Continuing its quest to improve campus social life, the Student Union has found what is by far its best idea to date: subsidized parties.It turns out, according to the results of a Union survey on myBrandeis and a forum on social life it hosted, students by and large do not prefer campuswide events like the now-defunct Modfest, which the administration had been so on-edge about. It seems we instead favor smaller parties in on-campus suites. And so, having met an unsurprising defeat with the relatively underattended Purple Rain, the Union, as its President Alison Schwartzbaum '08 announced in her State of the Union address in December, is shifting gears.

By subsidizing up to $50 one registered party per week, the Union hopes to encourage small-scale partying on campus. Drawing from the Union's social-life fund, Union Director of Social Affairs Cindy Kaplan '08 and an ad hoc committee will choose the most worthy parties, whose hosts-typical open parties can cost well over $100-will no doubt find the assistance a boon.

We commend the Union for this idea, but hope they will recognize that its implementation will be tricky. There's no sense in allowing a good idea to fizzle for lack of foresight.

Those evaluating applications should reward creative or themed parties; a receipt that includes tortilla chips, sombreros and a piSata should be more deserving than one listing only a few handles of tequila. But the question of who should make those decisions-and exactly how they should be made-remains.

As it stands, Ms. Kaplan and other Union members will decide which parties receive funding. The Union should strive for objectivity when choosing which party gets the money, however. Codifying the policy will prevent whoever selects the "winning party" from playing favorites-now and in the future.

With only one grant available each week, a selection process makes the most sense, but the reality that dry parties will attract fewer party-goers raises questions about how-and whether-the grants should be restricted. The allowance would not be paid out until after the parties are held so that suites that are written up for violations of University policy-including serving alcohol in a dry quad or suite-can have their money withheld.

Although students in dry suites run the risk of being written up if they serve alcohol at their parties, they shouldn't necessarily be barred from applying for funds in the first place. But the alternative-forbidding dry suites from applying for the funds-is not ideal, either, because it would unfairly bar underage students from having their parties reimbursed. The catch-22 seems unavoidable, and merits much conversation.

The possibility for abuse exists, as well. Of course, Union officials should not be stopping by parties for compliance checks, but they must also ensure that the money isn't being squandered by five roommates for a private game of Tour de Franzia. If the program grows-and we hope it will, quickly and considerably-this will become a greater issue.

These concerns aside, the Union's initial plan is undoubtedly praiseworthy. But even with this notch on its belt, the Union should not lose sight of its main mission: advocacy. This new emphasis on smaller parties must not distract the Union from negotiating for less stringent rules at campuswide events that serve alcohol, because those vital parts of campus social life are in even more need of revitalization.