The following is the complete conversation featuring Valerie Randall-Lee (Northeastern University in Boston), Dan Pedersen (St. Cloud University in Minnesota), and Paul Hubinsky (Illlinois Institute of Technology in Chicago). After reading, please share your own thoughts about student substance abuse and the efforts your campus is making to address it in the comment section.

Valerie Randall-Lee: There were a lot of ideas thrown out here in the beginning, and am not quite sure where to start so we can sift through some information here and maybe break it down into topical areas.

NIAAA grants and research: At Northeastern University, we completed a three year NIAAA grant evaluating the drinking behaviors of NEU students, and utilizing a response program modeled after the HR EAP programs we are accustomed to.  What we learned is typical in that students admit to drinking less than their peers think they are all drinking.  However, we also learned our students drink more than the norm for students in the northeast.  We also looked at reasons for drinking for men and for women and found them to be different.

Campus programs: As a result of our results from the NIAAA grant, we have created an alcohol response program that is very individually based, focusing on one on one contact.  We also have small classes for students who may be responsible for first time violations, but these classes are no more than eight students, and are separated by gender.

We did utilize an extensive computer based education and assessment program with all incoming students.  We found that while their responses changed immediately after they took the assessment, their behaviors changed by November, and were just as risky, or even riskier prior to doing the educational online program.  As a result, we dropped the program and took the money invested in it, and utilized it to create an office on campus, focused on individual contacts with students.  In the first year of the new program implementation we have been able to identify more students at risk and get them referred to appropriate resources.  These are students I am convinced we would not have identified before, when relying too much on computer based assessments and computer based educational and ‘punitive’ programs.

Amethyst Initiative: For this past year I have also been a part of a committee within my institution  working to develop a one day conference for university presidents to further discuss the impact of alcohol on campuses, taking the focus away from the drinking age and looking more at the crucial issues surrounding its effect on students and our campuses.  We have come to believe strongly that the Amethyst Initiative is directed in the wrong way.  It is looking at drinking age, but that should not be our issue.  We should be looking at the effect of the use/abuse of alcohol on student behaviors, retention, academic success, and ask presidents to consider this aspect of alcohol.

Dan Pedersen: Speaking to grants and research, at St. Cloud State we also do some assessment internally and as a part of the National College Health Assessment. We also have students participate in a college student health survey administered to our state system institutions.

We found that our students are using alcohol above the national average (NCHA survey), but not statistically high enough to be considered out of the norm.   The upper Midwest, along with the Northeast seem to rise to the top often in annual reports as being the two regions of the country that have the highest alcohol consumption rates for persons between the ages of 18-23.   One of the more shocking statistics I saw in a recent presentation had to do with high risk drinking among high school students in the state of Minnesota.  In 2007 35 percent of 12th-grade males self reported that they were high risk drinkers.   For female students it was 25 percent.  Before they even reach our campus we are already bracing ourselves for problems.  When our vice president for student life and development arrived three years ago, she knew we needed to make some drastic changes in our approach to alcohol use.

We recently completed a social norm project in our largest residence hall that sounds very similar to the NIAA grant work Val did at NEU.  Our students reported similar information in terms of drinking less than peers perceived they were drinking.  We also used this program to help shape students understanding of consequences for drinking, issues of community and healthy lifestyle choices.  We are planning to expand this to other halls next year.

As for campus programs, along with the social norm program I mentioned, we have done some aggressive work the past two years to change our image as a party school.  Thanks to some internal funding we launched the U-Choose program.  U-Choose is an educational based campus prevention effort that focuses on the reduction of high risk alcohol use. The program utilizes empirically based theories and approaches specifically designed for college students. Our presenters are trained to work with small groups and conduct the sessions in a fun, interactive, positive, and intellectually stimulating manner.  We also utilize E-CHUG, the online self assessment program.  Our campus conduct classes have also been revamped. IMPACT I and IMPACT II are for low level and repeat alcohol offense sanctioning.  We also have IMPACT M for substance and drug policy violations.

Val, I find it interesting that moved away from your campus on line tool when you discovered that behaviors were not changing. That just reinforces how important assessment is when working with alcohol prevention programs, and the value of face to face work in this area.

Our U-Choose program, under the guidance of our new assistant dean of students, has been highly successful because of the facilitators. In fact our assistant dean partnered with a local landlord who offered rent reductions to his student renters if they would complete the U-Choose program. That had mutual benefits for everyone. This program partnership was a feature story in the USA Today, and they’ve been invited to speak nationally about the partnership.

We had a very similar reaction (related to Val’s comments) on our campus to the Amethyst Initiative.  As an institution we also put the focus of that conversation on the behaviors associated with alcohol abuse and negative consequences in and out of the classroom, and not on the issue of age.  This issue came at an interesting time for us. When we were approached by the local media on this topic, it came at a time when another institution in our state was considering serving alcohol in select areas of a new athletic venue.  The media rolled all these issues together in terms of questions because we were pursuing funding for an expansion of one of our athletic facilities.

I found these discussions interesting from the perspective that there seems to be pressure and recognition of the double edged sword when institutions consider making alcohol available at sporting events for those patrons that provide significant financial support for universities, and looking at the issues of prohibiting or allowing alcohol sales for the student sections in the same venue.  I know for years institutions have also struggled with alcohol in tailgating areas as well.  I would speculate that there is a potential for internal “head butting” at institutions between areas like development/alumni/annual giving and student affairs over this issue of alcohol being served in luxury boxes at sporting events.

Paul Hubinsky: Regarding alcohol education and campus programs, IIT noticed a slight increase in alcohol violations over the past couple of years.  We are a smaller school with limited resources.  After a string of hospitalizations in the fall semester, we took a step back and realized that the campus had focused most of it’s alcohol education efforts around spring break. Student Affairs created an Alcohol and Other Drug Task Force, consisting of representatives from residence life, health services, and counseling services, as well as a student. Counseling services conducted a survey and realized that many of our students were drinking for the first time and that they lacked even basic knowledge about the effects of alcohol. Educational efforts were expanded with the resident advisor staff attending an in-service presented by the counseling services staff where they were given basic information from which they created passive and active programming for residents.

We also expanded our alcohol education week leading up to spring break and included intentional outreach and educational efforts for the residence hall and Greek communities.  We also regularly use the E-Chug program as part of an educational sanction for alcohol violations.

One of our most successful programs in becoming aware of students with alcohol or substance abuse issues originated from an effort from our Undergraduate Advising office. This past academic year, our residence hall directors (RHDs) have been actively involved in our campus Early Warning system. For all 100 and 200 level courses, professors, advisors, and student affairs staff enter data about student progress into a centralized database. The RHDs monitor this portal and follow up with students who are struggling.  On several occasions we have discovered that alcohol or substance abuse was a factor in the student’s struggles, and have been able to refer them to appropriate sources for help.  We believe that the early warning program helps us increase and maintain a strong first year retention rate (around 88 percent).

Another factor in alcohol education on our campus is a high percentage of international students.  Many come from countries where the legal drinking age is lower.  We work through the challenge of educating international students about US laws although many have become accustomed to being able to legally drink for several years in their home countries.  We focus on the impact alcohol may have on academics and on the community if used excessively.

Substance Abuse: Our campus community came together after a substance abuse related death in the fall semester.  Two primary initiatives came to the forefront – a student amnesty policy and an anonymous reporting system.
The second is an “amnesty” policy.  The student government association passed a resolution calling for amnesty from judicial action if a student assists another by reporting that someone needs help.  While our practice has been to focus on the well being of students first, then educational over punitive sanctions in situations such as this, the students perceive having to visit with a judicial officer to be “getting in trouble” regardless of the outcome.  We are in the process of crafting a Good Samaritan policy for our student handbook to address to concerns of the students.

The other issue that has become coupled with the idea of an anonymous reporting system.  We are in the process of exploring options for this and putting one into place for the fall 2009 semester.  Some of the items under consideration are: utilizing an internal or external system; who will monitor the system; what responsibility the university takes on by utilizing such as system; how to and who will follow up with students; and how to deal with false reports.

Our campus conversation echoed those already shared about the Amethyst Initiative.  A twist for us is that our campus conference operations run a bar on campus that is open two nights a week.  Student affairs takes an active interest in the programming in this venue and provides input for policies related to the sale of alcohol.  Recently the campus posting policy was changed from not allowing the advertisement of events with alcohol to allow an exception for this venue.  It is a delicate balance of promoting responsible use of alcohol and supporting students who choose not to drink.

Pedersen: What is your typical sanctioning outcome for first time drug/controlled substance offenses?  This past fall we saw our conduct process adjudicating many more contract terminations for first time drug offenses.  There has been some significant increases in drug use in our communities the past two years.  When members of our staff attended ASJA earlier this spring, they did some unofficial networking and discovered that we were in the minority in terms of using contract terminations on the first offense.   What are your thoughts?

Hubinsky: For first alcohol violations, the typical sanction is the completion of E-Chug, a $50 fine, and a disciplinary warning.  We do not have a high rate of repeat alcohol violations, which I have found to be the case across the last few institutions I have worked at.  Drug violations go straight to our campus judicial system.  We had an increase in drug violations this year.  Like St. Cloud, we typically cancel the housing contract for first-time violations. Before this year, our first year residency requirement was interpreted to not allow the university to cancel the contracts of first year students. A change in leadership has led to first year students now being held to the same sanctioning guidelines.

Randall-Lee: Dan, you talked about alcohol and then asked about first time violations for drug offenses.  I wanted to talk a bit about alcohol first.  Professionally, I have 22 years of experience working in residence life before coming to work in student conduct, and alcohol and drug education.  What I think I did not really  have my eyes completely opened to in residential life, was the pervasiveness of alcohol in our culture overall, and specifically as seen as a rite of passage as one moves from high school and under a parent’s roof,  into college.  Whether a person drinks or not, it is the accepted norm by virtually all college age students that college students will “party.”  However, partying does not always include drinking, but drinking is also accepted as a part of the rite of passage.  The continuum on what is acceptable for the amount of drinking differs vastly.  Students just do not see drinking as a problem.  The problem is in the few people and they are frustrated with ‘administration’ that they do not get it.  In residence life I think that sometimes our live-in staff (paraprofessional and professional), often share this belief and support it.  The “administration” or those of us who have been in the field longer may assume that when a student talks of partying, drinking is always involved.  We need to remember that students do not do things completely the same as when we were their age.  This is a more educated population regarding issues of multiculturalism, alcohol, drugs, and relationship violence.  Many of them are savvy.  We do need to look at our policies around alcohol in order to support responsible decision making, while also enforcing our state laws.  When violations occur, sanctions should be focused not on punishment (i.e. paper writing and paying fines), but on education and value setting.

Over the past few weeks I have been checking some of the Facebook conversations from a number of schools, as students try and identify people to be their college roommate for the fall.  One of the questions that always crops up is whether the person is a partier, do they drink, smoke, etc.  The responses are fascinating.  Many students describe themselves as partiers but they don’t really drink, at least not yet, they are waiting for when they get to college.  Additional responses show that students say they don’t smoke, at least not cigarettes.  Both statements indicate opportunities for preventive education with our students from the point they step foot on our campuses in the fall.  I do believe the education needs to come from their upperclass peers (i.e. RAs).

Northeastern University is not a school that typically removes a student from housing on the first drug violation, depending on the severity of the violation.  If a student is found to be smoking marijuana or in possession of drug paraphernalia and drugs, they are typically looking at a deferred suspension and a referral to our Alcohol and Other Drug office for assessment.  Depending on response, they may be referred for additional assessment and counseling, or for an educational class.  Students involved in distribution of any type of drug can usually expected to be suspended from the university (minimally)on a first violation. We rarely remove a student from housing for a drug violation that we would not also remove from our campus.  Northeastern is a very urban campus and our town/gown relationships, particularly around issues of drugs and alcohol, and vandalism, are very sensitive.  It would be difficult for us to place a student with drug violations into our community in Boston, because we felt their behavior was okay in an apartment in Boston but disruptive enough that they could not remain in our own college housing.

Having said that I would say that our response to drugs seems to be a bit lenient in comparison to other schools.  However, our approach to student conduct has always been one of education and support, with a goal of success for the student, not only as a Northeastern student, but as a productive individual in today’s society.  As a result, we may work longer in some areas with students but I believe developmentally, it is worth it.  It is always a careful balance between working for the good of the individual and working for the good of the community.  We have to look at both and look at the long term learning and their potential for success.

Pedersen: I think everything you said is spot on, especially the observations about today’s campus culture and alcohol use.  Our own fledgling projects in residential life on social norms programming echoes your observations. I also think your last two sentences pretty much summarize the philosophy we all have when working with students. We are all searching for effective ways to redirect behavior that is harmful to self and community, and generate more thoughtful decision making processes as students move towards adulthood.

While I’m not directly involved in this, our staff in the alcohol education area are doing cutting edge work on this issue.  Through a variety of intervention programs, they are trying things like motivational interviewing, educating and helping building improved decision making skills related to substance choices, interactive group sessions, along with personal assessment and screenings.   A large bulk of these items are implemented through community outreach programming that has been very successful on our campus.  Our facilitated education classes that are used as a part of the conduct sanctioning also infuses these techniques, and focuses on building knowledge and understanding regarding the effects of alcohol.  From there trained peer facilitators help students form their own conclusions about prior decisions and establish a new process for future decision making.  The self-reported data after these level one education courses show that peak BAC levels in our students is dropping after they participate in the program/classes.  The balance between online questionnaire, individual assessment, and group facilitated programs seems to be achieving positive results on our campus.

Public high schools and public colleges and universities say anti-discrimination rules (which usually include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation) should be applied evenly to all student groups receiving student activities funds. Christian students say such rules limits their right to free assembly and forces them to accept student members who don’t profess the same beliefs.

One case that has been used as precedent is Truth vs. Kent School District. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit backed a high school’s right to deny official recognition to a Bible study group whose members did not want to adhere to the district’s policy that all student groups must accept any interested students as members. The court found that since the district applied the anti-discrimination rules to all student groups, the Bible study group was not being treated any differently.

Truth vs. Kent School District was cited twice more, to uphold the right of higher education institutions not to recognize student groups that do not follow a similar anti-discrimination code of conduct.

However, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ordered Southern Illinois University to recognize a chapter of the Christian Legal Aid Society.

This all leaves higher education uncertain of what their next move should be, and the Supreme Court will be silent on the subject, at least until 2010-2011.

The case goes beyond the University of Georgia, which has since  rebuilt the basketball program under new leadership, said speakers at the National Association of College and University Attorneys‘ annual meeting in Toronto. Judges seem to be developing a stricter, more proactive conception of prevention, they said, and if this continues, institutions could be held liable for incidents which could have been prevented by institution action, even if the institution did not have a direct role in the event itself and acted appropriately afterward.

Student athletes are not the only ones who can behave badly, of course. Legal scholars warn that schools may be responsible for the behavior of students who have previous convictions or had serious discipline problems at another college or in high school. It’s a lot to keep in mind, but it may be necessary.

Hard work, dedication to the project and a common vision helped, but there was also serendipity and opportunity involved. The trick wasn’t the specific circumstances, but recognizing a benefit when it presented itself.

A Duke student’s graduate thesis, based on the concept of a sustainable residence hall, attracted the attention of a member of Duke’s Board of Visitors, who also sat on the board of Home Depot. This happy circumstance set the planning process in motion. The Smart Home came for free, but it won’t stay free. There’s a lot of new and experimental technology in it with which the facilities department will have to familiarize themselves. The appliances were donated, which is great, but that also means they didn’t come with warranties.

The home also includes two laboratories where residents can innovate further. Their first innovation? It concerns an issue that is heavy on the hearts of all college students: beer theft. Students developed a thumb-print identification censor for kegs. Many smart projects have come out of the Smart Home, or are in process. Students have been toying with ways to improve the home’s function, appearance and utility. A list is available on the Smart Home’s website.

Hall, Thompson and Duncan advised session attendees to do what works best for their schools and what is most sustainable for them, rather than aiming for a specificLEED rating.  As The Chronicle of Higher Education reported last year, sometimes the LEED rating has its own financial and environmental costs. They acknowledged that the Duke Smart Home could not be easily replicated elsewhere. The important thing is to know the resources and technology available, and be open to opportunities.

The picture isn’t entirely bright; new hires are mostly of faculty, not administrative staff; most schools are being conservative about hiring; and many are adding more part-timers and adjuncts than full-time positions. Check out the results here.

Inside HigherEd  and The Chronicle of Higher Education reported on the session.

There is good news; binge drinking has dipped substantially among other groups. Males 15 – 17 years old binge drank 50 percent less in 2006 than they did in 1979. Males 18 – 20 years old in all groups (both college-going and otherwise) binge drank 20 percent less, and males 21 – 23 years old binge drank 10 percent less.

Now the not-so-good news: Men and women in college both binge drink at considerably greater rates than their non-college-attending brethren. Men ages 18 – 20 who were not in college binge drank 30 percent less during the study period. The rates of men the same age who were in college were unchanged. Similar results played out for men 21-23; men not in college binge drank 10 percent less during those 20 years; the rates for men in college were steady.

For women, the story is even less encouraging. For all females aged 15 – 20 years old, binge drinking was unchanged since 1979. Women 21 – 23 years old binge drank 40 percent more than they did in 1979. Male minority members binge less than they used to, but female minorities do so more. Overall, males make up the majority of binge drinkers but rates of female binge drinking has been increasing.

Researchers speculate that a higher drinking age has made it harder for high school students to obtain alcohol, thus driving down binge drinking among that group, while college students are more likely to mingle with those 21 and over. Non-students in their early 20s may also be more likely to have responsibilities that take precedence over partying, such as spouses, a full-time job, or children. Overall, they feel that while the result isn’t ideal, binge drinking is down among the population in general and teenagers especially, so a higher drinking age should be maintained.

Watch for blog posts throughout the conference, reporting out on speakers such as keynote presenter Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Plus there will be news about other events and announcements throughout.

The conference can also be followed through Twitter. Go to ACUHO-I’s Twitter page and sign up to follow the conversation. Even if you’re not in Baltimore, you can join in and see what’s on peoples’ minds. Here’s to an exciting and productive event!

Happy ACUHO-I Annual Conference, y’all! If you’re going, say hello to all the ACUHO-I staffers there and have a great time. If you’re not, we’ll provide the presentations in our online library post-conference.