Last week, The Washington Post published an op-ed piece by Jim Gogek, a fellow with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Gogek attacked the nation’s alcohol lobby for pushing alcohol on underagers, but the piece was telling beyond its content: Gogek’s overarching views with respect to alcohol consumption are an indication that the Robert Wood Johnson project exists to combat the consumption of alcohol outside of narrowly constrained circumstances. RWJ’s Madison extension — the PACE project — seeks to do the same, no matter how its members may cloak themselves in a mantra of “prevention.”

We fundamentally disagree with PACE’s approach to combating the negative social consequences of high-risk drinking. Simultaneously, we fully acknowledge these consequences exist. But the crux of the issue will always be individual choices and personal responsibility.

PACE and their administrative cohorts in Bascom and City Halls continue to pursue a regulatory approach to the problems associated with student drinking — despite the fact that high-priced drinks and threats of police intervention will not keep students from drinking in excess. Only students themselves can make responsible drinking decisions. This decision can be guided by sound public policy.

First of all, PACE’s cursory engagement in social-norms campaigns should be expanded. Students, especially incoming freshmen, must realize that not everyone gets wasted every night of every weekend; social, fun alternatives do exist outside of the bar and party scene, and they must also realize simply that there is nothing wrong with having to study or work on a Friday night.

Curiously, PACE has yet to broach an overriding point in the campus alcohol debate — this university keeps its Union, the city’s largest licensed bar, open later Friday and Saturday nights than any of its libraries. Late-night weekend activities, including access to facilities such as the SERF, could offer viable, constructive alternatives for the busiest of students. PACE must not forget that students sometimes choose to drink simply because they cannot hit the library or the gym. These are all constructive alternatives that PACE should not ignore.

For PACE to legitimize itself, it must shift its focus away from regulation. Parental notification and bans on drink specials are just two parts of a paternalistic regulatory scheme completely out of touch with reality. Not all students who drink on a given Friday or Saturday night do so in a manner that can be accurately described as “high-risk.” Students can enjoy cheap drinks or an exciting house party in safe ways, and they must remain free to do so.

Directing resources and efforts toward late-night alternatives has already been demonstrably successful. Luther’s Blues’ underage access nights, Wisconsin Alumni Student Board (WASB) functions like the All-Campus Party and the Union’s open-mic nights all provide students with fun activities that are also alternatives to high-risk drinking.

Accepting the fact that students will drink, PACE must also avoid targeting the safest environments in which students do drink: licensed bars and clubs. A first step would be for PACE to publicly rescind their opposition to drink specials.

Advocating or directly funding bartender training to minimize over-serving to student patrons could go a long way to making bars a safer drinking environment. Eliminating drink specials may statistically equate to lower consumption rates, but students who want to get drunk are going to do so, regardless of the outside situation. If house parties are shut down and drink prices skyrocket, students will still find ways to get drunk, especially on this campus.

Paternalistic policies cannot defeat this cultural reality, and lobbying administrative bodies (be they campus, local or federal) for regulation did not work with drink specials, did not work in the 1920s and will not work now. To find positive results, PACE must make reasonable approaches that appeal to reasonable students.