COLLEGE PRESIDENTS SEEK TO REDUCE THE DRINKING AGE

Tim Burke, Manley Burke, tburke@manleyburke.com

Whether or not the now-universally mandated 21-year-old drinking age is helpful or harmful in dealing with alcohol abuse among college students is the focus of the Amethyst Initiative launched this summer by John McCardell, the President Emeritus of Middlebury College.  More than 125 college presidents have joined together in urging an “informed and dispassionate public debate over the effects of the 21-year-old drinking age.”

Arguments on both sides abound.  Both proponents of the 21-year-old limitation like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (M.A.D.D.) and opponents of the law, argue that there are studies supporting their respective conclusions.

Supporters of reducing the drinking age back to 18 make several arguments.  First, the 21-year-old drinking age is not working on college campuses.  It creates two classes of students and creates numerous problems in treating one differently than the other.  In fact, they argue the limitation may actually be increasing instances of binge drinking and has eroded students’ respect for the law.  18-year-olds are expected to make many other critical decisions.  They have the right to vote, which is obvious by the attention focused on young voters by both presidential candidates this year.  They can join the military and fight and risk their lives for their country.  They can enter into legal binding contracts and marry without parental approval.  They can serve on juries and in virtually every other aspect enjoy the same rights and privileges and have the same duties imposed upon them that benefit and restrict those 21 and older.  In essence, they are adults for all purposes save making choices about drinking.  M.A.D.D. and others counter that the 21-year-old requirement has saved lives and reduced drunk driving accidents involving young people.

M.A.D.D. has gone so far as to argue against safe driver programs, claiming that they only encourage those who are not driving to drink.

The November 7, 2008 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education highlighted the division this way:

 “In August, the organization [M.A.D.D.] publicly berated the amethyst initiative … the confrontation revealed the difference between two views of the same problem.  M.A.D.D. has long cast under-age drinking in black-and-white terms; many college officials see it as impossibly gray.”

It is unlikely that this issue will be settled any time soon, but it is a topic worthy of the intense public discussion it is generating.  In the meantime, 21 remains the law and fraternity and sorority chapters that ignore, or worse, attempt to deliberately evade it, place themselves in significant legal and civil liability jeopardy.