 "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
You're going to have a tough time making it through law school if you don't know the difference between "your" and "you're." Moron.
To the rest of the law students commenting on this column:
Either post under your real names or shut up. If you're going to hurl insults at this guy at least let him know who you are. He made a legitimate argument with his full name -- not to mention a picture of himself -- attached to it. Clearly he touched a nerve or you drunken idiots wouldn't be wasting your "valuable" time refuting him. The best argument against the intelligence of USD's law school is right here on this discussion board. Pathetic.
He's a better writer than the lot of you, and has more life experience than most of you.
Maybe the author wants to promote dialogue by writing this so-called expose. Maybe the author truly wants to help others. Nonetheless, the tone of the article may indicate a possibly less-altruistic and more self-centered motive. If the author really wants to make a difference, he should do so by helping others with his actions rather than attacking others with his ad hominem pen.
Maybe the author wants to promote dialogue by writing this so-called expose. Maybe the author truly wants to help others. Nonetheless, the tone of the article may indicate a possibly less-altruistic and more self-centered motive. If the author really wants to make a difference, he should do so by helping others with his actions rather than attacking others with his ad hominem pen.
Maybe the author wants to promote dialogue by writing this so-called expose. Maybe the author truly wants to help others. Nonetheless, the tone of the article may indicate a possibly less-altruistic and more self-centered motive. If the author really wants to make a difference, he should do so by helping others with his actions rather than attacking others with his ad hominem pen.