Author Archive

What makes Missouri western so appealing? Well, for students, there can’t be one answer, but the question is more directed to parents. If I had to guess, it would be Western’s alcohol policy.

Depending on what side of the fence you’re on, the policy can be viewed as positive and negative. Both sides can probably agree that the current policy has been broken ever since the changes to the policy were made in light of the Chiefs Training camp.

Currently the policy allows for alcohol to be sold in two places on campus, neither of which is the dorms, even though there is now a 21-and-up only dorm.

There are several reasons the current policy does not reflect well on Missouri Western. This policy means that having a “dry” campus means that parents believe they can send their kids to school and not worry about binge drinking. Which is great, except that this punishes the students that are 21 and over.

Even though they are of the legal drinking age, those students living in the dorm cannot exercise their privilege willingly.

The other problem is that the policy makes Western look hypocritical. The University is willing to break the policy to sell alcohol to visiting patrons, but the students that pay to go to school here can’t exercise their privileges.

Realistically, the policy can’t be enforced anyway. If prohibition didn’t work in the 1920’s, why would it work here?

Even on a smaller scale, it is impossible to enforce the policy. When the University changes the policy in their favor it sends a hypocritical message to students and essentially stomps on their own policy.

Western obviously believes that the policy it’s self is outdated or they wouldn’t be changing it in the first place.

Perhaps though, the university is slowly repealing the alcohol policy. The next move would be to let alcohol be sold at Griffon sporting events.

If this happens, Western would have no reason not to let 21 and over students’ drink in their dorms. To put it simply, unless the University repeals the policy fully, the selling point will lose its shine and the entire policy itself will reflect very horribly on the University.

What would a parent think of a school that they are giving thousands of dollars to that goes back on its word?

At the moment though, the current policy is a contradiction, which favors the University. Even if Western is having financial trouble, changing a policy to make money should be a last resort. Even then, the change should be a full repeal.

You might as well face it. Money around Missouri Western State University is about to become more rare than the virtue of Paris Hilton. Cuts are going to be made. The big question everyone is afraid to ask is “what gets cut?” The reason that is a scary question for every department and every member of the faculty is because the answer might be that the cuts start at home.

No one wants to make less money. No one feels like they have enough to run things as it is. Everyone else thinks that you are already blowing it bad enough, if you have less next year how will you make ends meet? You will. Somehow, you will find a way to make things work. It is called innovation. It is what make Americans what they are as a people. They rest of the world looks at America and says “Wow, how innovative.”

Just get over the fear of losing a little profit and innovate a way to keep the world running. But the question of where to cut still has not answered. Here are some ideas you might not have considered.

Paying people less tends to make them panic and leave, yet, who wants to quit their job in an uncertain economy? If it is a pay cut, just make sure it is fair and across the board and starts at the top. Any stones unturned will be the rock that causes the wall to tumble.

Maybe something that students really do not care about should be cut. Like the SGA. No one goes to the meetings, that much has already been established. Students really do not care what a select few of politically motivated students decide to spend money on, so why give them such a big budget? In all fairness perhaps the Griffon News should lose a chunk of funding. Much evidence shows that no one is really reading the paper.

Wherever the cuts happen, just know that they are going to happen. When they do, don’t be surprised if you find the cuts came to your slice of pie. After all you are probably too fat anyway.

Stop and consider, for a moment, the hypocrisy of Missouri Western State University’s policies concerning alcohol on campus. Upset yet? If not, perhaps you do not see the whole picture yet. It is simple to see. There is no alcohol allowed in the dorms where the students live, despite that many students are of legal drinking age. There is an entire dorm dedicated to seniors who are certainly old enough to belly up to a bar and buy a beer but they are not allowed to keep a six-pack in the mini-fridge of their own living quarters.

It is as if the school is going beyond the law and saying they want to have a moral stance on the evils of drinking alcohol. If that is the case for the reasons behind the dry campus then there really is no problem. The problem with this is that recently it was made that alcohol could be served in Spratt Hall to visiting big-wigs and dignitaries that the school is trying to woo themselves into their wallets. Brilliant idea, by the way, serve wine with those boring presentations. It is a proven fact that drunks are much more liberal with their money than sober people.

Though this act could send a message that while the school is morally against adults drinking, it has no problem using a bit of booze to fleece any suckers they can make more comfortable with a few glasses of wine. Really? Isn’t this a date rapist strategy? Why not just slip them a “roofie” and pick their pockets while they are passed out? If this is really about a moral stance the campus is taking against alcohol then shouldn’t no booze on campus mean no booze on campus?

So you say that isn’t the issue at all. It has nothing to do with Missouri Western being run by an anti-alcohol agenda. It is entirely a security issue. If you give the legal drinking age students a dorm they can drink in, how do you keep them from aiding and abetting in the delinquency of minors? Won’t the seniors be bringing up the freshmen into their dorms to have a nip?

If this is really the issue then the argument is over. Legal drinking age students can already provide for their younger peers as it is. No one is suggesting that because they can buy them beers, all 21-year-old students should be segregated at all times from the under 21-year-old students. The apocalypse is not going to be started because legal age students gain the right to kick back in their own living domiciles and crack a cold with their nightly study session.