Delirium Tremens

SURPRISINGLY alcohol is one of the very touchiest subjects on campus. That's alcohol as in beet and wine--Michelob and Gallo.

Virtually any other subject including ones of far greater importance like the fate of financial aid and the ethical implications of the University's stock portfolio cligits more candid discussion among College officials. When Harvard's unique and often inconsistent alcohol policy is brought up however responses are usually mute or terse.

College administrators believe that any public discussion of the practice of serving alcohol at fre. House functions for residents and guests makes a delicate even more fragile. They're actually quite right.

The periodic party where beer is served and admissions is charged is in fact usually the precursor to dining hall discussion and newspaper coverage which aggravates tension and makes Harvard's alcohol policy seem inconsistent and unfair. Put simply: a party which charges for beer and then gets attention for doing so embarrasses the master whose House failed to comply and the other masters as well who suddenly seem unreasonably authoritarian for preventing all-out money making beer bashes.

So, masters say the best thing is for them to quickly huddle at their private monthly meetings and continue the search for consistency among the Houses. The is hush and hold your breath. With this year as a reasonable indication it's better to exhale.

WHILE MASTERS rightly point out that tension and confusion ensue when maverick event becomes public it is insensitive and ridiculous for them to continue to give assurances that closed door talks can eliminate this problem. The masters ought to realize that their own sequestered meetings are equally responsible for the tension and confusion surrounding this ultimately silly issue.

Eliot House Master Alan E. Heimert '49 speaks for many of his colleagues when he calls the serving of alcohol "certainly a matter of discretion." with no mandatory way of hosting open houses or dances. But the masters have had difficulty balancing this long tradition of independent judgement with simple alcohol guidelines. The fragile nature ot this issue necessitates examination of another way to administer alcohol rules. not continued private discussions and finger-crossing.

Otherwise this frivolous topic risks getting nasty. Although masters don't like to talk about specific violations each suck incident exacerbates resentment among students in Houses abiding by the rules and thus not sponsoring the lucrative beer nights. Some Quincy students privately view first-year master David A. Aloian '49 as unreasonably strict because the House has had no dances where beer has been served. And in Kirkland House there are candidly expressed fears that the search for a replacement for departing Master Evon Z Vogt might produce a new master who will be more strict similar to the way Aloian is seen.

WHEN DISCUSSING alternative ways for regulating alcohol here masters say they are opposed to "carding" because they feel it creates a divisive atmosphere between those above and below the 20 year -old barrier imposed when the age was raised in 1979. At a Boston University pub this split is literal with a partition separating the room into two halves when rock groups only perform one set on weekend nights. And at Boston College--where only one keg of beer per party is permitted--the campus has three different alcohol policies according to age and location on campus. Certainly practices similar to these would lead to an unhealthy separation in the House system, which traditionally mixes students without concern for age.

The inherent divisiveness caused by a system of carding should mot suggest there is no alternative to Harvard's hit-and-miss way of practicing alcohol regulation. In fact, it is the very divisiveness emerging among Harvard's Houses and within some due to the inconsistencies which necessitate a better way. For this, Harvard could benefit from swallowing its pride and looking down Mass Ave toward MIT.

The engineers have constructed what seems like the most reasonable way of dealing with the cumbersome 1979 law Similar to Harvard and unlike schools such as B.U., B.U., and Wellesley, MIT has no keg rules no separations by age and no regularly used discipline policy for violators. (B.C. has an elaborate system in which resident advisors are responsible for "writing up" or reporting parties which for example spill into the halls or attract more than 25 students without being registered in advance.) MIT's policy seems more consistent and acceptable because it differs from Harvard's in two ways. First parties are planned and approved by a central dean's office instead of separately by 13 different House committees and masters. Secondly most of the bashes are free which is similar to Harvard's stated rule but not its practice; MIT students generally donate between $5 and $40 at the beginning of the semester to a house fund which then foots the bills for most parties and other dorm activities an MIT dean says.

HARVARD SHOULD have a more effective but not radically different way of seeking to comply with Massachusetts alcohol laws. Centralizing the policy through Dean of Students Archie C. Epps III instead of planning parties from House to House would insure that the rules were consistently explained and that any group interested in having a free party would have the opportunity. And funding any event through a hearty house fund would eliminate the necessity for admission charges to beer parties, which masters view as improper for House social life.

These changes might not sit quite right with masters who enjoy the comfy feeling which their ability to wield "discretion" apparently gives. But masters have so far failed to develop uniformity this year despite promises. The ongoing confusion among students as to exactly what Harvard allows is gradually precipitating into resentment between Houses and toward particular masters. On the inconsequential subject of a couple of mugs of beer on a Saturday night, the masters should quickly establish slight house taxes and cease trying to administer the policy themselves. Further neglect could turn what should be nothing more than an altogether pleasant subject into an absurdly controversial issue.