During my first three years at Dartmouth I didn’t drink alcohol. Almost exactly four years ago, as I prepared to graduate from high school, my liver failed, attacked by my own immune system. Due to my organ’s fragile state, alcohol was deemed no longer safe for me. Although my doctors granted me a cautious go-ahead for infrequent—and modest—alcohol consumption last spring, my on-campus relationship with alcohol was different from that of most of my fellow students. Three years ago I was Alpha Delta’s only “dry pledge.” This was never a problem. No one ever questioned my decision or pressured me to drink. It was just different. Thus my perspective on drinking at Dartmouth is different as well.

Students here drink too much. There are any number of negative outcomes one can look to as evidence of this claim: hospitalizations, fights, sexual assaults, arrests, dangerous blood-alcohol levels. No one can argue—persuasively or logically—that Dartmouth’s drinking culture is “healthy” or “safe.” Presumably it is for this reason that President Jim Kim recently announced his new learning collaborative on high-risk drinking.

Most individuals familiar with students’ drinking habits have at least one idea of how to reform the social scene in Hanover. In official College meetings and casual lunch-table conversations I’ve heard countless proposals for how one might “fix” drinking practices on campus: get rid of pong, restrict hard alcohol, ban freshmen from parties, derecognize Greek houses. The list goes on. Student publications regularly offer cure-all proposals: The College should encourage kegs and restrict cans. If you want to slow the pace of alcohol consumption, it seems rather obvious that a Greek house can distribute a thousand cans way faster than it could empty just one keg.

Though this line of reasoning might initially seem enticing, it’s important to resist such silver-bullet approaches. Insofar as these top-down rule changes do not derive from the perspectives and opinions of the students, they could never be successfully implemented. There is no quick fix. There is no policy overhaul or regulatory shift that could instantly alter alcohol intake on campus. If the fraternities and sororities serve less alcohol (i.e., cans are banned), students will buy their own alcohol and drink in their rooms before going out. Instead of having a beer every hour at a fraternity or sorority, they might have five shots before the night even begins. The specifics of this particular example are not important. My point is broader. It’s the mindset of the students—their collective attitude toward alcohol—that must change if we hope to create a safer drinking culture. Not the College’s current social event management procedures (SEMP). Not the enforcement guidelines of Safety & Security or the judicial affairs office. Not the number of gender-neutral social spaces or dry, College-sponsored parties.

Because I was a sober observer, for the past four years, I have an unadulterated understanding of why students drink so much: It’s not because of boredom or isolation, it’s not because of Greek life or the cold winters. These are excuses, not reasons. Dartmouth students drink because they want to drink.

I am not arguing that no College policy or regulation concerning alcohol use could be effective, but any rules must be more heavily informed by student input. Consulting with the Student Alcohol Harm and Reduction Committee, although a step in the right direction, is not enough. The current framework for how we as a community think about binge drinking on campus is fundamentally wrongheaded. Any policy change that might be successful—obeyed by students—must come from them. Not directly from the president’s office and not from the office of Greek letter organizations and societies (GLOS).

I worry that GLOS and Kim are attempting to tackle a problem they do not fully understand. This is not the type of issue that can be remedied without adequate information. There is no CliffsNotes on high-risk drinking at Dartmouth, so regulations and policy changes coming from the administration are, and will continue to be, out of touch with reality.

Most students feel it is unreasonable to allow only two active kegs at a registered party attended by more than 500 students of legal age. A lot of students think it’s laughable that they are supposed to register with administrators and identify a sober monitor any time people are drinking in the fraternity—even if there are no nonmembers. If these guidelines were actually followed, most fraternities would be registered every single night. Such protocols entirely miss the point. I wonder why Kim and Kristi Clemens, until recently the acting head of GLOS, did not hold regularly scheduled meetings with the Greek houses when drafting new SEMP policies—or why Kim did not at least  meet with every president and social chair from every Greek house. I wonder why SEMP changes were imposed on students instead of drafted by them. Why have there not been in-depth, widespread, anonymous student surveys asking about all aspects of the Dartmouth social scene? The fissure between alcohol-related policies and alcohol-related practices is enormous.

The administration must recognize that the students are its most valuable resource in addressing this issue. Would Dartmouth students even be open to such change? Yes. The general sentiment coming from a lot of my classmates at graduation time was that they are looking forward to a few months of “detox.” After four years of beating up our bodies, a consensus has emerged that if we were here in Hanover for another year, everyone might get liver disease.

In late May I went out with a few Dartmouth ’08s in Manhattan. None of them drank the same amount—or at the same pace—as they did while undergraduates. When I told them I was writing about campus alcohol (ab)use for DAM, all of them were quick to tell me that the way students drink on campus is both stupid and not viable in the so-called “real world.”

Here is a metaphor that might illustrate my point. I have two golden retrievers at home: Harry, who is 5, and Moxie, who is still a puppy. If Moxie even thinks he hears the clanging of his chow being poured into his bowl, he’ll sprint down the stairs and devour it in less than 30 seconds. Harry, on the other hand, is more patient. If we left Harry alone with a dump truck of dog food, he would eat a few cups every day. If we left Moxie alone with that same food, he would eat and eat and eat until he vomited. Sound familiar? This maturity or temperance is precisely what we need to cultivate at Dartmouth. Bringing about that moment when one asks, “Why am I doing this?” should be the College’s first priority with regard to high-risk drinking. I assure you, such a proactive, preventative approach will be more consequential and successful than any current systems.

The average Dartmouth student’s attitude toward alcohol, not the campus environment, must be the target of any policy changes. The student, after all, is the lowest common denominator in every case of binge drinking. If the Greek system were abolished, not only would the alumni base suffer a collective aneurysm, but students would continue to drink. They would drink in different ways, in other environments, but they would still drink. You would not be getting at the root of the problem.

How do we cultivate a social scene that does not revolve around blacking out? How do we inspire an environment in which students can party without harming themselves or others?

It is a cop-out to argue that Dartmouth students will always binge drink. It’s also wrong. Sooner or later unsafe alcohol consumption (such as today’s 20 beers or 10 shots in a few hours) will have gone the way of cigarette-smoking: existent but by no means dominant.

Here are three suggestions that might trigger change:

1.) Every house should meet every term with officers from the Hanover police department as well as Safety & Security. Cooperation and the exchange of information would be much more effective than the current cat-and-mouse game that is both antagonistic and deceitful.

2.) Administrators need to educate themselves about what actually happens in the basements of Hanover. Students need to educate themselves to the risks they are taking with drugs and alcohol every night. This will require better educational programming than alcoholedu.com or posters in Collis—and the distribution of mandatory student-written surveys that address students’ social habits.

3.) Students must play a larger role in writing new College alcohol and SEMP policies if a greater sense of ownership is to develop. Affiliated students might actually obey and enforce the rules. Now, very few students are concerned with adhering to College alcohol policy.

I don’t know what the student body will come up with. I don’t know exactly how we can bring about the much-needed shift in how we think about partying. But we should try. Strict enforcement, harsh punishment and tight regulation are reactive measures aimed at the symptom rather than the disease.

Given adequate information, I honestly believe the College and the students could come together and construct an infrastructure that is reasonable—one that lets students get drunk—but also ensures this is happening in a safe way. Administrators must reach out to students in a proactive, cooperative way. Students must make their voices heard and take ownership of this campus so individuals can drink alcohol without putting anyone in danger.

Owen Jennings, a philosophy major and a frequent contributor to The Dartmouth as an undergraduate, now works for Bridgewater Associates in Westport, Connecticut.