The new arrest statistics may place MSU at the top of the list for alcohol violations, but the university’s reputation should not be judged by those numbers.
The U.S. Department of Education recently released its report on crime for 1999. MSU was at the top of the list for the most on-campus alcohol violations at a four-year, nonprofit institution, with 856 arrests. The University of Michigan was second with 673 arrests and Western Michigan University came in third with 623 arrests.
MSU also placed first in weapons violations with 32 arrests and third in drug violations with 133 arrests.
In 1998, MSU placed second in alcohol violations with 655 arrests and first in weapons violations with 49 arrests. The university topped the list for alcohol violations in 1997 and 1996.
These numbers are not an accurate reflection of MSU. The numbers may be high, but there are many factors that help MSU’s statistics to rise. Too many factors are left out of this report to look at it as an accurate depiction of the university.
While the numbers look high, in relation to the number of students enrolled, the ratio of arrests is minimal. The 856 arrests at MSU are about 1 percent of the total enrollment of more than 43,000 students. With such a large university, the number of alcohol violations is bound to be big. This is also true for U-M and Western Michigan, whose enrollments total 38,103 and 28,657, respectively.
This report should not be used to judge the behavior of MSU students because the arrest numbers do not represent only students of the university where the arrest took place. More than 60 percent of those arrested for alcohol violations on MSU’s campus in 1999 were not MSU students.
Changes in Michigan law must also be included in evaluation of these statistics. In 1998, the minor in possession law became a zero-tolerance policy. This change took away officers’ discretion in individual cases, increasing the number of alcohol arrests on campus and throughout the state.
These numbers are also a reflection of strict law enforcement. The new zero-tolerance policy and strict enforcement by local police allow for more arrests. MSU should not be labeled a “party school” because the local police are doing their job.
The MSU Department of Police and Public Safety is also a strong supporter of disclosing crime information. The department’s commitment to disclosure could also help contribute to MSU’s high numbers.
Too many factors are not taken into account in the Department of Education’s report to use it as a true reflection of the schools included. While the university should be concerned by its rise in ranking, the actual numbers should not be used to judge its reputation.
