IFC Argument Severely Flawed
Kudos to The Tech for your excellent editorial on the Interfraternity Council's idea to ban alcohol in the new dormitory ["Moving Forward on Housing," Nov. 10]. As you correctly point out, substance-free housing is a positive option and ought to be provided by subunits of dorms whose residents elect to become alcohol-free. Serious flaws, however, compel opposition to the IFC's proposal to ban alcohol in an entire building of hundreds of people.
The idea of a substance-free dorm is severely misguided. Students cannot be expected to choose their dorm based primarily on whether it is substance-free. A dorm is too large a community on which to legislate a Prohibition-style ban. Such a broad-ranging ban is unlikely to work and could backfire by driving alcohol consumption away from community support networks. The proposal is also overly restrictive and uncreative. The MIT community can do better.
The substance-free dorm proposal did not end with the IFC. It has been brought to the Undergraduate Association, where the Council is expected to vote on it next week. As a UA Councilor, I hope that my colleagues on the Council will join me in voting to reject this resolution. Then we will be able to put this matter to rest and move on to more constructive proposals.
Jeremy D. Sher '99
UARepresentative, Next House