Running head: ALCOHOL AND TRADITIONS 1ALCOHOL AND TRADITIONS 11

Theoretical Case Analysis: The Problems of Alcohol, Fraternities and Tradition at the University of Idaho Bruce B. MannSeattle University SDAD 576Professor Jacob DiazMarch 10, 2014

On a freezing January weekend in Moscow, Idaho, Joseph Weiderrick, a University of Idaho (UI) freshman, left the Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) fraternity with an estimated .25-.30 blood alcohol level walking away from campus and his on-campus residence hall. His body was discovered the next day miles away, having succumbed to hypothermia (Eiguren, 2013, Feb 14). In the weeks following the death, UI President M. Duane Nellis created two task forces to evaluate, assess and recommend courses of action around substance abuse and the universitys relations with the Greek system. Student deaths are not common at UI but this incident came on the heels of a spate of incidents involving serious and severe injuries. Since 2004, there have been three students seriously injured and five student deaths as a result of alcohol consumption. The fall of 2009 was marked by two students falling from fraternity house windows within 12 days of each other after consuming alcohol while under the legal age of consumption. In both cases serious injuries were sustained and in one case the fall resulted in permanent brain damage. Two years later an additional fall from a third-floor window of a fraternity house resulted in a fractured pelvis. While these incidents are rare, they highlight an ongoing real and perceived problem on the rural, mid-sized land grant institution around underage use and abuse of alcohol. UI for many years has had the reputation as a party school with a culture of drinking (Sarton, 2013, Feb 5) and after the Weiderrick death the administration appeared to take the problem more seriously with the formation of the two task forces. Binge drinking, alcohol abuse, and the issues that often accompany them (E.g. sexual assault, injuries, death, health problems, poor academic performance) are not new to the UI (or many other colleges) campus. The problem, while the media may exaggerate it at times, does exist at Idaho and attempts have been made to change the culture on campus. This all begs the question of if the problem is known, why havent effective changes been implemented to reduce the issues surrounding alcohol? By employing and examining various organizational theory models, we can better understand system and stakeholder interactions at play at Idaho, and hopefully highlight reasons why major change has yet to happen. The following will analyze UIs alcohol problem by utilizing the organizational anarchy, cultural, and political theoretic perspectives, wrapping up with suggestions on how best to move forward. BackgroundWhile the number of alcohol related incidents at the University of Idaho are not tremendously different than many other mid-to-large sized institutions, it is still a serious problem that has dangerous health and safety consequences. Idahos reputation as a party school is not entirely without merit given its recent legal history. Up to 1987, the legal drinking age in the state of Idaho was 19 and until the early 90s alcohol consumption was permitted wholesale on campus. The lower drinking age placed alcohol at the center of social life on campus and in the small town of Moscow. At one point in the 80s there were over 26 bars mostly along the stretch of streets leading from campus to downtown. After the law changed putting the drinking age in line with the rest of the country, culture began to shift but very slowly. From Dean of Students Dr. Bruce Pitman, It was putting toothpaste back in the tube, because going from a social environment that was not only permissive but legal, to engage in a wide range of social activity that involved alcohol (Tarinelli, 2014, Jan 30). While things have improved, this centering of alcohol in the college life of students has persisted to the present time and cannot be separated from the current issues facing the university.Organized Anarchy PerspectiveThe first organizational perspective we will employ to examine the issue at UI is organized anarchy. Marked by the reality of trying to solve multiple goals and purposes, organized anarchy is not rational in its approach to problem solving. According to Manning (2013), organized anarchies have three main properties: problematic (unclear, contested and competing) goals, unclear technology, and fluid participation. UIs overall structure and function as a large multi-leveled institution with many competing goals can best be understood by employing the organized anarchy model. No one person, especially in a large organization such as UI, can understand all of the goals, realities, and perceptions in the organization leading to a strong sense of uncertainty in the organizational structure (Manning, 2013). This uncertainty combined with the reality of multiple goals and purposes, leads to UI embodying the worst of the organized anarchy model while being too large to reap its benefits related to flexibility. From Manning (2013, p. 15), the unclear and contested goal structures of higher education institutions means that nearly anything can be justified and almost anything could be attacked as illegitimate. These characteristics lead to confusion and therefor stasis in the face of an not easily solved problem such as alcohol issues at UI.Not many stakeholders would disagree that something must be done to work to improve the rates and effects of alcohol abuse on campus, but change has been slow and incremental due to the multiple competing problematic goals and distrust of other stakeholders. Students are resistant to any changes they see infringing on their freedoms and lives; alumni are powerful and protective of their former fraternities and romanticized college life; administrators feel pressure from all sides including the media, State Board of Education, and donors; and student affairs professionals are left to try and produce solutions without the support of the whole campus community. The organized anarchy model is best utilized when the organization can put aside the competing goals to harness the benefits in its flexibility and fluid participation. Yet, especially in the case of UI, that doesnt seem to happen often in reality. The model acknowledges issues with self-interest, irrationality, and competing goals but those factors can render an organization slow to adapt and change, like in this case. Organizational anarchy provides a decent lens in which UIs dysfunction around improvement and change can be understood, but it is limited in helping us understand the other factors at play including the role culture and tradition play in continuing to prop up destructive behavior. Cultural PerspectiveUI was established in 1889 before Idaho was even recognized as a state, so it should come as no surprise that tradition and culture play an important role in the organizational structure and operation. Greek life has played a central role throughout the institutions history in shaping traditions mostly in the positive. Currently, half of the students who live on campus reside in privately owned fraternity and sorority houses and one third of the undergraduate student population are members of a Greek organization. Greek life has played, and continues to play a substantial role in shaping the rules, culture and norms of campus life at UI. At this point it is important to note, however, that while many of the high profile incidents related to alcohol involve the Greek community the problem is not isolated there, residence hall and off campus students drink at similar rates as their Greek counterparts at UI. The power and influence of the Greek community and alumni on the process to improve issues around alcohol can be best understood through the cultural organizational perspective. Culture as a positive force builds community, creates congruence, gives strength and provides clarity (Manning, 2013). The cultural perspective places the organization in the context of history, traditions, and past players with major characteristics that include subcultures, values, symbols, and organizational saga. All of these, and more, are at play at UI in relation to alcohol. From the culture that emerged in the 70s and 80s with the lower drinking age, UI has history, stories, and traditions with alcohol playing a supporting role in student life. Just understanding the culture of an organization is not enough to understand how that culture affects efforts for change. We must examine how the culture and traditions are used to stymie or slow change to those stakeholders for whom the culture holds the most significance. During my time working in student affairs at UI, there were multiple occasions that I listened as Greek alumni (who were also large donors) reminisced on their days on campus and how much fun the party culture was. When specific fraternity chapters have faced sanctions or reviews, when the local police step up alcohol enforcement during football game tailgating, and when changes to the 44-year-old student code of conduct have been proposed, powerful Greek alumni have not been afraid to voice their displeasure with the university. Typically Greek alumni give back to the institution at higher rates than others and with that fact can come a lot of power to attempt to influence policy changes. A common refrain I heard from staff, faculty, and administrations was the idea that UI must be careful about how it goes about fixing issues with alcohol, lest Greek alumni donors see it as an attack on their tradition and culture. In this case the cultural perspective helps us understand the importance that culture can play on a campus and how some stakeholders will use culture and tradition as a reason to oppose change. Unfortunately, the cultural perspective is limited in adequately helping us understand how the whole organization functions and does or does not affect change. When looking at an organization through the cultural lens we tend to focus on the extremes; the positive, community building traditions on one end and the negative, unsafe behaviors on the other. The perspective fails to take a holistic look at the institutions culture including all that it is in the middle. As an aside it also seem best suited, like in this case, to explaining a portion of the institution but not the entire structure. For an organization to be purely conceived in the cultural model would become an anachronism as the world changes around it. Political PerspectiveThe next organizational theory that can help explain the slow pace of change and lack of effective action in dealing with alcohol issues at UI is the political perspective. This lens views the organization as an interacting set of relationships among individuals with differing interests brought together for the sake of expediency (Manning, 2013). The relevant primary characteristics of the political model of organization theory for this case include the presence of coalitions and interest groups, prevailing of inactivity, and conflict as normal. The political perspective can help us understand how the upper-level administration at UI has attempted to deal with the issues involved with alcohol abuse in the past. Disengagement of the majority of stakeholders on the issue has led to influence by special interests and power elites to slow down or derail the process to affect change to the culture. Greek alumni and donors along with current students and national Greek organizations form not-so-loose coalitions to protect their shared interests and promote inactivity. As mentioned previously, past efforts to improve the culture around alcohol consumption have met with virulent opposition by these groups. The political lens can also help explain the decision by the then UI President M. Duane Nellis to move forward to create task forces to examine and provide solutions to the problem. After the death of Weiderrick, the administration received pressure from other (non-Greek) interest groups to start working to solve the problem at UI. The media, State Board of Education, faculty, and staff spoke up in greater numbers than in the past. This put the administration in the position of having multiple, powerful stakeholders with competing goals and agendas. The task force creation had the effect of showing that action was occurring without substantively changing anything at that point. From a political point of view, the administration was attuned to the attention cues of the majority (Manning, 2013), moving to action when faced with rising frustrations regarding the continued pattern of inactivity. They were also able to quell some dissent from the Greek and allied coalitions by staffing the Greek relations task force with almost entirely Greek alumni. This co-optation served to minimize vocal dissent by including them in the process. The UI administration, it appeared, was moved to action after being faced with a political reality that was affecting the image and power of the institution. In this case, the political perspective helps us understand why progress was slow in the past and why finally some movement was made for change. The political model alone, like many of the other organizational theories presented in Manning (2013), is not sufficient to explain the complicated, dynamic factors at play related to trying to change the culture around alcohol on campus. It helps explain the reality of the interactions and influences of the multiple stakeholders, but also falls short in helping understand the entire organization.

Moving ForwardOne single organizational theory cannot totally explain how an organization functions when dealing with problems and working toward change. UI is a large, multi-level organization with multiple stakeholders and coalitions that all have influence on the decisions of the university. The decision to create the Greek relations and alcohol task forces by the President represents the interplay of the political model with the bureaucratic and organized anarchy perspectives. The Division of Student Affairs along with the local police department have been working to solve the problem of underage drinking and general alcohol abuse for years but with only small gains to show. This can be attributed to multiple factors but a primary one is that without broad institutional support and solidarity across stakeholder lines, innovative programs and changes have an uphill battle in the fight to improve student health and safety. Solving the problems associated with underage drinking, binge drinking, alcohol abuse, and the myriad of problems resulting from overconsumption, is not an easy task. It is also not a problem that is specific to the UI campus, but that does not absolve UI from trying to find solutions. The Presidential task forces came back with their recommendations in the fall that include most notably changes to the student code of conduct (which had not been updated since 1969) and more university oversight of the Greek community. These are valid and valuable changes, but it remains to be seen if it will be enough to overcome the powerful role culture and tradition plays on the UI campus. From a legal and moral perspective, UI must concern itself with issues of student safety but it must also be willing to go beyond incremental changes in order to affect broad, lasting change. While increased oversight of the Greek community is a positive, more must be done to change the attitudes and values of the entire student community, Greek and non-Greek alike. In my opinion this is where the organizational theories presented by Manning fall short from a critical multiculturalism and social justice perspective. They all fail to adequately consider the role privilege, power, patriarchy, misogyny, sexism and racism play in shaping our organization. We live and work in systems that are set up to privilege those in power who tend do what they need to hold on to that power. Any organizational theory that fails to address these issues is incomplete and only serves to help understand a piece of an organization rather than the whole. The University of Idaho would be best served by critically examining its systems of privilege and oppression and how they related to the issues of safety, health and alcohol abuse.

ReferencesEiguren, Elisa. (2013, Feb 14). Moscow police: Wiederricks BAC as high as .3 percent. The Argonaut. Retrieved from http://www.uiargonaut.com/2013/02/14/moscow-police wiederricks-bac-as-high-as-3-percent/Manning, Kathleen. (2013). Organizational Theory in Higher Education. New York, NY: Routledge.Sarton, Dee. (2013, Feb 5). UI student deaths raise concern over culture of drinking. KTVB. http://www.ktvb.com/news/Police-UI-respond-to-culture-of-binge-drinking-perception- after-student-death-189956491.htmlTarinelli, Ryan. (2014, Jan 30). University of Idaho old school. The Argonaut. Retrieved from http://www.uiargonaut.com/2014/01/30/university-of-idaho-old-school/