UCPD and campus agencies are working to combat increases in the number of alcohol-related illnesses reported early in the semester over the past two years, though it is unclear whether those efforts have succeeded.
High numbers of alcohol-related illnesses reported at the beginning of the school year are not uncommon with game days, back-to-school parties and the influx of new freshmen. However, whereas UCPD reported seven alcohol-related casualty calls from the beginning of school to Labor Day weekend in 2010, the number of incidents reported during the same time period in each of the past two years are about twice that many.
On Thursday, UCPD sent a letter to community members alerting them about alcohol-related incidents associated with Saturday’s football game and students’ return to Berkeley. Then at Saturday’s first home football game, UCPD officers were on site to enforce a zero-tolerance alcohol policy with the goal of reducing alcohol-related crimes and illnesses, according to a press release from UCPD Chief Mitch Celaya.
“Our experience has been that on game days, there is a significant increase in the illegal and unsafe alcohol usage in the campus area,” said UCPD Lt. Alex Yao.
At the same time, the campus has also implemented preventative measures to combat alcohol-related incidents, with a focus on freshmen.
The results from a survey in the 2011 AlcoholEdu program — a confidential, online alcohol education course that incoming students are instructed to take — show that 70 percent of respondents are nondrinkers, above the national average of 56 percent, according to Karen Hughes, coordinator for PartySafe@Cal.
Hughes said AlcoholEdu aims to “change wider student population alcohol-related behaviors and attitudes.”
However, among students who drink, 37 percent responded that they drink at fraternity houses, which is more than twice the national average of people who drink at fraternity houses. And according to Troy Gilbert, director of Academic and New Student Services in the Office of Student Development, there is no direct action if a student does not complete the program.
“We are interested in incentives that reward student completion and education on the issues as opposed to punitive actions,” Gilbert said.
Additionally, in May, students expressed concern about police officers from outside the city of Berkeley in the Alameda County Vice Enforcement Team policing activities around the campus.
Many alcohol-related illnesses are reported from the residence halls. Steve Sutton, executive director of the Office of Student Development, said that in the residential housing, protocol for students who appear intoxicated can include contacting the UCPD.
There is a different situation in Units 1, 2 and 3 — where students need to check in with a security monitor who could alert someone if a student seemed in need of assistance — than at the Clark Kerr or Foothill complexes, where students can reach their dorms without stopping at a security station, Sutton said.
Estaban Barragan, a campus senior, said he never completed any part of AlcoholEdu but learned about alcohol as he starting drinking.
“I didn’t have any alcohol experience before coming to college,” Barragan said.
Freshman Elisha Flores said she also has not yet taken AlcoholEdu but said it was not a priority because she has already learned all the information from the course many times before and is not interested in drinking in college.
Chloe Hunt covers crime. Contact her at [email protected].
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
I see alcohol issues increasing because the university is only there to punish instead of being there to help. Instead of rewarding students for being good, the university just brings out a huge stick. For example, there are three houses that were kicked off campus in the last several years, and they all party much harder now that they don’t have a university affiliation, and they don’t plan to rejoin the university any time soon. In addition, other houses were given long social probations for the actions of a few members or of the actions of no members. That just means the houses are angry and will go underground with their drinking. And if something happens, they won’t look to the university for help, because they know the university is only there to punish instead of being there to help. Jeff Woods and his people are doing a lousy job of helping students to be safe.
Whatever. You don’t see the government rewarding people for not being murderers…”the university is only there to punish instead of being there to help” my ass. They are not there to hold your hand stupid. Stop being a baby and obey the law, or else don’t complain that you’re breaking it.
There are a lot of people who agree with you. That is one reason we have 11% of the state budget going to prisons in California, which is more than going to higher education. Punishment is the only way we deal with things.
There is a big difference between how the university handles things, when compared to the judicial system. If the university catches someone drunk, anyone associated with that person in a club, fraternity or sorority is also punished. It doesn’t even have to be a person in the club in order for the group to be punished. For example, there was a party at a fraternity last year. Someone from next door snuck in and pulled the fire alarm in the house. That was enough for the university to put that fraternity on social probation for a semester. That means no other functions of any kind the rest of the semester.
lol are you exaggerating things or is that for real? The university didn’t really ban all functions at the frat because of some random asshole, did they?
That is what happened. Something about the fire department and police department responding caused the university to punish the fraternity. The house then spent a nice chunk of money to install protective cages over the fire alarms. When someone starts to lift the protective cage, an alarm sounds so that fraternity members can try to get to the alarm before someone pulls the actual fire alarm or so that the person gets scared off. That way they try to keep someone from pulling a false alarm.
So then I’m assuming that you support the legalization of marijuana? Because 60% of California’s inmates are in for non-violent drug offenses, and that’s usually marijuana (not alcohol which more likely would result in a violent offense). My personal view is that people can do whatever they want no matter how dumb it is…unless it endangers other people. Which alcohol certainly does–even without motor vehicles involved. I guess if we didn’t have guns or cars then we could lower the drinking age. Oh wait, that’s like every Commonwealth country.
Your statistic is misleading. Only .7% (point 7 percent) of state prisoners are in for only marijuana possession. All marijuana related convictions made up 2.7% of the state prison population. I get this from whitehousedrugpolicy.gov.
My personal view is that I don’t want people doing things that hurt themselves or others, or that will result in the rest of us paying for their medical bills. You like to smoke, you pay insurance premiums that reflect that. You like to eat too much, you pay insurance premiums that reflect that.