Laissez-Faire Letter

---by Robert D. $utton

[The following is based on my personal correspondence with various people, who have been left nameless to protect their privacy. I try to cite sources whenever possible, so that my readers can verify the facts for themselves. Notwithstanding, the right to privacy outweighs the desire for footnotes--especially in this article!]

The Department of Safety and Security at Dartmouth College ("S & S") has recently authorized certain students to patrol residence halls in search of alcohol. These students, paid a comfy $8.00 an hour, can report anyone found with alcohol, provided they spot the offender in the hallway or in a wide-open room with the liquor in "plain view."

Why has this policy been adopted? One can only speculate.

Perhaps it is to "improve the social atmosphere," which alcohol is often said to impair. But what kind of atmosphere might be expected when some students are placed in the position of telling on their friends? The same atmosphere we saw in Nazi Germany: that of guilt, resentment and distrust. What kind of message do we send students by having busybodies patrol their private hallways? Only one: "BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU." This policy will create the type of atmosphere appropriate to a totalitarian state�not a "closeknit community."

Or is the issue "student safety"? This could have been said of S & S�s response to complaints in residence halls, and their confronting publicly intoxicated students who were ready to pass out in the streets. These policies were legitimate responses to alcohol-related problems. The job of the alcohol monitors, however, is not to control the problems created by alcohol, but to get people in trouble for the mere possession of alcohol.

It might be argued that this will deter students from drinking. But one cannot fight the law of supply and demand. There is a demand for a relaxing, consistent, convenient social option�and so far, alcohol has been it. Compare the effort�and cost�of organizing a dance with that of calling some friends over to your room and reaching into the fridge for a cold beer. Cracking down on alcohol will not foster a non-alcoholic social scene. But it will drive the existing social scene underground�and leave everyone else in a vacuum of bored sobriety.

Beneath all the bromides about "social options" and "safety," the administration knows it can�t enforce prohibition�and can't afford to (unless having a reputation for puritanism is a good marketing strategy). President Wright himself has said on numerous occasions that he has "no illusions about making Dartmouth a dry campus." So what�s the real reason for the policy?

Simply put: the College no choice. Dartmouth currently receives $46 million for "higher education" from the federal government. The College has basically been offered the ultimatem to "deal with its alcohol problem" or forfeit the grants. Not surprisingly, the College chose the former. The alcohol monitors are Dartmouth�s way of "dealing with" the alcohol problem.

Why would the government leave the enforcement of one of its laws (the drinking age) to a private institution? Perhaps because storming through private residences in search of alcohol is not a proper (let alone popular) function of government. The government does it anyway, but it is much more convenient to have private institutions carry out such activities whenever possible. A private institution makes a much more convincing "nanny," and can use several excuses (see the beginning of this article) to rationalize its invasions of privacy. A private institution also has many powers government does not, including the power to set the terms on which others (in this case, students) may use its property. Colleges, in particular, can get away with a large number of unpopular terms, since it is much more difficult to change colleges than, say, telephone servers.*

In short, it is more politically palatable to have private institutions carry out improper functions of government. That isn�t to say that the government gives a damn about alcohol, either. They can�t enforce prohibition, and they don�t intend to. The "war on alcohol" is simply a cover for an invasion of privacy.

It is significant that the government�s current pawns�the "alcohol monitors"�have been rather lenient and apologetic about their role (at least the ones I�ve spoken with). It has constantly been stressed that the monitors "really don�t have that much power." Do you see what this accomplishes? Dartmouth gets its students to gradually accept the monitors�and as a consequence, government gets a foot in the door. Students begin to say "this isn�t so bad�what�s all the fuss about?", forgetting that a control is like a noose, waiting to be TIGHTENED--forgetting that the government can establish speech codes and every other form of control in the same, incremental manner as alcohol policies.

However, the full significance of the alcohol policy is much greater than privacy rights. It is a demonstration that Dartmouth is no longer a private institution. It may be private in name, but in fact, it is already a puppet of the government�and it will continue to be so long as it relies on federal funding.

There�s a specific name for a social system in which private individuals own the means of production, but the government decides on their use: the name is FASCISM. The alcohol policy, like all public-private "partnerships," is just another step toward fascism. The only difference between this and full fascism is that, in this case, the government is not threatening to use force�but to withdraw looted wealth that it had no right to "redistribute" in the first place.

A large part of the blame for this situation falls on the College itself. True, the existence of taxes made the College�s potential benefactors less generous. True, the existence of government regulations made just about every aspect of running the College more expensive than it had to be. However, the College ultimately sold itself into subservience. It is now finding out the hard way what happens when one deals with the devil.

There may still be time for Dartmouth�and all private universities�to regain their financial independence from the government. It is possible: Grove City College accepts no federal aid of any kind (and still manages to offer its students low tuition with a Compaq notebook computer and printer!).

One thing is certain: if nothing is done to check the current trend, the choice between private and public school will mean the choice between fascism and socialism�which means: no choice at all.

* This is not to say that the power of private colleges is the result of "market failure." It is a result of an artificially restricted supply of colleges, caused by government interference in the education market. The cost of meeting all sorts of government regulations pose an artificial barrier to entry for many potential educational institutions. The costs of acquiring a license to teach restrict the teaching market, which means that licensed teachers can charge more for their services--another added to cost to the running a college. And then there's the fact that any potential entrant into today's educational market faces subsidized competitors, both public and private...

Government interference aside, there is another reason for the power of private colleges: the way the "college experience" is structured. As they have done since time immemorial, students today often live where they learn. This means that changing colleges is like changing residences: certainly possible, but not exactly convenient. However, the Internet, like the automobile, is rapidly breaking down this barrier: it is already possible to get one's diploma from the comfort of one's computer room.

(Of course, it might be argued that the "academical village" aspect of living where one learns cannot be duplicated by the Internet. But why couldn't one rent an apartment in an area with a high concentration of students, and simply take courses online? One does not have to accept college housing to converse with college students.)