A familiar issue today as addressed 30 years ago
With the current issues that have presented themselves regarding the Scot’s Key and alcohol policies, this article from the Feb. 12, 1982 issue of The Wooster Voice seemed to still be relevant and topical 30 years later.
College Activates Prohibition of Party Privileges
by Sue Allen
“The right to study and sleep takes precedence on campus.” This statement comes from Associate Dean of Students Rick Swegan, who paraphrased a clause in Wooster’s “Code of Social Responsibility” (Scot’s Key Section VII). There exists a controversy on campus concerning the administration’s recent crackdown on the party scene at Wooster; social gatherings involving alcohol and loud music will no longer be permitted during the week.
In a letter to the editor in last week’s Voice, a student expressed his disapproval of the administration’s decision. Aside from disagreeing with the requirement made this fall that students apply for party contracts prior to having a social gathering, the student protested the limitations placed on the days of the week that parties could be held. He likened the social life on campus to that in “a grade school.”
Many students on campus have articulated their disapproval of the administration’s decision. Other students, however, were pleased with the newly enforced regulations, and pointed out the “loud music and parties during the week inhibits studying in the dorms.”
Swegan commented on the entire issue by saying that while angry students seem to be placing all the blame on the administration, they should be examining the by-laws of their own Campus Council (comprised of nine students and six faculty members) who, he claims, adopted the restriction. Swegan pointed out that Campus Council is the legislative power and the administration is the enforcing power; the administration is now simply enforcing Campus Council’s decision made in 1977. Asked why the regulation was never enforced until recently, Swegan responded by saying that he and the administration had “overlooked” this clause. He said that numerous complaints of high noise levels from weekday parties have been made recently. The administration enforced the clause to help prevent repercussions from community members upset with the parties.
Section IV of SGA’s “Guidelines for Social Functions is written as follows: “Weekday (Sunday dinner through Friday lunch) social events in residence halls involving alcohol and/or loud music should not be planned.”
Several students suggested that the phrase was ambiguous and could be interpreted in several ways. They pointed out that the Council had written that those events “should” not be planned and not that they “may” not be planned. Swegan admitted the ambiguity of the word “should,” but said that the administration had interpreted the “should” to mean “may,” and was therefore justified in enforcing the rule.
A group of students who disagree with recent enforcement by administration of the regulation are attempting to bring about a change. A petition that had generated over 200 signatures of students will be submitted to the Campus Council today. The petition objects to the administration’s recent enforcement of the regulation, and the students who have circulated it are attempting to bring about either a change of Campus Council’s policy guidelines or a re-writing of the clause in question. The students claim that weeknight parties, specifically “Tuesday night groups,” are not harmful “to the students involved,” and they feel that students’ rights are being withheld by the action of the administration and council.
Dean of Students Ken Plusquellec and Assistant Dean of Students John Rosenbluth commented on the original 1977 ruling of Campus Council. Plusquellec and Rosenbluth explained that the Council’s original intent was to abolish in total any weeknight activities including alcohol and loud noise. The Council, however, needed to provide room for the exception of rush functions, and thus left the clause open for interpretation by the administration.
Plusquellec pointed out the reasons that the administration was only now enforcing the regulation. He had received many reports from professors that it appeared that Tuesday night activities were interrupting academic functioning of some students in their classes. Plusquellec claims that the professors reported that some students looked sleepy and unattentive on Wednesday mornings. Some professors said that several students had reported an inability to study or sleep the night before because of a loud party occurring in their dormitory. President Copeland and Dean Plusquellec felt that some action needed to be taken, and the result was a stronger enforcement of College policy.
The student who wrote the letter to the editor has suggested that the restrictions now placed on campus would not work; he felt that students would go elsewhere (off campus perhaps) to party or go “behind closed doors.” Swegan responded to this by saying that this would be “a positive outcome” because noise would be reduced on campus. He said, “I don’t think we are objecting to individuals getting together for one or two beers during the week but we are objecting to those students disturbing others.”
Swegan stressed that the administration is simply “attempting to be consistent with the idea that Wooster is an academic institution.” The main questions that students raised concerned whether the regulation is fair to individuals’ rights as adults and whether it is justly enforced by the administration.