Spirit Sans Spirits

A century ago, President A. Lawrence Lowell, Class of 1877, envisioned a House system that would “give each man a chance to associate closely with a considerable number of his fellows.” He called this revolutionary plan a “system of grouping that will bring into each group men from different parts of the country, men with different experience, and as far as possible social condition.”

While the student body that President Lowell knew in 1907 has changed drastically in the hundred years since his speech, his vision of the House system as a democratic means for socializing and bonding remains intact. In recent years, Stein Clubs have helped further this goal of promoting House social life, largely without promoting a culture of alcoholism. Though the future of Stein Clubs seemed under threat with the College’s recent crackdown on underage drinking, its new policy banning hard liquor from Stein Clubs is reasonable, and even laudable: it both strives to preserve a key component of House life and emphasizes responsible drinking.

Exemplars of House life, Stein Clubs offer upperclassmen the opportunity to congregate and socialize on Thursday nights, with food and beverage provided by their House Committee (HoCo). Drinking glasses of beer or wine, students have the opportunity to savor the moments of relaxation that elude them throughout the rest of their busy weeks. Most HoCos restrict their offerings to beer and wine, but some that have offered hard liquor in recent years—like Mather House—worry what effects this ban may have on attendance to their Stein Clubs.

Such worries are unfounded and out of touch with the spirit of House life. While Stein Clubs implicitly condone the idea of alcohol as a means to stimulate social interaction, they should not overemphasize the need for this social lubricant as justification for serving rum and Coke or vodka screwdrivers. There is no reason why anyone would need drinks with high alcohol content in order to socially connect with other members of their House. In fact, the greater chance of intoxication that comes with drinking hard liquor detracts from the House unity that Stein Clubs are supposed to generate. How can you bond with the other members of your House if you cannot even remember you met them in the first place?

Of course, many students do imbibe mixed drinks responsibly, but the likelihood of irresponsible and excessive drinking is greatly increased when hard liquor is present. That potential is exacerbated by student bartenders who rarely dilute beverages or keep tabs on repeat customers.

Achieving balance between social drinking and intoxication is an issue that Harvard has struggled with over the years. Some of the College’s efforts have been at the cutting edge in this regard: from the establishment of the Office of Alcohol and Other Drug Services in recent years to the online alcohol education course for incoming freshmen called AlcoholEdu, to the group of student-leaders known as Drug & Alcohol Peer Advisors. Of course, some of the more draconian and less supportive measures University Hall has instituted were considerably less successful—take the College’s currently contradictory amnesty and student-group-leader responsibility policies. Nevertheless, banning hard alcohol seems to jibe with Harvard’s commitment to safe and responsible alcohol policies. Stein clubs should not be about the difference between a lager and a margarita—they should be about safety and responsibility.

Stein Clubs are a crucial aspect of the House life that students often ignore in the hustle and bustle of life in Cambridge. The social bonding that they promote must be preserved and not abused by intoxicated students. The College’s ban on hard alcohol at Stein Clubs is therefore not only reasonable, but may even improve the quality of social life that students experience at Stein Clubs.