When Georgetown announced changes to its alcohol policy last fall that placed a limit on kegs, banned beer pong tables and made party registration more difficult, campus backlash was fierce. Facebook groups were started, petitions were signed and protests were staged in Red Square.

But in the coming weeks, the university showed a willingness to work with students toward a more agreeable framework, relaxing enforcement and forming a working group to suggest a more sensible long-term policy. Indeed, whereas the year began with angry calls for change, it ends with a sense of contentment across campus.

Eric Epstein (COL ’10) remembers a rude awakening upon returning to Georgetown last August. The New Student Orientation parties that he and his fellow advisers attended were broken up by the Department of Public Safety just minutes after they started.

He was not the only one. As students converged on the Hilltop in August to begin another year of academics, activities and partying, they were met with some significant changes to the social scene at Georgetown.

At the beginning of the fall semester, the university implemented new policies, including a one-keg limit at parties, mandatory training sessions for hosts, Thursday morning registration for parties, size restrictions and harsher sanctioning for violations. Certain items used for drinking games, such as funnels and beer pong tables, were also prohibited.

DPS also stepped up its enforcement of the policies.

Shannan Henry (NHS ’10) said she felt the difference immediately.

“I thought in the beginning of the year they were more intense,” she said. “They were out to get students instead of working with students.”

Lauren DeCaro (COL ’10), who transferred from Connecticut College this year, also noted the particularly tense ambiance of Georgetown nightlife when she first stepped foot on the Hilltop. “My school was really lax,” she said, “so it was a big change coming here and having six DPS officers come and break up the party.”

Initial grumbling turned into organized protests. One group, “Work Hard, Play Hard — GU Students for Stopping the Madness,” was formed specifically to protest the changes in the university’s alcohol policy and organize students to lobby for change. In September, around 125 students gathered in Healy Circle in a mass protest, where they played beer pong and flip cup with root beer.

One of the most contentious issues was the keg limit, which the university began debating in the fall semester two years ago and announced last spring. Students argued that reducing the amount of beer allowed at parties would push students toward drinking hard liquor, which could be far more dangerous for students.

“I just remember thinking it didn’t make sense,” Beth Murdock (SFS ’10) said. “Everclear is legal in D.C., so I felt like it was pushing people to do more dangerous things.”

Students also said the size limits and a strict DPS crackdown on the party scene at Georgetown would force students to party at off-campus parties or at bars. This migration away from campus could be very dangerous for students as they move into Burleith or West Georgetown, outside Healy Gates and farther from the protection of campus and DPS.

“I definitely found there were more parties being broken up even if there was no alcohol,” Noelle Yasso (SFS ’10) said. “It felt like it was a lot stricter, and you definitely saw a movement off campus.”

The move off campus prompted the Metropolitan Police Department to begin “party patrols” to assuage concerns of neighborhood residents who feared increased noise.

With tensions flaring, however, students and administrators began to work together.

In response to the student outcry over the new policies, Vice President for Student Affairs Todd Olson announced in September that the administration would relax some of the regulations. Instead of requiring at least two hosts to be 21 to host a party in an apartment or townhouse, the amended regulation only required one. Olson also attempted to clarify the language regarding sanctions, indicating that students would not be automatically suspended after receiving three alcohol violations.

In addition to implementing tougher alcohol policies and regulating parties on campus, Olson and the administration worked to create beefed up student programming to offer students alternatives to drinking and going to house parties. The “What’s After Dark” program was formed in the fall and hosts a number of events intended for students who seek fun without using alcohol.

Among the more popular events was last fall’s “Club Lau” party in Lauinger Library.
Then, to promote further dialogue between the administration and students and gather more student input regarding university policies, Olson approached James Welsh, assistant vice president for student health services in late October to set up a working group to deal with the situation.

Welsh joined Matt Stoller (COL ’08), a member of the Work Hard, Play Hard group and a GUSA senator, and recommended Olson form the Alcohol Policy Working Group. The group’s purpose would be to facilitate dialogue between administration, faculty and students in discussing the future of the university’s alcohol policy.

The group consisted of 16 members — eight students and eight administrators and faculty members — and was co-chaired by Stoller and Welsh. The student members included student association appointees and representatives from campus organizations including GERMS, the Office of Residence Life, Interhall and the Disciplinary Review Committee. The administration and faculty appointees included Judy Johnson, the director of student conduct, and representatives from DPS and admissions.

The working group met for the first time and “identified several areas that were worthy of discussion,” according to Welsh.

The group focused on the keg limit, the early party registration requirement, progressive sanctioning and permissible alcohol paraphernalia.

They met six times throughout the year, concluding last week with their final meeting, during which they agreed unanimously on recommendations to be presented to Dr. Olson before the academic year ends.

Welsh called the working group and its meetings “an extraordinary process of open dialogue among students and faculty and administration.”

Joel Johnson (MSB ’10), a resident of Alumni Square, attended one of the open discussions between students and the administration.

“It sounded like the administration was receptive,” he said. “It was nice to hear the other side.”

He said that he thought that they were fairly well-attended and that he was impressed by both sides’ efforts to work together.

Johnson said he felt future changes may be unnecessary.

“We’ve struck a pretty good equilibrium,” he said. “We’ve had no problems despite throwing parties pretty much monthly,” he said, but he noted that he had definite hesitations in the beginning of the year.

The final recommendations agreed up by the working group and approved by GUSA on Monday night included five recommendations regarding the university’s alcohol policies.
These recommendations support changing the paraphernalia rules permitting beer pong tables but restricting beer funnels.

The recommendations also outline suggestions for forming a task force or group over the summer to discuss the appropriate time when parties should be registered. Finally, the group recommended implementing a two-keg limit for townhouses and Village A apartments with access to the rooftops and patios and redefining the language in the code of conduct that more closely reflects actual disciplinary policies enforced by the university.

Despite the uproar in the beginning of the year over the new sanctioning policy, which said three alcohol violations could be grounds for suspension, no students were actually suspended this year due to alcohol violations, Welsh said.

Stoller and Welsh seemed happy with the progress their group made over the past year, and agreed that one very positive aspect of the group was the range of voices heard on the committee.

“We got the full spectrum of student and administrative voices,” Stoller said.
Students have noticed a marked difference in the social scene on campus since the formation of the working group.

Lindsay Johnson (COL ’11) said, “We feel like there has been more to do after the changes.”