Last week, MIT paid $4.75 million in damages to the family of Scott Krueger, a MIT first-year who died of alcohol poisoning while rushing Phi Gamma Delta in 1997. In addition to the damages, the university endowed a $1.25 million scholarship and promised to drastically revamp its housing and drinking policies. For MIT, the settlement sheds harsh light on a negligent attitude that should have been fixed long ago. To colleges and universities across the nation, it is a concrete reminder they are responsible, at some minimum level, to provide a safe environment for their students.

It is important to remember that MIT's attitude toward its undergraduates was the exception to the norm. For one thing, MIT does not guarantee housing to entering first-years. Consequently, many wide-eyed students seeking housing--and on a greater level, acceptance by their peers--find themselves vulnerable to the dangers and excesses of "rush week." Providing first-year housing should be part of any university's basic commitment to its students. Thankfully, as part of the recent settlement, MIT has agreed to provide all first-years with housing by 2002.

Certainly, the group at greatest fault is Phi Gamma Delta, the fraternity Krueger was rushing at the time of his death. But MIT's "hands-off" attitude toward its fraternities and social clubs is also to blame. Universities should be willing to subject these groups to greater scrutiny, particularly when they are suspected of questionable or dangerous practices. Indeed, Krueger is actually the second student this decade to die at a Phi Gamma Delta party: In 1993, over-intoxication caused Jeff Knoll to fall three stories to his death at a party thrown by the fraternity's University of Nebraska-Lincoln chapter. In July, after Krueger's death, Phi Gamma Delta imposed upon itself an alcohol free resolution; MIT should have intervened much earlier.

But while the recent MIT settlement should rightly be taken as an admonition and warning to other schools, Harvard's reaction need not be dramatic. For the most part, Harvard has shown foresight in these matters and taken appropriate precautions to prevent unsafe behavior and ensure the security of all of its students. All students are guaranteed housing during their entire four-year stay. Every first-year is required to attend a three-hour talk during orientation week about drugs and alcohol. All parties must be registered two days in advance, and the school is generally vigilant about shutting down parties by 1 a.m. Harvard's highly vocal anti-hazing and anti-fraternity stances further inhibit maltreatment of new athletes and students.

Certainly, our University could do more. In particular, it could implement a more secure guarantee of anonymity and immunity from disciplinary action for students coming in to UHS for alcohol and drug-related medical emergencies. Nevertheless, Harvard does most of what is necessary for providing a safe environment, and beyond that level, individuals are responsible for their conduct.

Some might view the MIT settlement as an indication that colleges and universities will clamp down on student social life in an unnecessarily harsh fashion. On the contrary, the settlement is merely a reaffirmation of a basic principle that institutions of higher learning are responsible for student safety. To this end, we hope that recent settlement will force other institutions to critically examine their own policies and attitudes, so that a similar tragedy will never happen again.