Drinking, Alcohol Policy, and Attitudes Toward a Campus Riot

Journal of College Student Development, Sep/Oct 2004 by Kaplowitz, Stan A, Campo, Shelly

Results from a survey of college students (N = 2,008) indicate that most disapproved of a major riot that had occurred on their campus but most also felt that the university was excessively restricting alcohol, and almost half of them enjoyed the riot. The major predictor of condoning the riot was objecting to restrictions against alcohol. However, objection to restrictions and enjoying the riot were primarily predicted by frequency of alcohol consumption. Males, Whites, and younger students were more likely to enjoy the riot than others.

On March 27, 1999, Michigan State University (MSU) lost the Final Four game of the NCAA men's basketball tournament. After the game, a riot broke out near the campus. By some accounts, 10,000 people were part of the rioting crowd, and $150,000 in damage was done, in addition to many physical injuries (Meese, 1999; Preston, 1999; Sell, 1999). This riot was the third one at MSU within less than two years, and gave the university the dubious distinction of having one of the largest campus riots of the past decade.

MSU's experience was by no means unique. Fan violence, when drunken spectators of a sporting event form a large violent crowd (Lewis 1982), has occurred on many occasions in many countries (see, e.g., Marsh & Harre, 1978). Such violence has recently become common on American college campuses as well. A Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe literature search of major newspapers from 1995-2003 found a total of 37 sports related campus riots on 24 different campuses occurring with increasing frequency (O'Toole, 2002).

After the urban ghetto riots of the 1960s, a number of social scientists studied the attitudes of those living in the riot area (Caplan & Paige, 1968; Feagin & Hahn, 1973; Sears & McConohay, 1973). These studies provided insight into the level of support for these riots and also what caused them. However, we are aware of no prior survey of student attitudes toward riots on campus. This study reports a survey of attitudes toward the 1999 riot at MSU and attempts to give us insight as to both the level of support for this riot and its causes.

Alcohol Consumption, Alcohol Policies, and the Riot

One set of plausible explanations for the cause of the riots at MSU involves alcohol consumption. Not only had a very large proportion of the participants been drinking alcohol, but also some students used the March, 1999 riot as a protest against MSU restricting their ability to drink (Durban, 1999; Meese, 1999).

On many campuses, including MSU, college administrators had been trying, for several years, to reduce alcohol consumption. They had become concerned that alcohol on campuses had many negative consequences to the drinkers and to others. These consequences included poor academic performance, property damage, interpersonal violence, injury, death, and riots (Perkins, 2002; Syre, Pesa, & Cockley, 1999). Because of these consequences, college administrators have tried to reduce alcohol consumption by students. One way is through educational interventions; another way is more stringently enforcing prohibitions against alcohol consumption than had been done previously.

Although these restrictions on student drinking often have been motivated by concerns for safety, some have argued that anger at these restrictions has actually fueled further campus riots (Leto, 2001). This study examines the role of both drinking and attempts to restrict it as causes of the riot.

Recent History of Alcohol, Restrictions, and Riots at MSU. By the mid-199Os, there was increasing concern, both in the university and the adjacent community, about the extent of drinking on and near campus. Consequently, both the city and university police began to be less tolerant of drinking, particularly binge drinking (Durban, 1999).

In this climate of decreasing tolerance, the first MSU riot of the decade occurred in 1997. Following this riot, MSU announced a ban on drinking alcohol at Munn Field, a large field near the football stadium, which had been a popular location for student tailgating. On the night of May 1, 1998, a large protest against this ban turned into a larger riot. Afterward, there was a widespread view, among officials and students alike, that the climate that had produced the previous riots could easily lead to another (Julien, 1999). A high profile athletic event, the Final Four game, provided a very conducive occasion: a large number of people who had been drinking, coming outside at the same time (at the conclusion of the game), and concentrated within a small area.

Some Testable Hypotheses About the Riot

Because alcohol use is not only a known risk factor for violence (Perkins, 2002; Stevens, 1998), but was also widely used by the rioters, this suggests

Hypothesis 1: More alcohol consumption led to more favorable attitudes towards the riot.

However, Leto's (2001) view that restrictions caused the frustration that led to the riot suggests

Hypothesis 2: Greater degree of objecting to restrictions against alcohol led to more favorable attitudes towards the riot.