.jpg)
I've written before about the Amethyst Initiative, a group of 134 college and university presidents and chancellors who signed a statement that, basically, says that the 21-over drinking age isn't working. This weekend at the Association of Fraternity Advisors annual meeting in Denver, I had the opportunity to sit in on two sessions that focused on the debate over whether the federal government should dictate a drinking age. Both featured Dr. John M. McCardell Jr., President Emeritus of Middlebury College (VT).
As you can guess, there are a lot of strong opinions about whether the legal drinking age should be 18, 21, or something else. McCardell is on the board of directors of Choose Responsibility, a group who believes it should be 18. Not everyone who has supported the Amethyst Initiative necessarily believes 18 is the magic number... they just think that 21 isn't working.
People in higher education are not sure how to politically dance on this one. If you question the 21-year-old drinking age, then you run the risk of being accused of supporting alcohol abuse and the negative consequences that brings. At the sessions, I spoke to many attendees who personally think the 21-year-old drinking age is a ridiculous federal mandate but who did not feel they could ever publicly take a stance. National fraternity staff members are even less likely to invite themselves into the public relations fray – many in the public would expect fraternity folks to be all for easier drinking.
Drew Hunter of the BACCHUS Network stressed that his organization has not formed a statement on the issue, and he also acknowledged that as a recipient of federal Department of Transportation dollars, he sits in an unusually tight spot on this issue. It was interesting when Hunter said that lowering the age would, without a doubt, cause drinking rates to increase among high school age kids. McCardell agreed, but said that's why any return to a younger drinking age would have to be matched by aggressive alcohol education. McCardell even supports a license of some sort (that didn't make any sense to me whatsoever).
You get the drift of the debate...
For me, it just comes down to fairness. Choose Responsibility points out that at age 18 in this country, you can fight a war, adopt children, own property, sue or be sued, hold public office, purchase firearms, smoke, gamble, buy lottery tickets, or buy a house. But, you can't have a legal drink. As simplistic as that argument is, it has always worked for me.
The 21-year-old drinking age came about in the 70's when the Congress passed a highway bill that denied any state 10-percent of its share of federal transportation funds unless it changed its drinking age to 21. Naturally, they all did it, because none of them wanted to lose tens of millions of annual dollars for roads. A state could change their law tomorrow, if they wanted to.
In essence, this federal government blackmail took away the states' right to make up their minds based on the will of their citizens. It doesn't sit right with me. If Utah wants to make their drinking age 30 and Louisiana wants to make it 16, then I think that's a discussion for the voters of those states.
By the way, only four nations in the world dictate a 21+ drinking age: the United States, Mongolia, Indonesia and Palau. Good company, huh?
I also believe that the groups that use the emotional pull of drunk driving prevention (that's you, MADD) are completely ignoring the deaths, the sexual assaults, the injuries, and the massive irresponsibility that is resulting from the 21-year-old drinking age. Anyone who works on a campus will tell you that too much time is spent dealing with enforcing the drinking age, and too many scary injuries and deaths are occuring because students who want to drink always find a way and then do it in a dangerous way. Whenever I hear a student getting ready for his or her 21st birthday, my neck muscles tense up, and I beg them to be careful.
MADD and other organizations like theirs seem to think that the lives they save on the roads are a fair trade for these others.
In any case, I encourage you to take a few moments and consider the issue for yourself. I don't normally support too many political action-type organizations, but I sent a check today to Choose Responsibility. I'm the father of a 15-year-old son, and while I'm not eager for him to start drinking, I also would prefer that he enter a world with a lot less reckless abuse of alcohol. I have a difficult time believing that most people who work with college students would disagree with me, but maybe I'm wrong.
The federal highway bill is coming up for reauthorization in 2009, so the timing is right for this issue to be picked up by the media. With all the veterans coming back from the Middle East starting in 2009, I am sure the "can fight the Taliban, but can't have a beer" argument is going to get attention.
The bill needs to be reauthorized with the federal drinking age stipulation removed. Let's let the decisions happen at the state level, where they belong. I'm going to be writing to my Congressional delegation encouraging them to at least give this a fair argument.
Kudos, by the way, to AFA for having the courage to put this on their educational program. I was very impressed that Richard Celeste, former governor of Ohio, former U.S. Ambassador to India, and now president of Colorado College was one of the session participants. He is one of the signers of the Amethyst Initiative.
