In "Students Are Dying; Colleges Can Do More," Rob Waldron believes that colleges can do more to prevent college students from drinking and driving. Waldron's brother, Ryan, died from drinking and driving after attending a party. Since then, he has been trying to resolve the problem of drinking and driving. He argues that if colleges attacked the issue more seriously, there would not be as much "drinking and driving" related deaths. I disagree with Waldron for reasons of inconvenience, economics, as well as unfairness.
             Taking responsibility for students getting behind the wheel is an inconvenience to colleges. Waldron contends that "college administrators can work harder to keep kids like Ryan from getting behind the wheel" (26). Colleges could do more if they wanted to lose their money and be liable for all of the accidents drunk-driving students are involved with. In addition, Waldron mentions that if colleges were responsible, they would "have the president of the university meet with the mayor to create a unified policy toward drunk driving," but this, too, would take an awfully long time, and colleges would put a lot of focus and effort into it (26). As long as colleges have other issues to attend to and other responsibilities to take care of, they will have a hard time finding time to give to the issue. Colleges should not be responsible for students because it would take too much time and money. Students should be liable for themselves; thus, it is not the college's responsibility to "baby sit" students.
             Colleges would waste money in the fight of abolishing drinking and driving. Waldron believes that colleges should "find town officers to patrol the campus for out-of-control drivers on weekend evenings" (26). Hiring town officers would waste the college's money, and there are already police officers around town enforcing no drinking and driving as well as other laws. Also, students are responsible enough to not need town ...