SDSU Student Panel Turns Down Ban on Promotions by Alcohol Companies

The San Diego State University student council on Wednesday rejected a much-debated proposal to ban campus promotions, donations and sponsorships by liquor companies.

Although acknowledging the need for programs to encourage responsible drinking, several council members cited financial reasons for voting down the proposal. They argued that alcohol companies constitute a funding mainstay on campus, and, in a recession-squeezed economy, donations to student groups are hard to come by.

“The college and its programs need the money--any way we can get it,” said Eric C. Cortes, a council member representing the Professional Studies and Fine Arts Departments.

Brandon Stauber, council secretary of community affairs, said the amount of money that alcohol companies donate to the 300 groups governed by the Associated Students has not been tracked. However, he used student sports clubs to illustrate campus dependence on donations.

“Fifty percent of the (athletic) clubs are getting sponsored or have approved sponsorship (by liquor companies) and they rely on that money to compete,” Stauber said. “Take it away, and you would be killing the sports club experience.”

Supporters of the proposal touted it as one of the country’s first student-generated measures of its kind.

It would have affected student groups that are registered with and receive funding from the Associated Students.

A clause in the proposal encouraged SDSU’s administration to adopt a similar policy, because the Associated Students has no jurisdiction over university-owned businesses, such as the campus pub and student newspaper.

The proposal came after a recent melee among spectators at an SDSU-UCLA football game at Jack Murphy Stadium.

The proposal would have also offset SDSU’s image as a hard-drinking campus, a faculty supporter said. The campus has been ranked the nation’s third-best party school by Playboy magazine.

“Your reputation had certainly surpassed you,” said Louise Stanger, to the tittering of some council and audience members. Stanger is faculty coordinator for the campus’ substance abuse education and support program.

“Now you have the power to create a (new) campus norm,” she said, “. . . without the excessive drinking.”

Before the 30-member council defeated the proposal by an overwhelming majority, Stanger commended the students for raising the issue on their own. At Chico State, the administration banned campus beer promotions after the alcohol-related riot disrupted the schools’ annual festival.

When criticizing the proposal, several council members also invoked the specter of a “Prohibition-like” atmosphere on campus.

“It’s not just a legal issue,” Cortes said. “It’s a moral issue now.”

Some members said they agreed with the intent of the proposal but voted against it because of problems with “vague wording,” which might unintentionally exclude companies that pose no problems.

In particular, one provision called for prohibiting “alcohol, drug and tobacco sponsorships and/or donations of funds in any way, shape or form by any organization under its jurisdiction and authority.” The provision left in question what to do about advertisements for restaurants selling alcohol or donations from legitimate pharmaceutical companies, opponents said.

Holly Richardson, a member of the campus student drug and alcohol education coalition who lobbied for the ban, said the authors of the proposal plan to make revisions and return it to the council.