College Presidents Seek Debate On Drinking Age

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

JUSTIN POPE | August 18, 2008 09:57 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »

College presidents from about 100 of the nation's best-known universities, including Duke, Dartmouth and Ohio State, are calling on lawmakers to consider lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18, saying current laws actually encourage dangerous binge drinking on campus.

The movement called the Amethyst Initiative began quietly recruiting presidents more than a year ago to provoke national debate about the drinking age.

"This is a law that is routinely evaded," said John McCardell, former president of Middlebury College in Vermont who started the organization. "It is a law that the people at whom it is directed believe is unjust and unfair and discriminatory."

Other prominent schools in the group include Syracuse, Tufts, Colgate, Kenyon and Morehouse.

But even before the presidents begin the public phase of their efforts, which may include publishing newspaper ads in the coming weeks, they are already facing sharp criticism.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving says lowering the drinking age would lead to more fatal car crashes. It accuses the presidents of misrepresenting science and looking for an easy way out of an inconvenient problem. MADD officials are even urging parents to think carefully about the safety of colleges whose presidents have signed on.

"It's very clear the 21-year-old drinking age will not be enforced at those campuses," said Laura Dean-Mooney, national president of MADD.

Both sides agree alcohol abuse by college students is a huge problem.

Story continues below
advertisement

Research has found more than 40 percent of college students reported at least one symptom of alcohol abuse or dependance. One study has estimated more than 500,000 full-time students at four-year colleges suffer injuries each year related in some way to drinking, and about 1,700 die in such accidents.

A recent Associated Press analysis of federal records found that 157 college-age people, 18 to 23, drank themselves to death from 1999 through 2005.

Moana Jagasia, a Duke University sophomore from Singapore, where the drinking age is lower, said reducing the age in the U.S. could be helpful.

"There isn't that much difference in maturity between 21 and 18," she said. "If the age is younger, you're getting exposed to it at a younger age, and you don't freak out when you get to campus."

McCardell's group takes its name from ancient Greece, where the purple gemstone amethyst was widely believed to ward off drunkenness if used in drinking vessels and jewelry. He said college students will drink no matter what, but do so more dangerously when it's illegal.

The statement the presidents have signed avoids calling explicitly for a younger drinking age. Rather, it seeks "an informed and dispassionate debate" over the issue and the federal highway law that made 21 the de facto national drinking age by denying money to any state that bucks the trend.

But the statement makes clear the signers think the current law isn't working, citing a "culture of dangerous, clandestine binge-drinking," and noting that while adults under 21 can vote and enlist in the military, they "are told they are not mature enough to have a beer." Furthermore, "by choosing to use fake IDs, students make ethical compromises that erode respect for the law."

"I'm not sure where the dialogue will lead, but it's an important topic to American families and it deserves a straightforward dialogue," said William Troutt, president of Rhodes College in Memphis, Tenn., who has signed the statement.

But some other college administrators sharply disagree that lowering the drinking age would help. University of Miami President Donna Shalala, who served as secretary of health and human services under President Clinton, declined to sign.

"I remember college campuses when we had 18-year-old drinking ages, and I honestly believe we've made some progress," Shalala said in a telephone interview. "To just shift it back down to the high schools makes no sense at all."

McCardell claims that his experiences as a president and a parent, as well as a historian studying Prohibition, have persuaded him the drinking age isn't working.

But critics say McCardell has badly misrepresented the research by suggesting that the decision to raise the drinking age from 18 to 21 may not have saved lives.

In fact, MADD CEO Chuck Hurley said, nearly all peer-reviewed studies looking at the change showed raising the drinking age reduced drunk-driving deaths. A survey of research from the U.S. and other countries by the Centers for Disease Control and others reached the same conclusion.

McCardell cites the work of Alexander Wagenaar, a University of Florida epidemiologist and expert on how changes in the drinking age affect safety. But Wagenaar himself sides with MADD in the debate.

The college presidents "see a problem of drinking on college campuses, and they don't want to deal with it," Wagenaar said in a telephone interview. "It's really unfortunate, but the science is very clear."

Another scholar who has extensively researched college binge-drinking also criticized the presidents' initiative.

"I understand why colleges are doing it, because it splits their students, and they like to treat them all alike rather than having to card some of them. It's a nuisance to them," said Henry Wechsler of the Harvard School of Public Health.

But, "I wish these college presidents sat around and tried to work out ways to deal with the problem on their campus rather than try to eliminate the problem by defining it out of existence," he said.

Duke faced accusations of ignoring the heavy drinking that formed the backdrop of 2006 rape allegations against three lacrosse players. The rape allegations proved to be a hoax, but the alcohol-fueled party was never disputed.

Duke senior Wey Ruepten said university officials should accept the reality that students are going to drink and give them the responsibility that comes with alcohol.

"If you treat students like children, they're going to act like children," he said.

Duke President Richard Brodhead declined an interview request. But he wrote in a statement on the Amethyst Initiative's Web site that the 21-year-old drinking age "pushes drinking into hiding, heightening its risks." It also prevents school officials "from addressing drinking with students as an issue of responsible choice."

Hurley, of MADD, has a different take on the presidents.

"They're waving the white flag," he said.

___

Associated Press Writer Barbara Rodriguez contributed to this report from Durham, N.C.

___

On the net:

http://www.amethystinitiative.org

(This version CORRECTS the spelling of Rhodes College president's last name to Troutt, instead of Trout.)

College presidents from about 100 of the nation's best-known universities, including Duke, Dartmouth and Ohio State, are calling on lawmakers to consider lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18, sayin...
College presidents from about 100 of the nation's best-known universities, including Duke, Dartmouth and Ohio State, are calling on lawmakers to consider lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18, sayin...
 
Comments
80
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)
photo

Is anyone other than me linking this push to lower the drinking age to this: http://www.hensley.com/survey/ageverify.aspx ?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:39 AM on 09/08/2008

keeping the drinking age at 18
keeps thousands of potential
drunk drivers off the roads-
the same roads all us sober
safety-conscious types drive on,
including our families..
thats enough reason not to lower
the drinking age..
I thought it was obvious.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:42 AM on 08/26/2008
photo

An estimated 25,000 lives have been saved by the 21 Minimum Legal Drinking Age, which is why it is so troubling that more than 100 college and university presidents have signed on to a misguided initiative that uses deliberately misleading information to confuse the public on the effectiveness of the 21 law. Read MADD's press release on the initiative.

http://www.madd.org/Media-Center/Media-Center/Press-Releases/Press-Releases/2008/Some-University-Presidents-Shirk-Responsibility-to.aspx

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:22 PM on 08/23/2008

It should be left to the decision of parents or immediate figures of authority. It is futile to legislate, and take the financial burden of penalty in whatever form. If the younger is involved in crime, or damage to his own health, the financial burden should be borne by the parents for not exercising their duty and responsibility. This should alert the parents and their children. Government should not increase its burden in the name of implementing unwanted legislations.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:04 AM on 08/20/2008

Hey MADD, correlation does not equal causation. They're claiming drunk driving deaths have fallen as the legal drinking age went up while completely ignoring other important factors: safer cars (air bags), much higher penalties and higher public awareness.

MADD is like Republicans: they'd rather be tough than effective.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:47 AM on 08/20/2008
- rwe I'm a Fan of rwe permalink

What liberalnimrod gibberish......Being tough is effective i.e. no terrorist activites in the US since Sept 11 thanks in no small part to the Republican toughness.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:00 AM on 08/20/2008
photo

It's unfortunate that our youth doesn't have higher aspirations. Oh well, probably making a bunch of booze purveyors very happy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:37 AM on 08/20/2008

When I started college, the drinking age was 18. My freshman year was full of parties where there was a lot of drinking going on, binge and otherwise. As someone who hates the taste of alcohol, I did not drink myself but went to the parties to be with my friends. My senior year, the drinking age was raised to 21. Those of us under 21 at the time were closed out of some places, but I didn't see any difference.

Now, some 20-odd years later, I'm a college professor and I see little change in the behavior of students. Those under 21 find the alcohol and our local bars are packed at least three nights a week with college students. There is definitely a benefit to keeping it 21 because we have fewer drunken students on the roads, but it's hard to argue that someone can legally have sex, get married, be responsible for debt, join the military, get a credit card and have a driver's license but not be allowed to buy a beer or a glass of wine. Perhaps there could be a compromise: lower the age to 18 or 19 for beer and wine and keep it 21 for hard liquor.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:06 AM on 08/20/2008

I could drink beer legally at 19. I had to wait until 21 for "hard alcohol". I am in complete agreement that the drinking age should be lowered. Here is my college drinking trajectory.

Freshman year: A spring birthday ensured that I was not "legal" for my entire freshman year. Thus, I could not go out and socialize in many places ...college towns often have at least 50 bars in a 3 mile radius and not much else on offer. I gave older friends money to buy me stuff or dolled up and asked older guys to pick up an extra bottle when they were walking into the liquor store. I gave them money and they gave me booze...instant party.

Sophomore year: I was allowed to drink beer. It made it easier for me to get out. Because my focus was on socializing, not alcoholism, I generally stuck to one or two beers and got on with the evening of dancing or hanging out.

Junior year: Same thing...only even less booze. Budgeted with (free) water and the occasional pepsi at bars that year.

Senior year: Was more serious and had less time to go out. At 21 booze was not that interesting.

Make something forbidden fruit and then glamorize it...and then surround the kids with zillions of bars and liquor stores and very little supervision...binge drinking is the result.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:34 AM on 08/20/2008

It is time for this country to join the rest of the world. (we are behind in so many things, like health care, end of life decisions, intelligent design, creationism, stem cell research, alternative energy sources, lobbyist running our political system, cable monopolies, cell phone monopolies, check clearing, banking standards, ID theft)

At 18 you can vote, die for your country, can sign legally binding contracts, but can not legally drink alcohol..... This make no sense.

It is time for our puritan genes to retire.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:24 AM on 08/20/2008

There should be a debate. To me the bigger issue is the abuse of alcohol and the bad affects on health and the bad beheaviors it engeneders affecting all ages.
On college campuses and their communities it should mean non-criminal penalties for abusive and drunken behaviors and to make being drunk very uncool. Penalties for drunken beheavior should include less choice or priority for access to classes, many hours of unpaid community or college service, counsuling about alcohol incuding to determine if a person has a drinking problem, and in general to encourage peer pressure against drunken beheaviors. Part of that pressure and education should incude, as some NCAA commercials have done, in suggesting that drunken beheaviors can include unsafe sex and injuries. In college communities, we also need to use current laws on access to bars, their serving of minors or allowing abusive and binge drinking, no 'specials' or 'happy hours' or promotions.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:17 AM on 08/20/2008

I'm glad they are raising the question and the discussion, but I hope they have no expectations. This is the United States. This is a country that jails untold thousands (millions?) for pot. A rational discussion about drugs and alcohol? What do they think this is...Denmark?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:20 AM on 08/20/2008
- Keo I'm a Fan of Keo permalink

good post, ian.

i'll add this:

the drug problems in this country--and by that, i mean alcohol, as well as the illicit substances--are worse now, in 2008, than they were back in my college days in the early 1970s.
over the course of these past 30 years, drug laws have gotten tougher, and interdiction efforts stronger and more sophisticated.
no one should really need any further explanation. the drug war is worse than a failure. it has helped to make a problem worse.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:46 AM on 08/20/2008

I'm with you, Keo. It also appears that we are contemporaries. just as prohibition was a mistake, so is this " social experiment", and so also is the ridiculously expensive and equally ineffective "war on drugs".

People in this country are very impressed with high sounding arguments such as the one that I saw last night on TV "Raising the drinking age to 21 resulted in a ___% drop in drinking related highway deaths". I'm sure that it did. So, following that logic, let's raise the drinking age to 99. I'm sure that a significant drop in deaths would result. And boy, am I ever tired of hearing that tired old saw "If it saves only one life, it's worth it". No it's not.Not to me!!!! Let's inconvenience 100 Million people just to save the life of someone who's number was probably up anyhow? By the way, I am a certified Driver Education Teacher and I've seen 'em come and go. You can usually spot the personality types who will engage in risky behaviors and they will probably do so whether or not alcahol is involved.

I'm also a Home Brewer. My boys were raised with lots of Beer, Wine and Mead around the house. No effort was ever made to hide the stuff. I never told them it was "off limits" . Neither of them drinks any measurable amount of alcahol as adults. It was never a "big deal".

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:35 AM on 08/20/2008

Drinking cases should be determined on a case by case basis.

The burden of proof belongs on the state to prove that a defendant of 18-20 is not responsible for his own actions in consuming fermented beverages. If the court finds that the defendant is not responsible for his actions, they cannot be tried as an adult.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:10 AM on 08/20/2008

If they are responsible for their own actions, they are entitled to the rights of any adult, which includes drinking fermented beverages

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:13 AM on 08/20/2008

There's no good reason to have the drinking age at 21. It should be 16-18. You can flap your gums all you want about what you think is moral, but the facts are (and will continue to be) that young people drink before 21. It doesn't matter how many programs you start.

Drinking isn't morally wrong. There is not some magical line in time that makes it evil before 21 and good after 21. This is why you will never convince most young people that they shouldn't drink before 21. What you should be doing is helping them understand how much is too much. Help them understand the right place and time for drinking and their personal limitations.

If you want to believe that drinking before 21 is evil in some way, then you may want to consider you're also condemning a great many advanced nations as well that have lower than 21 limits.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:56 AM on 08/20/2008

In those good ol' days, in the State of New York, at least, back in the 60's, we were able to drink legally at 18. That made sense. My parents taught restraint and responsibility. I taught my child in the same way. There were no issues like "binge drinking". Why don't they just threaten expulsion and have parents sign responsibility statement s to the colleges if their child acts out? Their children are behaving immaturely and creating a potential liability for the school.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:03 AM on 08/20/2008

The real problem back then was that PA's age was 21. Our town is only 8 miles from NY and there are some real nasty curves that ate up a lot of young lives.

Was the NY legal age of 18 the blame?

I still blame the foolish PA drinking age. If you're old enough to die for Your Country, I'll cretainly buy you one.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:50 AM on 08/20/2008

I agree with you generally. But I don't like the idea of forcing anybody to sign anything (referencing your comment about having parents sign responsibility statements) especially when that person is signing a statement linked to someone else's behavior. For one thing, it is legally tenuous. One of the first rules of contracts is that if someone forces someone to sign a contract, then that makes the contract voidable. (Understand: voidable, not void. This means that if the forced party disputes it, almost any court will void the contract.) Second, once a child reaches the age of maturity, 18 in most states, he is responsible for him/herself. The parents are out of the picture (other than advising). There is a reason for this. We don't need a bunch of dependent young adults running around. Kids need to become grown-ups and the best way for that to happen is for them to make some mistakes. I know that this can get messy for the rest of us, but that is the price we pay for freedom.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:18 AM on 08/20/2008

These Lib college Presidents are doing this for one reason, to avoid responsibility for the drunken students on their campus'. They are just trying to cover their own butts.

Lowering the drinking age to 18 will not curb binge drinking or even underage drinking. Anyone who wants to get alcohol will still be able to get it.

Lower the drinking age if you want, just be honest why you are doing it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:35 PM on 08/19/2008
photo

to be honest would be to admit that they are trying to avoid lawsuits.

maybe the drinking age should be 16, and drivers licenses given out at 21.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:43 AM on 08/20/2008

Your going to have to stop making sense if you want to get anywhere in life.

meanwhile the drinking laws still violate the equal protection clause.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:00 AM on 08/20/2008
Page: 1 2 3 Next › Last » (3 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

You must be logged in to reply to this comment. Log in  or  Connect