I’m not saying this is fair or right, or that college kids should be able to get away with irresponsible actions. What I’m saying is that regardless of what anyone does, St. Thomas students will continue to drink and have parties…. So instead of sitting here hopelessly arguing over how responsible/irresponsible these students are, we should be talking about solutions to the problem. And no, trying to force students to stop drinking and partying is not a solution. It is a hopeless and completely unrealisitic idea. Here’s my solution, I think we need a lot more apartment buildings on and around campus for mainly students to live in. This would separate the students from the families in the neighborhoods which would allow the students to be students, and the neighborhoods to be quiet.

Wait… there is no one-to-one and onto function from the set of all things responsible to the set of all things legal? Gasp! Foiled again. (Sorry… math joke)

In all honesty, I think our disagreement likely stems only from a vague definition of responsibility. I’m not very interested in clarifying this definition. However, some examples of what you would consider responsible law breaking would be very interesting, if you’d be willing to provide?

And perhaps I can clear up your other confusion. There are many levels of being irresponsible. For example, drinking one or two bottles of beer is less irresponsible (and thus, in some sense, more responsible) then binge drinking. However, drinking one or two bottle of beer is still irresponsible given that it is against the law and breaking the law is irresponsible. Thus, I conclude that the only responsible way to drink under the legal limit is to not drink at all.

St. Thomas’ listing in the guide includes student reports of the university as “homogeneous,” “preppy” and religious, with an “ungodly strict” alcohol policy but possessing “an excellent sense of community” and one of the best study-abroad programs in the nation.

http://ust-wordpress.stthomas.edu/bulletin/2006/08/28/princeton-reviews-2007-college-survey-names-ust-among-best-in-the-midwest/

It was not the Princeton Review that called the regulations ‘ungodly strict’. Your article is completely misleading, and simply wrong on the matter.

To address Mr. Kaluza’s comment, legal drinkers must be made aware of the risks as well. There is nothing stopping them from drinking but being a nuisance can still get them in trouble. It is hardly the neighbor’s fault that it is easier to talk to the police then try and reason with a group of rowdy (and quite likely drunk) people. Throw less parties, throw smaller parties, or just don’t throw parties. But, don’t expect people to have to sacrifices for the sake of your get-together.

Paula,
Given that responsible is not equivalent to legal, your argument is quite flawed. There are plenty of cases in which you can responsibly break the law. Furthermore, you add arbitrariness by indicating a gradient of responsibility, weakening your argument even more.

Excluding that, I agree with both Gina and Paula as indicated by my previous response.

Quote: “It is unfair to assume each student who drinks underage is consuming irresponsibly”

Because consuming alcohol under the legal limit is breaking the law, anyone who drinks alcohol under the legal limit is being irresponsible. There is no responsible way to drink underage, though I will admit some ways are more responsible then others (which is what I believe you are trying to say with the rest of your message).

Everyone else,

There is no argument here that suggests that the enforcement of the alcohol law is inappropriate (either by Public Safety or the St. Paul Police). Rather, people are only complaining about the law itself. Regardless of your position on alcohol consumption, underage consumption is against the law. If your problem is with this law, then it would be more appropriate to contact your local representative then to complain about those who enforce the law.