Two months ago, we criticized Residential Education (ResEd) for eliminating social dues refunds, because the policy was an inefficient and unnecessary attempt to enhance social life on the Row. ResEd’s newest surprise for Row FMs — banning the use of social dues to buy alcohol — is another poorly conceived policy that is actually counterproductive to the stated goal of banning refunds. Effectively, ResEd has crippled social dues as a vehicle to fund the kind of social activity that has and will always characterize the Row, forcing houses to acquire the funds through unaccountable and undesirable means that will be fraught with unintended consequences.

It is unclear what the University is trying to do by banning alcohol purchase with social dues (alcohol accounts for over half of Row social expenditures). Forecasting that underage drinking will cease or even decrease significantly would be an astonishingly naïve mistake on the part of ResEd — houses will obviously collect some sort of unofficial social dues to fund parties that are a staple of student life. Rather, it appears that either ResEd or some higher force in the Administration wants to ensure that Stanford in no way officially facilitates underage drinking, which is basically what University-sanctioned social dues accomplish.

But what price are school officials willing to pay for a de jure policy modification that has the same de facto implications, or worse? If FMs collect unofficial social dues and handle the finances through personal accounts, Row residents’ money will suddenly be placed in a very unaccountable situation with great incentive for dishonesty in bookkeeping and refunds. Even granting full integrity to Row FMs, there will be no formal infrastructure to guard against accounting errors that will place thousands of student dollars at risk.

Moreover, an unofficial, voluntary social due system threatens to undermine the social atmosphere and house bonding that ResEd’s refund ban was supposed to enhance. Presumably, only students who agree to pay into the unofficial social due system will be allowed to drink the house’s alcohol; this is conducive to a culture of distrust, as students feel pressured to act as vigilantes against free-riding.

Finally, if the policy actually succeeds in reducing house alcohol expenditure, students are probably going to redirect funds earmarked for social dues toward private alcohol consumption. The ensuing fragmented and isolated drinking behavior is both a safety risk and another impediment to the shared housing experience that makes the Row a fun place to live.

It may be the case that Stanford places itself at severe legal risk if it knowingly assists underage drinking. If so, then ResEd really had no choice but to pursue the current policy. However, given the University’s historically laissez-faire stance and the certain anecdotal knowledge that social dues were being used for alcohol, it seems surprising that the legal issue was suddenly discovered this year. If Stanford can retain the legal immunity on the issue it seems to have enjoyed for years, avoidance of the various repercussions to Row social life noted above is definitely worth it.

ResEd needs to articulate a coherent set of objectives and sort out contradictory policies. If it wants to enhance the vibrant social atmosphere of the Row, which it purported to protect by prohibiting social due refunds, it should neither obstruct a central ingredient (alcohol) of Row parties nor foster a culture of suspicion.  If ResEd wants to reduce underage drinking, it should not effectively endorse a roundabout social due system that will continue to fund drinking in a potentially unsafe and unaccountable manner. And if the University merely wants to distance itself from underage drinking that it accepts as a fact of life, it should collaborate with students to transition to a private social due infrastructure with no official tie to Stanford. That way, everybody wins.