I was perusing the Daily Collegian Opinions section yesterday (my favorite place) when I stumbled upon an interesting headline: “Daylong regulation necessary safeguard against ourselves”

Intrigued, and admittedly personally offended, I kept reading. The Collegian editorial urges us to “recognize it [daylong regulation] for the good that it does.” First, the editorial fails to cite one tangible “good thing” the daylong regulation does.

Three lines after, it says “safety regulations are there to ensure that nothing gets too out of hand, to the point that punishment must be taken. Which, as we have seen from previous instances of punishment levied against fraternities and sororities, such consequences are largely sweeping and drastic, punishing many for the deeds of the few.”

For some reason the Collegian doesn’t see the daylong restriction as a punishment in itself. Isn’t this exactly what it’s explicitly hoping to avoid, a “largely sweeping, drastic restriction punishing many for the deeds of the few?”

Some community complaints are valid. No one wants to live in an unreasonably loud environment, but how can you purchase a house in the same neighborhood as fraternity houses and not expect a little chaos? This isn’t about noise complaints, though.

If the Collegian editorial made a case for community members worried about noise, I’d feel less compelled to respond — but that’s not the argument here. My main gripe is the editorial paints these vague restrictions that aren’t outlined or described at all as a “protection against ourselves,” and I think we deserve a little more credit than that.

My purely anecdotal evidence from four years of daylonging shows that while some people can’t handle day drinking, these people do the same stupid things at night. It’s pretty inconsistent logic to punish a whole group of people for the actions of a few during the day and just punish the few at night when the clock strikes some random hour. Who says day drinking is any more dangerous? We are adults and there’s no reason people over the age of 21 shouldn’t be allowed to take advantage of a sunny Saturday with a few beers.

Perhaps these regulations that the author didn’t even describe are so infinitesimal that they barely hinder the day drinking experience. Onward State obtained an email sent to frats this semester outlining the rules established last year and reinforced this year. Let’s take a look.

“You are only permitted to host a 1-on-1 social event. Therefore, if you are hosting an event, you can only host one guest organization or 50 or less unaffiliated guests at your event.”

As an unaffiliated daylong lover this upsets me…but I get it. No randos allowed is a fair preventative measure (albeit annoying). I see the logic, but still, it makes me yearn for the glory days when I could run amok through fratland in the daylight, safely consuming adult beverages at a one-per-hour rate.

“Your event may not begin before 1 p.m.”

First of all, how is this a thing when an egregious number of Penn State football games started at noon this season? Tailgates can start early, but starting an event early for the heck of it during spring semester is off limits. Regardless of early football kick-offs, I (well, fraternity brothers and their events) should be able to attend a friendly gathering at any time in the day.

Why can’t I get my dose of partying out earlier on in the day so I can sleep Saturday night and spend Sunday studying? I guess the crux of my grievance here is I’m a 22-year-old woman bound to arbitrary time limits when I did nothing wrong.

“Your social function must be indoors.”

This might be the saddest part of all. The whole point of daylonging is enjoying the sunshine, and I’d argue it’s more about that than it is about drinking. There’s a reason winter daylongs aren’t popular. State College in the springtime is a fleeting moment almost too good to be true, and God dammit, I’m going to enjoy it outside on a private property with a beverage I’m legally allowed to drink.

“You needed to have registered your social function.”

Besides the weird grammar, I’m okay with this one.

These “safety precautions” do hinder the day drinking experience and it’s a shame.

Look, I understand there are far more important plights than my right to daylong being obstructed, but I should be able to advocate for those throughout the week with the promise of my Saturday pastime as a little source of motivation. Like most of my fellow daytime warriors, the only things I’m hurting are my own liver and my own bank account. Respectful daylongers should be allowed to start imbibing whenever they want with whomever they want.