The ethics of dry

By now, we're all familiar with the arguments. Students who wish to drink on campus see it as their right as adults of legal drinking age (or soon to be), or believe that the current policy facilitates drunk driving. Students who agree with the current policy feel that moving to a "wet" campus would lead to higher rates of underage drinking or would bring more scrutiny from outside law enforcement. This time around, since I am on my way out, I had decided that I really didn't care. I was content to watch the fire rage. Over the past couple of weeks though, one question began plaguing my mind: What kind of moral atmosphere does the current alcohol policy foster here at Furman University?I want to separate from this column as much as possible my own personal convictions and religious beliefs, but I must confess that they have probably skewed the angle of my evaluation. But religious views aside, I am still convinced that it is the role of every university not only to encourage academic excellence, but also to uphold moral values. I do not believe I am alone, as both people of faith and people who don't adhere to a faith seem all to agree to a basic moral code. Is it not then the duty of our school, which began as a seminary, to provide an environment where students become more sensitive to moral issues?

At the risk of appearing old-fashioned, I must admit that it always seemed wrong to me to drink alcohol when I was underage, simply because it was against the law. I felt liberated when I turned 21 last year: finally able to drink - responsibly of course - whenever I felt. Then, as I was discussing the issue with a friend, I felt convicted that drinking on campus was a violation of a "law" which I agreed to follow when I came to this school. No matter how stupid I felt (feel) the rule is, I decided that I am not justified in breaking it.

Thus, whenever an "of-age" student confronts a choice to drink alcohol on campus, he/she is in reality facing a moral decision - and, as most of us know, it is not easy to say "no" to a brew in North Village when you are of legal age and are being responsible. What alarms me is that the current policy seems to encourage a moral atmosphere in which it is okay to break the rules as long as one isn't caught. The implications of such an environment are not completely certain, but when you learn to cut moral corners in college, what keeps you from doing the same in the business or political realm years down the road? (Kenneth Lay or Mark Sanford, anyone?)

This reasoning would seem to hold Furman responsible for creating an impossible moral predicament for upperclassmen, which would thereby justify a change to our alcohol policy. But upon further consideration, giving 21 year-olds the moral pass to drink on-campus does not appear to cut to the core of the problem. The fact is, there will always be laws and rules to break and there will always be people who break them, and getting rid of one rule just leaves others to be violated. In addition, just because something is legal does not necessarily make it right.

It has been a great exercise to wrestle through the moral struggle presented to me by the present alcohol policy. I do not therefore believe that Furman, as an institution of higher education, has failed either society or its student body by standing behind an alcohol policy that requires students to think through the implications of their actions. In my opinion, now is when each student must decide upon the convictions and principles that will shape the trajectory of his or her life and, ultimately, our society.