With the beginning of the school year comes Washington University’s newly articulated Medical Amnesty and Active Bystander Protocol. The protocol states that students or groups seeking medical assistance in alcohol-related emergencies—either for themselves or for another—will not be disciplined for the “presence, possession, or use of alcohol.” A step forward from Wash. U.’s traditionally ambiguous expectations surrounding alcohol, the protocol will hopefully encourage students to seek help for themselves and/or their peers when they’re in danger. However, the protocol’s vague wording leaves much to be desired.

The protocol states that, while students who seek help under medical amnesty will not face disciplinary measures for drinking, they will be required to attend a “wellness follow-up meeting” and may be subject to additional “mandatory wellness measures.” What exactly these meetings and measures entail is unclear, as the protocol offers nothing more than “not punitive,” “educational” and “intended to help the student.”

By failing to define the nature of the wellness meetings, the administration leaves

room for inconsistency. Will the content and tone of the meetings depend on the faculty member the student meets with (also undefined), or will these meetings follow a standard format? What would that format look like? The effectiveness of the policy relies on student expectation, and while the term “wellness meeting” may be meant to encourage positive expectations, the lack of definition leads to confusion over whether these “extra measures” result in admonishment or access to genuinely helpful resources.

We at Student Life hope that the meetings will be non-judgmental, realistic, consistent in their implementation and conducive to behavior changes for a healthier lifestyle. Given these qualifications, the meetings should provide students who have a drinking problem with the resources necessary to recognize and address unhealthy habits. The content of these meetings begs description beyond “not punitive” and “educational” if the policy is to function at the highest level of effectiveness.

The policy also states that disciplinary action will not be pursued against groups that seek help in an alcohol-related emergency, except for cases in which the group engages in other violations of conduct, such as sexual assault or violence, hazing and property damage. In these cases, medical amnesty will not extend to participating students. While these exceptions seem logical, the hazing exception in particular can result in problems. For instance, if a student becomes dangerously intoxicated as a result of hazing, is the group less likely to seek help for the student knowing that the participants will face disciplinary measures for the hazing activity? Questions like these could limit the policy’s effectiveness for larger events and groups.

As an administration, Washington University puts itself in a difficult place when it comes to articulating substance policies. Though the University can’t realistically condone the underage use of alcohol, failing to acknowledge the prevalence of underage drinking in college is equally harmful. Medical amnesty will hopefully start a realistic conversation on campus about drinking culture and its effect on students.

Overall, the protocol could be a helpful addition to the University for the safety and wellness of its students, but without more concrete explanation of its various elements, the protocol’s effectiveness may

be lost under the power given to the administration by its ambiguity.