On Monday, the elite Californian University Stanford issued a statement banning hard liquor and shots from undergraduate parties. This blanket ban comes following last year’s high-profile sexual assault case surrounding Stanford swimmer Brock Turner and a 23-year-old woman.

The crux of this case, which was highly covered by international media outlets, lay in a skillfully manipulated finger pointing exercise, which saw Brock Turner put all the blame on his Universities “binge drinking culture”. https://twitter.com/JamilSmith/status/768106254078181376 In a statement made to The New York Times last year, Turner tried to absolve himself from any wrong doing blaming alcohol for his vicious assault.

“At this point in my life, I never want to have a drop of alcohol ever again. I never want to attend a social gathering that involves alcohol or any situation where people make decisions based on the substances they have consumed.”

The 23-year-old victim hit back against Turner in a harrowing statement made in court.

“Alcohol is not an excuse. Is it a factor? Yes. But alcohol was not the one who stripped me, fingered me, had my head dragging against the ground, with me almost fully naked”

https://twitter.com/NWCI/status/768368189382295552 The move by Stanford to ban hard liquor from some of its college gatherings is a preposterous one and so ill-conceived. One would assume, that a university of such academic acclaim could trawl back through the annals of collective thought and see that punishing everyone for the actions of one person rarely leads to meaningful reform. By banning hard liquor, it is as though Stanford have accepted the languid narrative that Turner has constructed. This rule is yet another smack in the face to the victim of this atrocious crime, who fought so hard to deconstruct Turners alcohol argument in court. In a letter to Buzzfeed she wrote

“Regretting drinking is not the same as regretting sexual assault. We were both drunk; the difference is I did not take off your pants an underwear, touch you inappropriately and run away”

Brock Turner only gets 6 months in jail for his crime because, well, he's white and rich and a talented athlete and according to the judge at the time "a prison sentence would have a severe impact on him." And what about this woman, who has to live with the trauma of sexual assault for the rest of her life? How does Stanford think that banning the likes of vodka and gin will change rape culture? Are they forgetting about the majority of people who go on college nights out and don't try to rape their classmates? What about all the people who don’t blame their environs for their horrid actions, who own up to what they have done and express sincere regret for their actions. Outspoken critics have labelled the ban as a ‘tone deaf response’, while a spokesperson at Stanford has said that these changes are being made as part of a broader effort to “meaningfully change the campus culture around alcohol”. According to Annie Hoey, President of the Union of Students in Ireland these new rules are a band aid approach to ingrained and systemic abuse cultures that exist in third level education.

"Prohibiting hard alcohol on campus for undergraduate students is not an effective way to tackle the issue of binge drinking or sexual assault. Stanford are using a band aid approach to find a quick fix for years of a prevailing lad culture mentality, sexual assault, and alcohol abuse.Educating students is the only effective way forward."

Michele Dauber, a professor of law at Stanford, echos this sentiment. https://twitter.com/mldauber/status/767796512420093953 As have throngs of irate Twitter users. https://twitter.com/RealLucasNeff/status/768202427883479040 https://twitter.com/Dubloadz/status/768443417957236736 Just because something is banned at official college parties does not mean that students are going to stop doing it. All this ban will do is push binge drinking into dorm rooms and hidden locations, where students may be at an even worse risk of sexual harassment. Would time and money not be way better spend increasing campus security at night and educating students rather than monitoring the drinking habits of some 7,000 undergraduates.