Parents have an extraordinarily difficult task. During their children's younger years, it is necessary to observe their every action to ensure appropriate learned behavior. They must set rules for their children to follow and enforce punishments if they are broken. However, in following years, this infrastructure that was once so meticulously followed by both children and parents must be torn down and replaced. By this time, both parties have outgrown this system and children should be allowed more responsibilities and privileges on the part of the parents as they grow up.

When will it be time for St. Olaf to change in a similar manner? Over the past 126 years, its "children" have changed dramatically. Students now come from all over the country and many different countries as well. There are the beginnings of just a hint (gasp!) of diversity. And the students' morals and attitudes towards society have changed with the times as well. However, though St. Olaf has improved a little, with many residual restrictions that were imposed decades ago, often times it still feels as though the administration is pressuring us to live in a 1950s-like manner.

Just look at current living situations. Though the male side and female side of the campus have been integrated, it's not enough. Honor houses are still unable to house both male and female students at once. Regardless how strong one's convictions towards volunteering or how

friendly one is with other occupants of a house, if the gender of that person isn't the same as others in the house, they are refused. And why? Several of these houses aren't full and it's not as though there are an inadequate number of bathrooms.

The same is true with residence halls. Most of them could easily be converted to house co-ed floors, for which many students have advocated. Hoyme and Ytterboe have different wings which could be divided into different gender. Ellingson and Kihldahl have floors that could be split in halves and given to different genders, both with no problem of co-ed bathrooms. Some halls could remain in their current status, as some people might not like such an atmosphere, but many support this action.

Another archaic policy would be that of alcohol. As already pointed out by Erika Toftness in last week's issue, the stance taken by St. Olaf seems quite absurd. Not only are those of legal age denied having the right of drinking on campus, this position seems to be fostering a negative effect. While still a prospect, I was told by an Admissions worker that this forces the college to essentially turn its back on those in trouble. Since "nobody drinks on St. Olaf," the programs aimed to help those with problems are paltry and overly chastising. The students realize as soon as they hit campus that drinking goes on. Those who become JCs or RAs often take this into account when discussing alcohol with their residents. The vast majority of them say basically the same thing: if you're going to drink, don't be stupid. "Stupid" here would imply drinking to excess, being loud and reckless, or calling attention to oneself. If the student authority realizes that drinking cannot be stopped and should instead be permissible and regulated, why can't the administration?

These and other principles are still valid because St. Olaf chooses to keep them so. It seems to long for those "good old days" when all students who hadn't finished studying by the lights out at eleven had to go study in bathrooms (this happened, trust me). In this way, it is acting like a parent who still wishes its adolescent offspring was still seven years old and thus treats it likewise. Issues ranging from these two to those of the lack of parking, the inability to live off campus, the demise of the futuristic Paracollege and others still plague campus, and more specifically, the students. When a college should be about helping students achieve their dreams for the future, this one wants to imagine we are like those from fifty years ago. The time has come for this parent to let go and help its children to their future.