The college I attended in the mid-1990s had the distinction of being voted the 2nd biggest party school in its size. No, that’s not why I chose it. And while I had my own circle of dry friends — all of us less than 21 years of age — I soon learned that binge drinking was common among students of all ages.

Nationwide, over 40 percent of students are reportedly binge drinkers. This means they consume five or more drinks in a row for men and four or more drinks in a row for women. Think of it as drinking for the sake of getting drunk.

The stereotype of college partying is deeply entrenched in America. Just think of the 1978 film Animal House, the free speech/“free love” movement, and the modern day spring break party-trips to Florida and Mexico. There’s a widely held expectation that college students will consume vast amounts of alcohol.

In the 1990s, college presidents declared alcohol abuse the greatest threat to campus life. Task forces were launched. Studies were published. Over time increased attention was given to the significant linkage between sexual assault and extreme drinking. Yet here we are in 2017 and the party hasn’t stopped. The binge drinking rate has held steady at north of 40 percent for the past few decades.

Enforcement vs. Message

A 2016 report from The Chronicle of Higher Education looked at the last 30-40 years of alcohol abuse prevention on college campuses. Their conclusion: “The message isn’t what changes behavior. Enforcement changes behavior.”

Messaging refers to efforts such as requiring incoming freshmen to watch an online video warning of the dangers of alcohol abuse. Or workshops on how to resist peer pressure. Or recovery programs for problem drinkers. Or “social norming” campaigns, which try to persuade students that their peers don’t drink as much as it seems. And that’s true: Not everyone is doing it. In fact, 20 percent never drink, and one third of students who drink do so less than once per month.

But trying to educate students into changing their behavior doesn’t seem to work. I suspect it doesn’t work because students already know what the dangers are. But the thrill is so inviting. They binge drink not just to fit in, but because it feels good. They want to experience a transformed personality, to let loose on an adventure where “anything might happen.” And in the moment the short-term gains seem better than any long-term repercussions.

So if more messaging doesn’t work, what does? Enforcement and community-based prevention both show promise. Things like monitoring the pre-football game tailgate parties — and cracking down on those violating the campus alcohol policy. Or doing the same thing at the late-night fraternity, sorority, and dorm-hosted parties. Or enforcing local ordinances that hold hosts liable for the misbehavior of their drunken guests. Or trying to restrict the number of nearby outlets selling alcohol. Or working to reduce cheap drink specials at local bars. Or using DUI checks, underage decoys, and party patrols.

Fewer than half of colleges consistently enforce their own alcohol policies, let alone engage their local communities. Why? For one, these efforts are time-consuming and costly. The other problem is that many boosters and alumni have fond memories of events where alcohol use can easily get out of control.

For example, Duke University had a tradition known as Tailgate. It was an all-day party in a parking lot on the day of each home football game. Think costumes, loud music, students funneling beer, and a huge mess left for the janitorial staff. Not the best way to present the campus to the community. But the party went on until 2010. That was the year a 14-year old sibling of a student was found passed out in a portable toilet. Bucknell University had to cancel their annual House Party weekend for similar reasons.

Even after well-intended efforts at education, too many students lack self-government.

An Underlying Issue

Why is it that the only way to cut down on the madness is to restrain students from doing what they want to do: Get and abuse alcohol? Because even after well-intended efforts at education, too many students lack self-government.

Could it be that decades of moral relativism are coming home to roost? Most 18-25 year olds today believe that right and wrong are determined by their feelings — that as long as I’m not hurting someone, there’s no higher authority than what makes me happy.

But if we expect students to restrain their impulses, they need a larger sense of purpose. Unless we’re pursuing a cause that’s greater than ourselves, unless we have a sense of what’s supremely valuable, we’re likely to be tossed around by our baser desires.

Thomas Chalmers, the great 19th century preacher, put it this way: “The best way of casting out an impure affection is to admit a pure one; and by the love of what is good, to expel the love of what is evil.” May more of our students know this love of what is good, and be mastered by it.

Dr. Alex Chediak (Ph.D., U.C. Berkeley) is a professor and the author of Thriving at College (Tyndale House, 2011), a roadmap for how students can best navigate the challenges of their college years. His latest book is Beating the College Debt Trap. Learn more about him at www.alexchediak.com or follow him on Twitter (@chediak).