James Madison University - Bluestone Schoolmaam Yearbook (Harrisonburg, VA)

Page 31 text:

Carlos Castells; and Dave Carter, who scooped up his second consecutive popular appeal prize. The Eagle girls grabbed the no comment award with their comedy chant. The Octoberfest parade on Saturday morning featured floats, bands, and antique cars. The twelve Ms. Madison contestants, each sponsored by a campus organization, rode in the parade. The football game featured the Dukes against Frostburg State with the home team taking a 28-6 victory. At halftime Julie Hull, representing the Men ' s Lacrosse Club, was presented the Ms. Madison crown Performing the routine they used at the Baltimore Colts game, the Marching Dukes received a standing ovation for a magnificent halftime show. Homecoming 27

Page 30 text:

If Building and Grounds is bringing out Mums, it has to be HOMECOMING ! Octoberfest proved a fitting theme for Homecoming as students flocked to bacchanalias on frat row, N-complex, and the quad. Homecoming events included the hypnotist James Mapes, the third annual Jayemu Revue, the parade, the football game, and halftime. James Mapes captivated a packed Wilson Hall for the third consecutive year. The hypnotist extraordinaire sent vi ' illing students on a trip to an imaginary planet, to the movies, to an ice-cream licking contest, and finally returned them to Wilson Hall ' s stage. The third annual Jayemu Revue played to a capacity auditorium, with Geno the Clown who emceed the spectacle with acts like the suicide squeeze, the non-bursting balloon, and fire swallowing. Prize winners included Doug Thompson; Carle Cartf popu m camp Ttie ffostt «3Spi fechi sniagi ■it ' ll n 26 Homecoming

Page 32 text:

Experimental Alcohol Policy Formulated The purpose of the Experimen- tal Alcohol policy according to the student handbook is to allow members of the University com- munity to make their own choices regarding the use of alcohol in a private room or suite and to as- sume full responsibility for such use by residents and their guests. The experimental policy began March 29, 1978, with the main premise of allowing beer kegs in dorms. Designed to permit stu- dents more choices and more re- sponsibility according to Mike Webb, Director of Residence Halls, (The Breeze, March 28, 1978), the policies formed a major step in liberalizing campus alcohol con- trol. They allow students ' as many privileges as they ' re willing to take responsibility for. ' Previously the university alcohol policy prohibited the presence of kegs within dorms. No stipulations were made as to the quantity of al- cohol or the number of guests al- lowed. Installation of the experimental policy strictly delineated alcohol use. It consisted of two separate policies, one dealing with recre- ation rooms and the second with individual rooms and suites. Parties within a single room which involved ten or more people were required to be registered. A limit of one quarter keg per room and two in suite areas was placed. Recreation rooms were made available for registered private parties serving beer. Guest num- bers were to be limited by the fire safety code. Beer could only be served until midnight, an alternate, non-alcoholic beverage had to be provided, and food and refresh- ments were encouraged. Adver- tisement of party and sale of al- coholic beverages were prohibited without a banquet license. The hosts assumed full respon- sibility for party control and penal- ties for violations were to be de- termined by the Inter-Hall Council. Announcement of the policies prompted as much student criti- cism as praise. Prompted by these reactions, Mike Dewitt, a past SGA president, in a Breeze guestspot denounced 28 Alcohol Policy student criticism of the proposals. Dewitt defended the policy against attacks of its harshness. He pointed out that the other institu- tions did not have the good hous- ing, student services and activities Madison has. Dewitt made the point that the academic environ- ment of JMU must control the so- cial environment; or there should at least be a balance between the two. Due to its success use of the original experimental policy con- tinued the beginning of the 1978 fall semester. But on September 25, 1978, a modification dealing primarily with the problems of crowd con- trol and state alcoholic law viola- tions was issued. To eliminate these problems, new criteria were established for the maximum number of parties which could be held in a specific hall on a particu- lar floor in one evening. Addition- ally, violations were to be referred to the University Judicial System rather than the originally desig- nated special hearing committee. Due to the subsequent changes in the alcohol policy approxi- mately 70 students gathered on the quad September 29 to protest. The protest was largely unorga- nized and fizzled out quickly. A petition, protesting changes, cir- culated around campus gathering over 1000 signatures before it was presented to Lacy Daniels, Dean of Students. Open hearings were conducted by a subcommittee of the Com- mission on Student Services in mid-November. At this time stu- dents were encouraged to express their own views on the policy and its effects. During the four hear- ings discussion centered around the size of the kegs allowed, rec- reation room parties, the respon- sibility of the hosts and limits on the number of parties within dorms. Subsequent comparison to other school ' s policies prompted queries to the Alcoholic Beverage