April 1, 1997

ee The Panther Prints

Barn committee passes

By CRYSTAL DAWNCROSSAN

On March 10, 1997, the Barn committee passed a new rule stating that any underage individuals who wished to at- tend Barn events must be post- secondary students and be able to provide identification prov- ing so. This same rule also allows for anyone 19 or older to attend Barn events whether or not they are post-secondary students. This new rule has caused considerable amounts of heated discussions on cam- pus and amongst non post- secondary students. The “17+ Rule” raises a number of is- sues pertinent to both non post- secondary students and post- secondary students alike. The actual rule was made by a Barn committee which is active throughout the year, according to Panther Lounge manager Cara Hedefine. This committee makes decisions on pricing, admission and other lounge is- sues. The Student Union’s spokesperson Chris Gray was unavailable for an interview, however UPEI security and students were, and they were more than willing to discuss this issue. The ‘decision to ‘make this rule has seemingly sprung from several security incidents which occurred at the I Mother Earth concert. During this concert, four arrests were made. Of these arrests, one individual (who was not from UPEI) was 19 and the others were 17 and 18 year old high school students. According to UPEI security, there was al-

cohol involved in each case. It

is understandable that the 19 year old could be served alco- hol at the concert. The main issue, however, lies in the three underage cases. A number of

individuals seemed-to be under -

the impression that the stu- dents had been issued “wet” tickets and were served alco- hol at the Barn. This, how- ever, Was not the case. Secu-

new admission policy

rity stated that the students arrived at the Barn intoxicated.

Does the fact that three underage students arrived at the Barn intoxicated and caused trouble give just cause for the “17+ Rule”? Some UPEI students do not think so. The general consensus was that ifthe people arrived drunk, they should not have been ad- mitted into the concert; after all, their ticket and identifica- tion would show them to be underage. The other question raised by UPEI students con- cerned the other underage attendees: how many under- age people went to the concert that did not cause trouble; were thethree troublemakers enough in number in comparison to the others to merit the “17+ Rule’?

Other student comments seemed to support a different side of the argument alto- gether. One student believes that a university event is not the place for high school stu- dents to begin with, while an- other student thought that if Barn events are going to be limited to one side of the post- secondary line, it should also be limited to the other side. In other words, if Barn events are not going to be open to underage non post-secondary students, these events should also be closed to non post- secondary individuals who are of age.

; UPEI Security believes that the “17+ Rule” should cut down on the number of secu- rity incidents at Barn events; however, Security also be- lieves that there are other pos-

_Sible alternatives to the “17+

Rule.” The most plausible al- ternative would be to have a strictly enforced sign-in policy. This would involve a UPEI student signing in guests aged 17+ as well as 19+ non-UPEI students. The guests would be required to leave a piece of photo ID which would be re- turned upon being signed out by the UPEI student. The UPEI student signing in guests

would assume full responsibil- ity for his/her guests. Having to accept full responsibility for guests would encourage UPEI students to be cautious about who they sign in and would

also encourage them to “keep an eye” on their guests. Although Security be- lieves there are other alterna- tives to the “17+ Rule”, Direc- tor of Security John McEntee

supports the Barn committee’s decision to make a change which will prevent more secu- rity incidents.