JMU changes reporting policy on drinking
James Madison University is cracking down on underage drinking on the campus, and asking the managers and owners of off-campus apartment complexes to help, The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports.
School President Linwood Rose sent a letter to students Wednesday stating that it is time to change "the negative alcohol culture" on campus. He said the university is implementing changes to its school policy, including notifying parents after the first alcohol offense instead of the second.
The university also is asking managers and owners of off-campus apartment complexes not to permit illegal outdoor parties.
The change in policy comes after an off-campus party in April that resulted in more than 30 arrests and 42 injuries. Police in riot gear broke up a Springfest party of about 8,000 people, a crowd that included many non-students.
By
Washington Post editors
| August 19, 2010; 11:21 AM ET
Categories:
Virginia
Save & Share:
Previous: Md. man arrested for drunk boating
Next: Board suspends Md. doctor's license
Posted by: Greent | August 19, 2010 1:27 PM | Report abuse
As a proud JMU alum, I'm sad to say that Dr. Rose is spot-on in his analysis. I don't think any draconian enforcement measures are necessary, but the riots clearly indicated a situation that needs to change.
Posted by: mikeleon87 | August 19, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse
Why should a university be concerned that its students are committing crimes?
Posted by: jiji1 | August 19, 2010 3:33 PM | Report abuse
I agree about the 18+ thing. You can apply to the military, die for your counrty, drive a car, but you can't drink? Doesnt make sense.
Also, at 18 your an adult, why are they informing the parents? Unless parents are paying for it and the guys skipping classes and failing, the parents have no business knowing their private life.
Posted by: remission1 | August 19, 2010 6:10 PM | Report abuse
I third the 18+ idea. I belong to Choose Responsibility.. the offshoot of the amethyst initiative. Which in a nutshell supports the lowering of drinking age 21 back to 18 or 19 to curb excessive "hidden" drinking. They also support removing the Drinking Age 21 provision in the Highway Act that was a clever, but unconstitutional way to create a new national law for drinking ages. How can a state have an open debate on the merits of different drinking age minimums when hundreds of millions of roadway dollars are at stake? Look up Choose Responsibility if youre interested in this topic. Thanks!
Posted by: destewar | August 19, 2010 10:15 PM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.
Return the drinking age to 18.
Adults are adults. (maturity levels vary til death)