When asked were they thought a typical Harvard student might be on a Friday night, an outsider might guess “the library.” Nevertheless, although it is true that students here work hard, many students have enveloped the old adage of “work hard, play hard”. Yet over the last two years, “play hard” has become “play harder” and that if you were to guess that a typical Harvard student could be found at UHS on a Friday night, you would 43 percent more right than two years ago. The steps Harvard administrators have taken to increase student safety and promote alcohol education have been visible, yet they are completely useless unless accompanied by real consequences for binge drinking on campus.

Despite the steps that Harvard takes to promote safe drinking, the number of students who have been brought in for alcohol-related issues is on the rise for the second year in a row, according to the Office of Alcohol and Other Drug Services.

In 2006, Harvard started the Drug & Alcohol Peer Advisors program, whose advisors are known as DAPAs, and since the program was started, incoming freshmen are required to attend a meeting on safe drinking. DAPAs also provide grants for alcohol-safe parties on campus. Harvard freshmen also are required to complete AlcoholEDU, and online program that teaches safe drinking habits, before coming to campus.

Nevertheless, the data suggests 43 percent increase in the number of patients since two years ago, and that an “an inordinately high percentage of students that report drinking hard alcohol”—which leads to more hospitalizations. A Crimson article, cites that the number of freshman at Harvard that report taking shots is 39 percent, which is higher than the national average, and more freshmen are identifying themselves as heavy drinkers, more than ever before.

The problem is, however helpful DAPA and AlcoholEDU might be, they will never been able to counteract the real culprit that facilitate binge drinking: Harvard’s amnesty policy. As stated in the Handbook for Students, if someone is brought into University Health Services because of alcohol related issues, he or she would not face disciplinary action from the school for consuming alcohol.  No program condemning binge drinking can ever work without negative ramifications for doing so. It’s the principle of moral hazard: someone who is insulated from risk will behave differently than if they were exposed to a risk. DAPA can preach until they are blue in the face, but if there are no real consequences to binge drinking, then college student will continue to partake.

What students are taking away from DAPA and AlcoholEDU is not that they should adjust their drinking habits so they don’t have to go to UHS, but that they should adjust their attitude to UHS so they don’t have to change their drinking habits. The increase in hospitalizations since the introduction of DAPA might suggest that students are becoming increasingly more concerned for the safety of their classmates. While this is a great step for student health, Harvard should still focus on cracking down on binge drinking altogether.

Binge drinking in college is a huge problem, and the negative ramifications of alcohol are countless. Students are more likely to be arrested, engage in risky sexual activity, and have academic-related problems if they are heavy drinkers. More than 150,000 students will be diagnosed with an alcohol-related health issue each year. What is Harvard doing to stop this? Not enough, and the amnesty policy Harvard has in place is actively hurting the student body. With stricter policies, there might finally be a downward trend in binge drinking, and a happier, healthier student body.

Peter L. Knudson ’13, a Crimson editorial writer, lives in Matthews Hall.