 "Photo: The Volante")
A couple weeks ago I was on the periphery of a group conversation that centered around the issue of social functions and their inextricable tie to drinking. Certainly, it is no secret that the School of Law has a rather prominent culture of drinking, a culture that seems to be the norm if you take into consideration the legal profession as a whole.
This culture, unfortunately, leads to increased rates of addiction and depression amongst attorneys. Approximately 10 percent of Americans suffer from a drug or alcohol addiction. For attorneys, that rate increases to almost 18 percent. Nearly 8 percent of Americans suffer from depression, while approximately one quarter of all attorneys struggle with the same mental health issue. And, given these increased rates of mental health issues amongst attorneys, the American Bar Association reports that more than 50 percent of all disciplinary cases involve impaired lawyers. It is estimated that these numbers are similar for South Dakota lawyers, however, the State Bar does not keep such statistics.
Social functions are a prominent fixture in the professional world. They are key to the legal world, as that is where deals are struck, plea bargains are made and networks and connections grow. With each passing week, announcement after announcement is made, directing students to the next social event, usually sponsored by one of the many organizations and typically held at Vermillion’s venerable Carey’s Bar. For much of the student body this arrangement appears to be fine. However, this culture of free keggers and thrice-weekly socials does nothing more than sully a profession with an unhealing black eye.
This issue of a drinking culture is not dedicated to just the law school. USD has been fighting a binge drinking mentality for a long time. Depending on where you look, it can be argued that in the last couple years more non-drinking activities are available to the campus community. However, with the addition of “Coyote Nation” and football tailgating, maybe there has been a slight regression. I tend to disagree with the last point, only because these students were drinking before the game anyway, only now it is under some semblance of supervision; for whatever that is worth.
A couple questions must be asked. Does anyone want this culture to change? And, if a change is wanted, how do we go about it? I believe there are people who wish to see the drinking culture reduced; however, like the student body, administration officials are a mix bag on the issue. Speaking with students, some who are fellow classmates, graduate colleagues and even undergraduates, as well as, professors, staff and administrators alike, many agree that a shift in attitude must take place. The professors are the ones who have to deal with the less-than-complete student; therefore their ability to teach is hindered. For the other students in the classroom, their educational experience and the value of their education is reduced because of hungover classmates.
My purpose is not to put the kibosh on fun. Most of us are adults and should be treated as such; yet, when our professional students consider the smoke-filled, boozed-soaked Carey’s to be the Mecca for all social functions, a large portion of the professional class is marginalized, left out of the camaraderie that befits a noble profession.
I have been very open about my own battle with alcoholism and current sobriety, which, I believe, places upon me the obligation to address this issue publicly. We need an open dialogue, not one which exists at a whisper in a back room. The collegial and festive atmosphere which drives the law school and the university must not be lost.
But if this state, and all citizens really, are to be properly served by reasoned and prepared advocates, our advocates must be mentally and physically coherent, otherwise a grave injustice is beset upon our society.
Reach columnist David Whitesock at David.Whitesock@usd.edu.
46 comments
There are no resolutions to be had when people refuse to listen.
The world is a broken place, if it wasn't so then we would not have a need for law. We all need to listen and understand the issues and concerns of each other if we want change; regardless of our abilities to spell, use proper grammar, or make solid arguments. A child learning the ways of the world has troubles displaying proper grammar but possess the desire to learn how to be and how to fit in with that world. Why can't we be more like that? "Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference."
---- A Murphy's law.
I applaud you for speaking up for what you believe in and for being an advocate in the truest sense of the word. Your integrity, passionate advocacy and courage represent ideals that many of your colleagues are still trying to attain. I've seen your leadership change lives in the past and I know it will do so again, perhaps already is. Keep your chin up, you've much to be proud of.
SandySandy
2) I wish the writer had taken his concerns to the Law School Administration, rather than putting it in the paper (presumably first). The writer has unnecessarily damaged the reputation of the Law School he is actually attending by putting this in the paper rather than addressing it internally.
3) Nothing is stopping the writer from forming his own group that can hold dry social functions, or that can advocate and campaign against law school groups that have social functions with alcohol.
4) The writer has a total misunderstanding of the Law School's and the state's role (either real, perceived, or desired) in the control of an adult law student's life and personal decisions.
.
If it seriously took you 10 minutes to read this you should consider spending your time on something a little more important. Like learning to read better.