Estimating whether universities should restrict students’ right to party we should analyze the main reasons for which schools ban partying. The majority of universities shut down some party houses because partying is associated with alcohol drinking and the risks of the related incidents, harm to students’ health and the decrease of the rates of learning achievements. Along with physical harm to students’ health, binge drinking involves a number of incidents of violence, including sexual assaults and fights. The majority of universities which ban partying claim that they create the conditions for concentrating students’ efforts on academic activities and prevent situations which threaten student health and safety such as alcohol and substance abuse, vandalism, physical violence. For example, not so long ago, the administration of USC decided to give a ban to 16 partying houses after 8 students have been taken to hospitals because of poisoning with alcohol. “The safety of our community is always number one,” Adams said, who is the IFC’s vice president on public relations (Stepney “Post-Rush IFC Parties Lead to Social Ban”). In fact, most measures that are imposed by the University, including banning the party houses and filling the request forms of alcohol use are aimed at shifting the responsibility from the administration of the educational institution in case any accidents occur. The alcohol intake often becomes a precondition for the incidents of sexual assault and violence, and the University makes attempts to limit the partying time and to minimize the associated risks respectively. It is preferable to pay more attention to more effective ways for informing and protecting students instead of violating their rights. Actually, most students lack the necessary knowledge on secure drinking. Some students say they have completed an alcohol education program which every college student must take before beginning the 1 st year in University, but this measure has proven to be ineffective. Actually, it is not the idea of the course itself but rather the inconsistencies in the content of the program which make the measure ineffective for reducing the risks. From my personal experience I know that these programs provide students with plenty of useless knowledge. For example, one of the recommendations of the program was to insist that peers who look a little drunk should go home even if they refuse to do it. However, implemented in practice, this tip appears to be absolutely useless because, on the one hand, everyone knows that it is preferable to persuade drunk friends to go home and there is nothing new in this point and, on the other hand, the realization of this intent is complicated significantly with the ethical considerations and students’ fear to ruin their reputation and relationship with friends. Some students might think their friends would be angry with them, while others might feel embarrassed. The majority of my fellow students considered the program as boring and confessed that the only reason for which they had taken the course was the University’s requirement. Wasting students’ time, the program does not answer the burning questions, not providing them with the necessary knowledge. Students’ right to party is undeniable because in their age they are ex