Please clarify the editorial policy of The Daily Cardinal. Just about every week, a story is printed about the high rate of binge drinking on college campuses, UW-Madison in particular, and the dangers of excessive drinking to students. As well as how the elimination of drink specials will \drive college-age drinkers ... to unregulated, unsupervised and potentially dangerous house parties."" Then Wednesday the staff opinion, in a complete contradiction, bemoans the possible re-establishment of Operation Sting (""Op Sting must be avoided,"" April 10). So which is it? Does the Cardinal seek to protect students or place them in harm's way?
The most ludicrous assertions made to oppose Operation Sting include: ""We see a number of problems with placing students and police in an adversarial relationship."" That may be. However, it is the students who choose to drink underage or otherwise illegally who have put themselves in an adversarial relationship with the police. The Cardinal's statement is akin to saying that reckless drivers should not be pulled over to avoid an adversarial with motorists. Only students and motorists who are breaking the law are at odds with the cops.
The Cardinal further asserts, ""Patrolling parties will take officers away from answering service calls, which is their primary function."" Both parts of this statement are false. The officers in question are working overtime, not their regular shifts. The shift duties are still handled by the regularly scheduled officers. The ""primary function"" of police is to maintain the peace and stop people from breaking the law. If you are hosting an illegal, unregulated, rowdy house party, it is their function to stop you.
I especially enjoyed the phrase, ""... alleged dangers of college drinking."" It seems to me that the Cardinal has printed many articles that have substantiated those dangers, from sexual assaults to deaths from accidents and overdoses.
I am personally opposed to over-regulation of alcohol on and around campus. I am more opposed to using faulty and self-serving logic to argue a position. If the Cardinal would like to be treated like responsible adults, perhaps it should display the reasoning and honesty to defend a position on its merits.
