The sexual assault case that drew national attention in June is once again in the spotlight, as Stanford University recently announced a new policy to prevent a similar situation to that of the now infamous SU undergrad Brock Turner, who was convicted of raping an intoxicated woman during his freshman year. Despite the key witnesses by the two bikers who rescued the victim and the public letter the victim published, Brock Turner received a light sentence of only six months in jail. The national outrage of this conviction stemmed from many different reasons, including the reality that men of the same age but of a different color are more likely to receive longer sentences for the same crime and that the judge cited Turner’s swimming career at Stanford as the reason to administer a light sentence.
In the aftermath of these events, university president John Hennessy recently came out with a new drinking law prohibiting students from drinking hard alcohol at on-campus parties. According to this rule, students at Stanford can still drink wine and beer at on-campus parties, but they can no longer consume alcohol greater than 40 proof, or more than 20% alcohol by volume.
But is Stanford choosing the right course of action?
There is no denying that behavior following alcohol consumption often increases the likelihood of a rape event on campus. However, new research finds social patterns indicating that individuals with a behavioral tendency or intent to commit sexual assault will do so regardless of a decision to drink excessively.
In addition, choosing to restrict specific grades of alcohol seems impractical. Stanford has an undergraduate student body of about 7,000 and assuming that Stanford follows the average of 30-40% partying once a week and 50-80% once a month, it still remains an impractical rule to enforce. In 2015, Dartmouth College implemented a similar hard liquor ban, and a survey conducted at the end of the year found that nearly 85% of the responding students consumed liquor despite the new restrictions. Eventually, students eager to party will realize ways of skirting around the new alcohol ban, and the Stanford nightlife will continue as it once did before the restriction.
The root of any issue concerning alcohol and assault is that the reactions taken by judges, governing officials, or schools, usually do not directly address the real problem. As stated, individuals that will commit sexual assault will do so whether drunk or sober. The attempt to remove alcohol may seem like a defense for a potential victim; attempting to ensure they will possess the faculties to fight off or avoid an unsafe situation. But these avenues of thought in actuality pander to the broader cultural tendency of blaming the victim and in some situations, their alcohol consumption. In fact, in his own defense, Turner stated that his actions were in part to due him being “shattered by the partying culture and risk taking behavior” at Stanford. Furthermore, bystanders are less likely to report a situation for fear of facing consequences of violating a liquor consumption ban, and victims themselves fear policies that put them at risk for suspension or expulsion, such as the new rules at Brigham Young University.
The real problem seems the most obvious: the rapist. The time, energy, and resources Stanford is investing towards this new ban could be redirected towards more constructive actions. Mandatory seminars regarding rape culture that clearly define consent and outline the repercussions of rape may prove more effective than banning a substance. Stanford University, as so many other higher learning institutions do, missed the opportunity to make an example of Brock Turner. Turner’s case has sent the message to potential rapists that their crime can be finagled around, befuddled in legalities, and essentially dismissed. In order to eliminate the rape culture across campuses, the measures taken must address the rapists directly and condone their actions for what they actually are: a crime.
So, is Stanford’s hard alcohol ban good enough? Not likely.
