That plan is Golden Gate Brew Tours, which is now officially incorporated and is scheduled to be fully operational by June of this summer.  The brainchild of Ryan Anderson (favorite beer: Pliny the Elder Double IPA, Russian River Brewing Company), Brew Tours is a service which will guide customers through the microbreweries of the Bay Area, exposing them to the increasingly popular world of artisan beer.

In Ryan’s words, “Brew Tours is essentially a craft beer educational service.  It’s a venue to learn about beer, talk about beer, and most of all drink great beer.”  Considering that the world of small brewing has mushroomed in size over the past 30 years, from 40 craft breweries in 1978 to 1,400 across the nation today, it seems that the creation of such a venture is long overdue.

The Brew Tours model is simple.  For around $100, customers will be driven to three breweries around the Bay where they will meet the staff, enjoy tasting flights, and be provided with a meal before returning to the Brew Tours office in San Francisco.  The $100 is all inclusive; as team member Eric MacColl (favorite beer: Big Bear Black Stout, Bear Republic Brewing Co.) noted, “We want people to be able to enjoy a beer experience without having to whip out their wallets for everything.”  For now, the Brew Tours team is focusing on developing relationships with five breweries in Marin County, including Marin Brewing Co., Moylan’s Brewing Co., Russian River Brewing Co., Bear Republic Brewing Co., and the more widely known Lagunitas Brewing Co.

The world of craft brewing is largely defined in two key ways, both of which lend themselves to the success of the Brew Tours endeavor.  The first is the struggle of all small breweries to find shelf-space alongside the dominant generic brands.  This is part of the reason that most craft brewers welcome new breweries in their area – short of creating competition, another small brewery actually helps raise awareness of alternatives to Coors and Budweiser.  In the same vein, Bay Area breweries stand to gain a great deal from the increased exposure that Brew Tours is offering.  The second defining point of craft brewing is the close-knit, “democratic” nature of the brewing community.  In the words of team member Andrew Hess (favorite beer: Alesmith IPA, Alesmith Brewing Co.), “Beer people are just as passionate as wine people, except that they wear jeans and t-shirts.”  This atmosphere fits perfectly with the Brew Tours vision of providing a collaborative, relaxed learning experience.

Since Ryan Anderson began formulating the idea for the Brew Tours during Professor Conger’s Leading Entrepreneurial Ventures class last fall, development of the company has been dynamic.  A great deal of the GGBT team’s effort has been focused on acquiring the capital needed to get Brew Tours up and running.  The first step was winning the $10,000 Innovate Startup Award, provided by CMC alums Sunil Rajaraman (’01), Adam Altman (’99), and Jason Yardi (’00), that was the year end prize for best business plan in Conger’s class (click here for more information on the final presentation to investors, and the other business ideas that offered stiff competition).  The team is currently making competitive bids for other CMC, CGU, and Kravis Leadership Institute sponsored awards as well.  On Friday, April 9, they applied for the $25,000 Henry R. Kravis Entrepreneurial Award, and  also recently submitted a bid for  the $5,000 Student Web Based Entrepreneurial Award, another KLI sponsored prize.  Although G. G. Brew Tours is not a web business, the team envisions the website as being an important forum for customers who wish to continue learning and talking about beer after their tour experience.

The team’s next steps are finishing the company’s website, arranging transportation, and acquiring a permanent office to serve as a bottle shop and staging area for Brew Tours.  In the short term, the team plans on either leasing a fifteen to twenty person luxury bus to serve as the shuttle, or outsourcing transport to an established company.  “The main hurdle we face on the transportation side is insurance,” notes Ryan. “The insurance rates on a commercial vehicle managed by twenty-two year olds running a beer tourism business are astronomical.”  In the long run, however, the team plans to purchase a bus which will be highly customized to provide the comfortable, collaborative atmosphere of a “mobile speakeasy.”  The team’s plan for a permanent office is similarly ambitious – eventually, they would like to base the business out of the Ferry Building.  “It’s incredibly expensive, but it makes sense in terms of transportation logistics and there aren’t very many other places where you get 25,000 people walking past every weekend.”

Although there is still much left to do, Golden Gate Brew Tours is only weeks away from becoming a fully operational CMC-led venture with excellent potential.  With four tour trips already booked for their opening in June, it is clear that there are many out there who want something more than Natural Light in their lives.  Students and alumni both, if you’re going to be in the Bay Area this summer, give Golden Gate Brew Tours a call and let them help you make the switch not just to drinking better beer, but as Hunter S. Thompson says, to being a better person.

Team Member Mike Widmann was unavailable for comment.  His favorite beer is the Palette Wrecker Triple IPA from Green Flash Brewing Company.

As the interview portion of this article was conducted in the interactive, beer-appreciating spirit of Brew Tours, please excuse any typos in the later half.

Don’t forget to check out Golden Gate Brew Tours  on Facebook and on Twitter.  Also, Golden Gate Brew Tours merchandise will be available for sale during graduation, so help the crew raise some dough and say you were there at the beginning!

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor spoke at Bridges Auditorium on March 30. Above: A depiction of O'Connor at the National Portrait Gallery.

In considering which political bodies would be the biggest targets for this sort of outrage, a couple of old favorites immediately come to mind. The unpopularity of Congress is practically a permanent feature of the body. The President, as the highest profile representative of the federal government, is always taking heat from someone. But lately, the judiciary has become a target of public anger. This is a worrisome trend considering, as U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor put it in her recent visit to the Claremont Colleges, the courts should represent “at least one safe place” where Americans can trust unbiased legal consideration, and not partisanship, to determine the shape of their lives and of their country.

It was exactly this issue that Justice O’Connor addressed when she spoke at Bridges Auditorium on March 30 as part of Pomona’s Distinguished Speaker Series. Making a straightforward argument, Justice O’Connor pointed to the uniquely American practice of electing judges as a major contributor of the growing American distrust of the judiciary. An ostensibly democratic measure to increase accountability, judicial elections have become more and more competitive over the last twenty years. This has led to elections becoming increasingly well funded, raising the potential for conflicts of interest and politically motivated rulings from judges. For example, this report by the American Bar Association details the absurd increase in spending on state and local judicial campaigns in recent years. As Justice O’Connor illustrated with a notorious 2008 case from West Virginia, massive donations by businesses and even by individual lawyers can glaringly shape the outcomes of judicial rulings. Additionally, many judges themselves have recognized that campaign contributions affect their ability to maintain impartiality. It does not take a Supreme Court Justice to recognize that the practice of electing judges is posing serious problems for our nation’s judiciary.

In addition to judicial elections, O’Connor argued that a lack of public knowledge regarding the judiciary also contributes to mistrust. Noting that 70% of Americans do not know the difference between a judge and a legislator, O’Connor stressed that teaching young Americans about government is pivotal to maintaining the effectiveness of American institutions. For her part, Justice O’Connor’s most recent project directly tackles the challenge of educating the public. OurCourts.org is an online resource targeted at middle-school students which teaches them about the judiciary through interactive games. Out of compassion, I am recommending this website to the audience of Justice O’Connor’s next speaking engagement because she repeatedly promoted the site during her speech and responses to questions.

As it was, the Q and A session rendered no revelations about Justice O’Connor’s “judicial philosophy” or any lingering doubts about some of her more controversial rulings, include the notorious Bush v. Gore. In response to all the questions, Justice O’Connor’s unflinching practicality prevailed.  As she put it, “I decided each case case-by-case… I don’t worry about it, so neither should you.” Justice O’Connor also expressed heartfelt gratitude regarding President Reagan’s decision to elevate a woman to the Supreme Court for the first time by nominating her in 1981. As she humbly put it, “It wasn’t that it was me in particular,” but she believed President Reagan’s decision opened doors for women everywhere.

Justice O’Conner’s speech was by no means a barn-burner. But in times as politically volatile as these, no bells or whistles are needed to highlight the importance of preserving that “last safe place” in American governance. In the end, we should heed her call and take her no-nonsense style for what it is: the reflection of profound intellect and adherence not to political ideology, but to the plain facts of law.

It’s not that my roommates and I are especially crude. On second thought…we definitely are. But in your own house with your closest friends, it is natural to let your guard down. Besides, if CMC is going to build apartments paper thin walls, it follows that bathroom noises become the subject of living room conversation. (On that note, I hope they spent a ton of extra money getting the prefab cardboard doors textured to look like wood. It really contributes to the cozy feel of dentist’s office.)  In any case, the patois of obscenities and ridiculous abbreviations that we use is an intensely personal thing, and to have it taken out of context would be extremely frustrating. We are all bright, articulate people, and the things we say to make each other laugh while having a beer or two do not define by any means.

I make this point to help illustrate another one. A few weeks ago, Ivy League blog IvyGate released some “fashion guidelines” authored by the Recruitment Chair of the Cornell chapter of the Pi Beta Phi sorority. Received from “an anonymous tipster,” these guidelines are the absolute epitome of the worst sorority and Ivy League stereotypes. I’m sure you’ll follow the link, but for those of you who are extra lazy, I’ll share a few of my favorite damning sections right now. This is clearly one of the best: “Heels: mid-height. This round is still ‘casual,’ so no sky-high hooker heels! I’m thinking mid-height Mary Jane heels, or mid-height chunky Kate Spade, etc.” It was followed closely this heart-warming tidbit: “If you’re wearing cheapo shoes, make sure they don’t look it.” As the author who broke the story wryly notes, this is pretty important stuff in the Pi Phi quest to, “to promote friendship, develop women of intellect and integrity, cultivate leadership potential and enrich lives through community service.”

The memo absolutely deserves some level of ridicule for its simultaneously shallow and snotty content, and I could not help but feel smug the first time I read the IvyGate post. But after a little consideration, all of the ruckus caused by the memo seems ridiculous. The “story” of the “Pi Phi plastics” is nothing but absurd for a couple of well-considered and soon to be excellently articulated reasons.  For starters, this document captures only one facet, granted an ugly one, of what these women are about.  In the same way that what I do and say around my buddies does not encompass my whole self, neither does this memo condemn the sorority, or even the authoring rush chair in any definitive, meaningful way.   A transcript of almost any five minute conversation from my apartment would probably keep me from being employed EVER if it was to be made public.  And yet I have many prospects for after graduation.  These two facts are not irreconcilable; in fact, the silly and the serious, the shallow and the selfless all go into making a complete person.  We all screw up, and we can all be ridiculous.  Please, let it go.

The other reason that the flak created by the “fashion guide” is unwarranted is because it is hypocritical.  Here’s why.  Go the North Quad on any Thursday night and view the majestic bacchanalia  that is the best and worst CMC has to offer.  Any attempt to formalize the social rules that govern TNC debauchery would result in a document so much more incredibly damning than the “fashion guide” that to compare the two would be like drawing parallels between Bataan and a walk on Baldy’s nature trail.  The fashion guide is only news because it was issued from a source people doubly love to hate: Greeks and Ivy Leaguers.  In sneering at the women of Pi Phi, it is easy to forget about our own social rules, or those at many other schools across the nation for that matter, and how shallow they would sound should we take the time type them up.

And that is where my defense ends, because what is truly unforgivably stupid is that the girl actually did write it all down.  As we would say in my apartment, “WHAT DID YOU LEARN?!”

Men, we have arrived. The detestable epoch of familial drivel and good natured warmth towards all of humanity has finally ended. With a boom and echo of the real projectiles that brought us glory and honor in the past, New Year’s fireworks are the harbinger of deliverance from the holiday season. No longer shall we remain in thrall to the threateningly wielded rolling-pins of matriarchs who force us to help in the production of Yuletide sugary confection. The sticky-sweet grenadine buzzing of Mariah Carey’s “All I Want for Christmas” has now been drowned out in the feral roar of barbarian debauchery that was New Year’s Eve. Now is our time! Now, is the hallowed month of MANUARY!

We are prepared, having adhered to the sacred commandment of Decembeard (and for the less hirsute of us, also to the noble dedications of No-shave November) to break the manacles of domestic frivolity in which the holidays bind us. Let us charge, as a single brawny phalanx, into the coming year. Manuary has long been the time for great deeds such as this. Never shall we forget the glorious march of the Alamanni in Manuary of 366 across the frozen Rhine, enduring wicked frost-bite and yet still bringing many sandal-wearing Romans to their pudgy knees. Nor will we lapse in honoring the exploits of Manuary 1777, when George Washington defeated General Cornwallis at the Battle of Princeton in the boldest strike against tea-drinking sissydom ever struck up until the end of the Raj. The list of Mantastic occurrences goes on and on: the British took the Falklands in Manuary of 1822, Al Capone was born, as was General Douglas “Nuke China” MacArthur. In what month do you think the rugged, flannel-clad state of Alaska joined the Union? It sure as hell wasn’t April.

I remind you, men, of our noble heritage for good reason. The plebian masses limp into January as if it were the dread Monday of an entire year, blinking off their hangovers in the light of a new month and clutching their resolutions like cardboard shields against the tide of reality. Such is not our way. Men (and any women who wish to join us knowing that no allowances will be made in the costume requirements), enormous spiky clubs in hand, shall bludgeon this year into a malleable chunk to be shaped by our iron will. A foolish poet once wrote, roughly, “let us rush out and seize the day.” To this I reply, “let us saunter out in a relaxed but intimidating fashion and seize ALL of the remaining 365.” And when Manuary is over we may shave, but only because the beards inhibit the consumption of the libations that come with the onset of FeBrewuary.

In light of the complexity and weight of the situation, it is reasonable for Obama to take time to carefully consider America’s options.  Although McChrystal’s report is rife with language declaring that we must act decisively and act now, it is crucial that Obama avoid an “LBJ moment” and rush headlong into Afghanistan without carefully weighing the consequences.  For this reason, accusations of “dithering” by detractors like Dick Cheney is nothing more than sound-byte flak.  Mind you, Cheney’s expertise in the careful planning and successful execution of war has been called into question by recent history.

What is troubling about the deliberation process is that it seems to be a major reversal of Obama’s policy on a number of levels.  Essentially, McChrystal is making the case for a comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy which would require a substantial increase in the number of US and allied troops in Afghanistan.  McChrystal’s recommendations are specific, down to the minimum number of additional troops required for success, and in keeping with the administration’s assertion that securing Afghanistan is a “vital security interest” of the US.  Moreover, McChrystal was handpicked by Obama after the President made it clear that he wanted a counterinsurgency strategy like the one McChrystal is proposing, rather than a counterterrorist strategy favored by people such as Vice-President Biden.  Therefore, it seems that Obama has been committed to the type of plan outlined by McChrystal from the very beginning.  In light of the protracted deliberation now occurring in the White House, however, something has changed.  Most observers do not believe that Obama will grant McChrystal the number of troops the General says is necessary for victory.

Why is Obama hesitating when his handpicked military expert has clearly outlined the road to victory?  Perhaps, faced with the actual numbers in the general’s report, Obama has decided to rethink the cost-benefit balance of this war.  A counterinsurgency campaign, which is usually measured not in months but in years or even decades, will be an extremely costly addition to what has already been a long and deadly war.  In light of the billions of dollars, thousands of men, and many years of war required to achieve what he originally declared necessary, Obama may now be more tempted by the alternative of occasional predator drone strikes against al-Qaeda operatives.

As an Obama supporter who  largely agrees with Obama’s Afghan policy, I would find it hard to reconcile such a shift from counterinsurgency to counterterrorist methods. All along, winning in Afghanistan has been defined as the creation of a stable government that is able to suppress or expel the terrorists operating in its territory.  A counterinsurgency campaign could achieve this goal.  A counterterrorist campaign will not only fail to achieve this goal, but does not conceive of these conditions as goals in the first place.   Which of the two approaches is more likely to succeed in Afghanistan?  In the administration’s conception, at least up to now, the only possible answer is counterinsurgency.  For this reason, a full shift from “COIN” to “CT” operations is highly unlikely; it would simply be too inconsistent with the administration’s idea of US security interests in the region.  Consequently,  stuck with a winning strategy that is simply too costly to enact, Obama will probably move forward with half-measures.  The results could be disastrous.

Most observers agree that Obama will characteristically  find a “middle way,” providing some but not all of the troops McChrystal has requested.  This is a terrifying prospect.  If Afghanistan is truly the must-win that Obama has characterized it, then under-resourcing the war will be a sure fire way to waste American blood and treasure in a losing effort that will ultimately make us less secure and result in yet another loss in international prestige.  If the costs of McChrystal’s plan are too high, we must think of another acceptable way to achieve our ultimate end, which, it is sometimes hard to remember, is the destruction of al-Qaeda.  If that means switching to counterterrorist operations so be it.  But Obama absolutely should not send an arbitrary number of soldiers to be fodder in a war that, McChrystal has already told us, we will lose– we need to send the troops the general has requested, or none at all.  To be fair, it must be mentioned that military thinkers are hard at work on a “middle way” that might be viable.  Among them, John Nagl, one of the minds behind the military’s successful shift in focus to counterinsurgency operations in Iraq, has suggested a “triage” approach that may be promising.  This plan, however, largely reads as a “counterinsurgency redux” option and does not offer fundamentally different plans for Afghanistan other than asserting that an operation with fewer troops could theoretically be successful.

Henry Kissinger, rather ironically, once said, “That which must be done ultimately should be done immediately.”   At the end of the day, Obama needs to decide not what number of troops to send or how much funding the war requires, but whether or not winning in Afghanistan, as it is currently conceived, is truly essential to US security.  If it is, then let us hope that Obama acts decisively on McChrystal’s recommendations and commits fully to a winning effort.  If not, let’s get the hell out.

[2] ibid. Sec 1-4

Steve Bullock is certainly that.  An accomplished lawyer, Bullock’s passion for “helping people” was the impetus that he says initially motivated him to pursue his profession. This passion has led him to advocate for labor in his private practice, and also is what eventually led him to his current position as State Attorney General.  A true CMCer, Bullock delivered his speech “Can a Single Lawyer Make a Difference? The State Attorney General’s Role in Human Rights and Social Change” with a mix of personal aplomb, professional competence, and a clear passion for bringing positive change to the world around him.  He weighed in on a number of issues throughout the evening.

Bullock addressed professional responsibilty and social change.  In discussing his role as Attorney General of Montana, Bullock emphasized the sometimes contradictory nature of his position.  Citing the history of attorneys general as legal advocates for the people, he highlighted the power of his office in taking initiative against injustice.  Conversely, the attorney general’s ability to bring personal philosophy to the job is limited by the key purpose of the position- upholding the laws created by the state legislature.  This dichotomy, he remarked, can result in an attorney general being forced to uphold laws that he personally might find problematic, a position which hopefully is avoided by a reasonable and effective legislative branch.

He also discussed whether activist attorney generals are the new activist judges.  Making reference to both ends of the political spectrum via John McCain and Robert Reich, Bullock brought up the concern held in some circles regarding activist attorneys general.  The concern that the authority wielded by attorneys general constitutes “an end-run on democracy”, as Bullock put it, is not unfounded.  Although elected, these officials have the ability to impose regulations through legal actions that have wideranging effects on society and commerce that might normally be the purview of legislators.  The last ten to fifteen years have seen an increase in attorneys general taking initiative, especially collectively, in situations like the landmark case against tobacco companies in 1998.  Bullock spoke compellingly about the balance between pursuing social justice on the part of the public and respecting the powers of the legislative branch.

Of interest to many students, Bullock talked about how his academic and professional development has resulted in the position he holds today.  Although he did cite an interest in law that dated back to “the third grade,” he also laughingly referred to the missteps and hurdles that characterized much of his career path.  A PPE major at CMC, he prepared for the LSAT most of his senior year.  His poor results, however, initially led him to a path other than law.  He thus pursued a journey that led from Philadelphia, to “Jimmy Buffet’s Bar” in Florida, back to law school, through a big New York law firm, and ultimately back to his native state and the office he now holds.  Seniors, Steve Bullock is better looking than you, but there is hope.

Bullock described how he honed his campaign skills by learning the ropes here at CMC.  He ran for Freshman Class President and won on a platform that involved “borrowing” livestock from Cal Poly Pomona.  Although he had much to say about campaigning in Montana, one point he particularly emphasized was the importance of his fellow alumni.  His classmates were the ones who received his first fundraising letter, and the enthusiastic response of Democrats and Republicans alike was instrumental in helping him win the position he now holds.

Above all else, Attorney General Bullock’s speech at the Athenaeum was a powerful reminder of the important role that CMC plays in empowering bright students to become powerful social and professional agents.

Let’s  do the basics.  The topic: Is CMC a true liberal arts college?  Before we come out swinging, it’s probably a good idea to discuss for a minute what exactly a liberal arts college is.

If there were completely rigid criteria for defining what is or is not a liberal arts college, obviously this debate would be much less exciting.  Despite how nebulous the term can be, there are at least three criteria which are essential in determining that an institution of higher learning is in fact a liberal arts college.

The first is that the school should be relatively small, and its students share a strong sense of community.  In this sense, the liberal arts school is clearly distinctive from the massive research-university model.  The second element that distinguishes between the liberal arts and university models is the emphasis on faculty as teachers as opposed to researchers.  Professors at liberal arts colleges spend more time focusing on students and develop stronger relationships with students.  And the third is that a liberal arts college focuses on the development of general knowledge and the refinement of intellectual ability via a broad spectrum of learning.

What does this broad spectrum consist of?  In other words, what exactly are “liberal arts”?  The liberal arts themselves are steeped in a truly ancient tradition, as evidenced by the Socratic teaching method often utilized at liberal arts school, a direct connection with antiquity.  In the interest of avoiding a comprehensive history lesson, let us suffice it to say that today the term “liberal arts” typically includes literature, language, philosophy, history, mathematics, and science.

Alright, now that the homework is done, I’m going to get this party started with a little Mike Tyson-style fight trash talk.

Guess what.  CMC is NOT a liberal arts school.  And there are many reasons this is true, but the most obvious one is this:   The pre-professional atmosphere of CMC is overwhelming.

When was the last time you talked to a CMC music or art history major?  What are the names of CMC’s visual art professors?  There are major elements of the liberal arts that are neglected at CMC, which is not surprising if one understands the nature of the school.  The About CMC webpage offers us a clear look at the essence of the institution as defined by the powers that be.  Although the page does mention the school’s “strong grounding in the liberal arts,” it also very clearly emphasizes the school’s focus on “economics, government, and public affairs.” Additional emphasis highlights the school’s well known pragmatic approach to education.  Pragmatism is not necessarily antithetical to the idea of the liberal arts; however, the emphases on practical education and on the areas of economics, government, etc. lend a strongly pre-professionals sensibility to the college’s apparent mission.  If that does not convince you, let the money talk; the $200 million dollars of Robert Day’s money is screaming out loud that CMC is an econ training ground! CMC is a de facto econ and public policy specialty school, period.

There’s a running start folks, and you can count on a lot more hot fire than this tidbit being spat next week at the Ath.  Remember, we rumble on Monday, September 28.  Sign up here, and we’ll see you there.

The email goes on to imply that  the RA’s have stalled any drastic action by DOS, but it also states that “things have to change” if CMCers are going to be able to enjoy the alcohol-related privileges they currently have.   The rest of the email is a reiteration of basic tenets of CMC alcohol policy:

1.     Put it in a red cup. If it’s not in a red cup, it will be confiscated.

2.     No glass. If you break glass at a party there is a $200 fine.

3.     If you’re in trouble, don’t be afraid to call the RA on duty.

4.     Drink within your limits.

5.     If it’s a CMC only party, all other students (and townies) will be asked to leave.

CMC Public Alcohol Policy: Alcoholic beverages may be served and consumed only at private events limited to members of the College community and their invited guests. Alcoholic beverages may not be served or consumed at events open to the public, such as intercollegiate athletic contests, or outside the confines of a registered and fenced party area. (Guide to Student Life page 32)

The email singles out “one particular event”, which for “privacy” reasons it does not disclose,  but which sources say was the transportation of a student suffering from acute alcohol poisoning.

But what does all this really mean?  At the beginning of each Fall semester people are excited to return to school and freshman are still adjusting.  There are a few problematic alcohol-related incidents.  These incidents in turn prompt a response from DOS, who, with our safety and the image of the institution in mind, make a serious attempt to “remind” students to follow the common sense rules that most of us have no trouble following. The past few years, actual policy changes have been a part of this cycle.  These changes have included a prohibition of outside drinking games (last year), and stricter accountability standards for TNC (two years past).  Despite these measures, CMC’s drinking culture has remained largely the same.

Tuesday’s meeting between DOS and the RAs involved a more serious conversation than usual about the evolution of the school’s drinking culture, and is apparently only the first in a series of meetings that may very well result in concrete measures to moderate a party atmosphere that DOS feels has gone from fun to dangerous.

Resident Assistant Caroline Taylor (Apartments, ’10), was kind enough to talk to the Forum about what is going on.  According to Taylor, the crux of the problem is that too much of the focus is now not on “partying” but solely on drinking.

“The culture needs to be where it was five years ago,” she says.  “We are on your [the students’] side.  We want people to be able to drink.  Drink in your rooms, take shots, but then go out to the party and socialize!  It’s just not about drinking everywhere.”

Apparently a big part of the issue being discussed is the prevalence of actual alcohol bottles, particularly handles of hard alcohol, being brought to parties like TNC.  When this happens, the focus shifts from a friendly conversation with a trusty red cup in hand to putting down as much booze as possible.  This is why the “no broken glass” and “red cup” policies are receiving extra attention.

The take away is this:  yes, there have been warnings like this in the past that have had no serious consequences.  This time around it looks like the real deal.