ExComm shows leniency in handling ID fraud

By Michael Ellis

During the first weeks of this school year, it seemed to many students that the Executive Committee (ExComm) was waging a multi-front war against alcohol consumption. The campus was drying up as reports abounded of parties busted by police. Party hosts faced legal recrimination and dates with ExComm. Off campus, underage student entrance into local bars was hindered as many establishments began confiscating altered Yale identification cards.

Student anxiety peaked upon circulation of rumors that ExComm had expelled two students for tampering with their Yale IDs and that more students were awaiting punishment. These events, combined with the mystery that surrounds ExCom, contributed to the anxiety of the hundreds of students in possession of altered Yale IDs.

In reality, however, ExComm's stance toward alcohol consumption has been one of toleration. ExComm Chairman Pierre Demarque acknowledged that two students have been punished for tampering with IDs and that about 10 more cases "are in the pipeline," but said that no students have been expelled for ID alteration. The penalty most commonly levied for tampering with a Yale ID is, according to Demarque, one of the weakest that ExComm can give: an official reprimand, which appears only on a student's internal record and can lead to suspension in cases of repeat violations of the Undergraduate Regulations.

Furthermore, ExComm's actions are not indicative of a comprehensive tightening of alcohol policy or crackdown on student alcohol consumption. "The job of the Executive Committee is to take complaints," ExComm secretary Jill Cutler explained, "not to act as an arm of the police." ExComm's rulings represent nothing more than the University's continuing duty to uphold state and federal law, and the Undergraduate Regulations.

Despite a common student complaint that no one was warned about the consequences of tampering with IDs, the Undergraduate Regulations explicitly state that such an action is a violation. ExComm's actions have been entirely fair.

By simply upholding clearly stated policy, ExComm has actually been surprisingly lenient. Demarque says that ExComm has treated cases of altered IDs "as ID problems, not alcohol problems," and that the cases have been primarily approached as falsification of Yale documents rather than as incidents of underage drinking. Like transcripts, ID cards are official documents, and Yale certifies that their information is valid.

While transcript alterers are traditionally expelled--1995's expulsion of Yale senior Lon "L.T." Grammer being the most prominent example--alterers of Yale IDs have received what amounts to nothing more than a slap on the wrist. ExComm could not be any lighter in its punishment of students who tamper with their IDs. If ExComm were more lenient, it could be seen as permitting not only tampering with Yale documents, but also the violation of drinking laws.

The lightness of ExComm's punishments is indicative of the tension that the Administration feels, a tension of needing to enforce rules that it might not see as entirely appropriate. Cutler maintains that she personally supports lowering the legal drinking age and says that "most of the administration feels strongly that the drinking age is wrong."

Demarque added that "it is ridiculous and embarrassing to deal with this issue," and that issues relating to alcohol take up a disproportionate amount of ExComm's time. It is personal convictions such as those held by Cutler and Demarque that have doubtless led ExComm to take such a lenient stance against ID alterers.

At its core, ExComm is largely tolerant of student alcohol consumption. ExComm's actions against students who have altered their IDs are not indicative of a campaign to lessen alcohol consumption. Students should respect the leeway that the University gives them, and should consume alcohol in a manner that does not bring them into conflict with the Administration.

Michael Ellis is a sophomore in Berkeley.

Back to Opinion...