To the editors:

Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis ’68 has some good points in his op-ed (“Harvard in a Beer Ad World,” Nov. 4). He rightly questions the validity of our newfound environmentalism in regards to kegs vs. bottles and cans, and he writes, justifiably, that drinking to excess should not be the purpose of The Game.

But for all his good arguments he makes in the beginning of his piece, he falls apart at the end. After calling us “the best in the country” he reverts to counterfactual arguments about us not being able to “enjoy drinking without drinking in a way that beer ads on TV have taught [us] is the fun way to drink.” What does this mean, exactly? Does he mean to say that we, the smartest students in the country, have been brainwashed to think that kegs are the answer? Besides the obvious fact that very few if any commercials actually picture kegs, this argument carries no weight. Even if we were to have been somehow manipulated by commercials to think that a certain kind of drinking is the way to go, a keg ban would do nothing to solve this. Furthermore, there are a number of true facts about drinking, especially in regards to the Harvard Yale game, that have always been true and will continue to be true, regardless of a keg ban.

First, Harvard and Yale students alike will drink excessively. Compared to other schools across the country—even Ivy League schools (Dartmouth), Harvard students drink less, and The Game is perhaps the only exception. Better it be at “The Game” then at all of the games.

Second, a keg ban will not limit the amount of alcohol students will consume, but it will change the delivery systems. Yes, students will drink just as much from bottles or cans, which though they cost more, will not deter more alcohol consumption.

Third, the concern about hard liquor being substituted for beer is a valid one, regardless of Lewis’ arguments to the contrary. He states, “There is no reason to think that students faced with cans and hard liquor will favor the hard stuff.” Why is that? He offers no reasoning, and I for one, knowing Harvard students and how they drink, would argue the contrary: faced with higher costs of drinking and less ease in obtaining beer, why not just fill a water bottle with some concoction of Rubinoff and head to the stadium? And we all know that increased liquor consumption is much more dangerous than beer consumption, for obvious reasons.

Lastly, there is the simple reasoning that tailgating is not the same without kegs. The Game has always been about a fun rivalry and a great time, and to take a huge part of the tradition out of that time is contrary to the ideals of the event. Sure, it can be justified—the keg ban is not just some attempt to limit our fun—but the reality is that it will not change the amount of alcohol consumption, and so its intended outcome will prove a failure, and its unintended outcome—changing the nature of The Game—will succeed.

Joseph L. DiMento ’05

Nov. 4, 2002