A drug policy is not enough
As a parent, I want universities to do more than ban drugs on paper. Students need safe housing, credible follow-up, and the confidence to call for help.
Two of my children told me drugs were easy to find at the colleges they attended. They described people using them regularly in dorms.
That bothered me. Not because I expect a university to control every decision a young adult makes. But a dorm is someone’s home. Students should not have to accept drug use around them as part of getting a college education.
The recent reporting about alleged sexual assault at Cornell’s Chi Phi fraternity brought those conversations back to me. The allegations concern an incident in 2024 and remain contested. Cornell says it shut down the chapter and expelled or suspended students. An independent review of its response was announced on October 6. It would be wrong to say the university did nothing. It is reasonable to ask whether it did enough, and soon enough. AP’s report
My children’s experiences are not evidence about Cornell. Nor does drug use explain away sexual violence. Responsibility for assault belongs to the person who commits it, not to someone who drank or took drugs.
But there is a broader question here. When students say their living environment is unsafe, what happens next?
The rules already exist
Cornell’s housing rules prohibit cannabis. Alcohol is treated differently: students 21 and older may drink under specific conditions, including a requirement that everyone present in the residence room or suite be 21 or older. That is not permission for unrestricted drinking or drug use. Cornell’s residential policies
So the question is not simply why universities allow it. The question is whether their rules mean anything in practice.
National research puts some scale around the issue. In the University of Michigan’s 2025 survey data, 25.2% of full-time college students in its typical college-age sample reported cannabis use in the previous month. Binge drinking was reported by 20.3% in the previous two weeks, a historic low for that survey. These numbers do not tell us where students used substances or whether staff ignored complaints. They do tell us this is a substantial issue without supporting the claim that everyone is doing it or everything is getting worse. Monitoring the Future, Chapter 4
A student should not have to police their roommate
Imagine reporting repeated drug use in your room, then having to sleep there that night. You might worry about retaliation, losing friends, or becoming the person everyone blames for getting someone into trouble.
A reporting process that ignores that position is incomplete.
Students need a private way to raise concerns, a clear explanation of what happens next, and someone responsible for following through. They should not have to collect evidence themselves or keep confronting the person they reported.
Moving the student who complained may provide immediate protection. It should not be the university’s entire response while the underlying conduct continues.
Enforcement needs to do more than look tough
There is evidence that targeted action can work. A randomized trial across 14 California universities combined measures including enforcement around nuisance parties, underage alcohol sales, and impaired driving. It found reduced intoxication at off-campus parties and bars, without detecting an increase in other settings. This was research on alcohol, published in 2010, not proof that the same approach solves every drug problem. Safer California Universities trial
The useful lesson is that enforcement can focus on the places and practices creating risk. A blanket ban is not a substitute for that work.
At the same time, students must be able to call for medical help without stopping to calculate the punishment. A study of 1,246 first-year students found no increase in drinking or related physiological consequences after a medical-amnesty policy was introduced. That is evidence against assuming that protecting emergency calls simply encourages more drinking. Medical-amnesty study
A student asking for treatment, someone repeatedly endangering a roommate, and someone supplying drugs or coercing others need different responses. Compassion does not require ignoring harm. Enforcement does not require treating every student as a criminal.
Show families what happens after a complaint
I do not need access to another student’s disciplinary record. I want universities to explain how quickly reports are assessed, how repeat complaints are connected, and what protection is available to someone who reports a problem.
I also want to know whether the response worked. Did the conduct stop? Did the student feel safe afterward? Was the same room or organization reported again?
Fewer complaints alone would not convince me. That could mean fewer problems, or less confidence that reporting will help. Universities should ask students directly and publish anonymized results alongside their enforcement figures.
Students are responsible for their choices. Universities are responsible for how they manage the housing and communities under their control.
I am not asking for searches of every backpack or surveillance in every corridor. I am asking for credible reports to lead to credible action.
A student should not have to choose between staying quiet and feeling safe where they live.