many if not all other party attendees, could be drunk as well. It isn't fair for parties to be required to have designated non-drinkers to protect drinkers from themselves.
It's still unclear whether the Maryland fraternity deserves any charges, and which ones, for their pledge's death. The possibility remains that once the fraternity realized the student drank too much, they failed to help remedy the situation. Maybe they didn't immediately contact the paramedics for fear of blame. If this is true then they are possibly criminals, and certainly cowards. But otherwise, they only are implicated indirectly.
To be sure, it is horrible that this student died, and it is horrible for his family. But part of that pain stems from the fact that this was preventable, voluntary and in a way, intentional. This boy wanted to drink and he wanted to drink a lot. We need to stop looking for scapegoats and start emphasizing individual responsibility.
So when society demands that somebody pays for what happened, they're forgetting that he already did.
(Kimberly Liu's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at kliu@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | YesterdayThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | YesterdayAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 6 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
