Advocating the use of alcohol

Bridgewater State College does not allow postings which advocate the use of alcohol or illegal substances. This is a viewpoint biased policy, and it seems to me that it is unconstitutional for that reason. Even if it is not unconstitutional, I will argue that it should be removed. According to Dr. Dana Mohler-Faria, tough policies on alcohol were created at BSC after there were large problems with drinking on campus. Dr. Mohler-Faria said that the policies are needed to prevent such drinking problems from happening again. I think this is not necessarily true. Dr. Mohler-Faria seems to be incorrectly assuming that either the college has a lax alcohol policy and has large drinking problems or it has a zero tolerance policy and has less drinking problems.

This seems to be committing the fallacy of the false dilemma: assuming that there are only two options when there in fact may be others. I would think that there is some middle ground where the college has policies that are somewhere between lax and zero tolerance that could still be effective in preventing underage drinking. Whatever policies are in place, however, there will always be a substantial amount of drinking on campus; though this does not mean there should be zero regulation. It shows to me that more restrictive policies do not necessarily make the college a safer place.

That brings me to the college's prohibition on postings that advocate the use of alcohol. If the purpose of the policy is actually to lower drinking on campus, it seems that the policy is in place for two possible reasons, or both: lessening the amount of drinking through not allowing people to post the flyers or lessening the amount of drinking through not having people see the flyers.

If this policy was created to lessen drinking on campus, I do not see how this policy is related to that. There is a difference between advocating something and actually engaging in that thing. Just because a student may advocate the use of alcohol, he or she is not necessarily engaging in the use of alcohol.

Even assuming that a student advocating the use of alcohol is consuming alcohol, the policy does not seem to be related to lessening drinking. The act of putting up flyers advocating the use of alcohol is wholly separate from drinking alcohol. If someone is prevented from putting up flyers advocating the use of alcohol, that does nothing to prevent that person from consuming alcohol. I would also argue that it does nothing to discourage that person from consuming alcohol; there is no disincentive for that individual consuming alcohol just because he or she cannot post flyers advocating its use. Even if there are any effects on the people who post the flyers, they would seem to me to be extremely indirect effects. I therefore do not think that the policy would be able to lessen the amount of drinking through not allowing people to post the flyers.

The use of alcohol is widespread in society. One only has to watch the many Budweiser, Coors, Corona, etc. advertisements that there are or the prevalence and popularity of bars and alcohol at restaurants. If there are students at BSC who would want to drink alcohol simply by seeing material promoting its consumption, I find it hard to believe that postings promoting the use of alcohol at BSC would be what changes their mind. Students would only have to watch a football game, or other similar programs, to see a commercial promoting the use of alcohol. Even if there are any effects on the people who see the flyers that would not come from other places, they would seem to me to be extremely indirect effects. Consequently, I find it very hard to believe that the policy would be able to lessen the amount of drinking through not having people see posting that advocate the use of alcohol.

As a result of this, I do not see any way around the conclusion that the ban on postings that promote the use of alcohol is not directly, or even indirectly, related to reducing the amount of drinking on campus. I am very skeptical of any policy which puts a restraint on an individual's freedom of speech. As a result, I would require that any policy restricting speech be directly related to the interest it is supposed to further.

This policy, as I have argued, is not directly related to lowering the amount of drinking or underage drinking on campus; at best it is only indirectly related, since it is not regulating drinking itself, but an act that is purported to affect drinking. I would also question whether there would be any indirect effects, though, since they seem so distant that to call them indirect effects seems to be stretching the meaning of the term effects.

As a result, even if the college's ban on postings promoting the use of alcohol does not violate the First Amendment, it does not seem like it is a policy that the college should have. The college, at least in my opinion, should only regulate speech activities when the regulations are absolutely necessary to further some compelling interest. Although the college could have a compelling interest in wanting to lower underage drinking, this policy is placing an undue burden on free speech; it is regulating speech for the purpose of reducing drinking or underage drinking, but it is not directly, or really indirectly, furthering that interest.

Consequently, I think the policy should be removed, and students should be able to more fully express their free speech rights by having postings that advocate the use of alcohol.