1. In loco parentis: Keep an eye on the students. Don't pretend they are 'adults' when they are in college on their parents' dime. Sprinkle adults in the dorms and give them authority. Ban the lunatic-running-the-asylum frats and greek societies. Eliminate even legal alcohol from the dorms; make it available only at formal functions, in an appropriate and refined setting.

2. Guiliani policing: If the little laws are enforced, big ones won't fall by the wayside. Make good manners mandatory. Seek to make gentlemen and women of the students. Establish dress codes, inspect living quarters, make dining hall etiquette mean something in a student's life. In the classrooms, don't try to prevent cheating - try to prevent coming in late, copying notes, skipping assignments - cheating will fall as people inclined to it will have been punished for all their other infractions.

3. Social pressure: punish groups of students, not individual infractors. Entire dorms go under the interdict when one suite violates alcohol regulations.

4. Shut down any establishments that violate liquor laws on a three-strikes you are out of business policy. Pull liquor licenses, and for serving without a license, throw the owners in jail and hold them strictly liable for any accidents caused by people drinking their unlicensed beverages.

5. Take away the cars: Forge a campus community that involves living supervised on campus and make it attractive, affordable. Make it unattractive, impractible, and unaffordable to live off campus; even more, make it nearly impossible to have a car. No student parking = less drunk driving.

In the end, instilling some character in the students is the best strategy. But it requires some work and an attitude unlikely to be found in the administrators of several of those Amethyst schools. Which is why the last good way to solve this problem is...

replace the administrators at most liberal arts schools.

6. Students must call their mommies every day.

7. Lights out by 10pm. (No reading with that flashlight under the covers, mister).

8. Mandatory church attendance on Sundays.

9. Raise age for R rated movies and Mature video games to 21.

10. Implant anyone under 21 with chips so that parents or administrators can track their whereabouts at all times and administer a shock if they ever do anything inappropriate.

Well, people like Theodore Roosevelt and FDR, Generals MacArthur and Patton... basically anyone who went to a military academy in history has lived with substantial discipline and restrictions; anyone who went to Yale or Harvard prior to the 1950s would recognize many aspects of this college life, though on-campus housing tended to come and go with the vagaries of funding.

curfews can be annoying, but good sleep habits do promote productivity and learning;

as for church attendance, that is probably only sensible at institutions that have retained their denominational connections and funding - and whose denominations, unlike the unitarians at Harvard and the congregationalists at Yale, where daily services might not even be offered, believe that universal attendance is desirable.

Removing our youngsters rights to make social decisions, whether the right or wrong decision is a bad idea. Being youngsters is WHEN we do want them to make and thus learn from their decisions. Enforcing all of your item lists means that once that youngster graduates, and gets a taste of freedom, they will probably start making some bad decisions. The results of those bad decisions will greatly affect them more at an older age, than the results would have affected them while they were in college or high school. You want to shuffle the responsibility of watching out for a persons bad decisions back onto the taxpayers and away from parents and college educators. Sounds like an expensive choice.

I'd rather that the kids have their chance to make many kinds of bad decisions in elementary school, middle school, even high school, when their parents are responsible for them and looking after them - and it shouldn't be the state's problem. Parents can teach good drinking habits - if they have them - and lower school levels leave some slack for catching up, or at worst, being tried as a juvenile.

During college, when they are paying $40,000/year for an education, is a particularly expensive time to ... miss the whole thing due to drunkenness. A kid who doesn't make it to class gets overlooked ... but if he shows up to work late and hung over a few times, his leash will be jerked short pretty quickly and the need to buy food and pay the rent will help enforce some discipline. Still, a good education that includes character building rather than unwarranted license and liberty, will prevent many things that might otherwise come to pass.

And in truth, there are some mistakes that can never be safely made - including drunk driving - and we shouldn't be trying to shuffle these around. We should be looking to eliminate them from the realm of possibility.

And in truth, there are some mistakes that can never be safely made - including drunk driving - and we shouldn't be trying to shuffle these around. We should be looking to eliminate them from the realm of possibility.

Yes, by all means, let's eliminate mistakes. Totalitarianism sounds like an excellent idea. At least for people aged 18-21.

I doubt you are suggesting that we store household drain cleaner in pretty glass bottles on shelves within the reach of toddlers.

I'm just not sure how you can justify subsidizing an environment virtually designed to make it easy for late teens to kill each other accidentally.

I doubt you are suggesting that we store household drain cleaner in pretty glass bottles on shelves within the reach of toddlers.

You're right, I'm not a wacky libertarian. But what I think your missing here is... drinking and driving is illegal and no one here is saying it shouldn't be. Telling 18 year olds they can't drink isn't like telling companies they have to label drain cleaner as dangerous. It's more like telling them they can't manufacture drain cleaner at all because it's too dangerous for us to trust them with.

In reality it's not much like either of these situations, but I think you get where I'm coming from.

I'm just not sure how you can justify subsidizing an environment virtually designed to make it easy for late teens to kill each other accidentally.

If you prefer a stricter or more disciplined environment for your kids, it is completely in your right to not support them going to a state college or whatever. I'm not going to argue whether that's a wise choice or not... it may be good for some people, I don't know. But I do have a problem with state schools engaging in the type of "character building" that you support in an earlier post. Character building requires a character architect, and I don't think that's an appropriate role for the government or school administrators.

First, let me address labelling drain cleaner as dangerous. I support putting a POISON and skull and bones label on drain cleaner. Putting it out of the reach of toddlers isn't telling people not to manufacture it. Putting a child safe cap on it isn't preventing its manufacture or use. It makes the product safe for its intended use.

Driving is useful for some people. We license it. Drinking is considered appropriate behavior under certain conditions - we also license the sale of alcohol. Both of these are somewhat regulated.

Students have shown repeatedly that they will mix the two in a way that is not reasonable. We can prevent the mixing. Where does that cross into totalitarianism?

In addition - most of the schools (like Tufts) that are talking about this are private schools. Not state schools. But even in state schools, I believe that those administrators have the authority to look out for the welfare of the students in limiting access to automobiles and alcohol, each. They already do set parking prices, they already do deal with alcohol licenses in the surrounding community and dealing with drinking on campus. This isn't new territory - though it is, in some ways, a new direction.

Schools have always been considered architects of the mind, and architects of character. They abrogated that responsibility when faced with unweildy students and somewhat unsupportive parents a few decades back and have found that retreating from their difficult duties makes their lives more comfortable. Shame on them! When it merely meant a poor education, we could simply be upset - but when it leads to students dying, we should be more active in declaring these educators unfit.