Students reflect on new dance policy
JASON MCFARLEY
News Writer
Planning hall-sponsored dances became more expensive and problematic when Notre Dame banned the events from residence halls, students said at a forum Tuesday to glean feedback on the revamped dances.
Student government officials called the forum to compile anecdotal information for their report to the Board of Trustees next month. The report will focus on the changes to the dances since the University revised its alcohol policy last fall.
"The big problem is money — we don't have enough," said junior Wyatt Maxwell, Fisher Hall president. "We can't afford to pay $500 for a dance floor in South Dining Hall and $500 for cookies since you have to be catered [by Food Services]. We don't have $1,000 to spend."
Outlawing dances in dorms moved the events off campus or to alternative on-campus venues such as dining halls, classroom buildings and Warren Golf Clubhouse.
Students said most of the surrogate locations were unappealing or came with too many set-up and rental costs. Each of the 27 halls sponsored about two dances last semester.
The basement of the Knights of Columbus building was a poor substitute for the Zahm Hall basement, where that dorm's dances were held in the past, said sophomore Eric Tarnowski.
"It's a good alternative but not ideal," said Tarnowski, the hall's social commissioner.
Carroll Hall president Ryan Greenberg worried that some of the venues couldn't accommodate dance-goers from his dorm, one of the smallest on campus. He said that fact ruled out those venues for other, larger dorms.
Spurred by concern about excessive campus drinking, University officials dumped in-hall dances and banned liquor from undergraduate dorms. The changes last fall also brought a revision to campus tailgating rules.
Tarnowski said at the forum that a more appropriate course of action for the University would have been to outlaw only the liquor and to warn students that unruly drinking would threaten future in-hall dances. After a year, he said, officials could evaluate the change and decide whether a dance ban was necessary.
When they announced the policy changes last spring, administrators feared that students were partying in individual residence hall rooms and too often showing up drunk to the dances.
Students at the forum couldn't say with certainty whether the dance ban had hurt attendance or curbed drinking.
Student Affairs promised each hall $1,000 to help defray expenses connected with moving dances out of residence halls. Still, hall presidents and dance commissioners at the forum said organizing dances has become troublesome financially. Finding and reserving space for dances is also a hassle, they said.
Greenberg, from Carroll Hall, recommended the University establish relationships with owners of off-campus dance venues to make identifying and paying for dance spots easier.
Others supported a centralized office for organizing dances.
"We can't leave dances the way they are," Greenberg said.
Last spring, student outcry over changes to the alcohol policy focused on the in-hall dance ban. Students worried that the ban would hurt residence life.
Student Body Vice President Trip Foley, who protested the changes after taking office last April, wasn't surprised by student sentiment Tuesday.
The forum "confirmed things we've been hearing all along," he said, "but students are smart to realize things won't change overnight."
Foley was optimistic that University trustees would be receptive to the student input that Student Body President Libby Bishop will present to the board Feb. 6 in Naples, Fla.
Student government officials present to the board three times each year, at the trustees fall, winter and spring meetings.
Trustees and administrators praised Bishop and Foley's fall report on residence life. Some proposals in the student government report were mirrored in the Office of Student Affairs' 10-year plan released later last fall.
All News Stories for Wednesday, January 22, 2003
