Presidents and chancellors of greater than one hundred institutions of higher learning have signed on to an initiative to spark debate about the national drinking age. According to the AP article, the Amethyst Initiative (AI), a non-profit organization sprung from former Middlebury College President John McCardell’s Choose Responsibility organization, seeks to bring to the national level the question of whether the de facto 21 drinking age is adequate given the fact that students under 21 continue to binge drink on campuses across the country. AI asks why it is that these same students are given the right to vote and to fight for their country, and yet are not allowed to consume alcoholic beverages. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) has not unexpectedly countered this initiative by pointing to statistics that support the idea that the number of fatal accidents tied to drunk driving have declined since 1984, the year in which the National Minimum Drinking Age Act was promulgated at the federal level (an act which, if a state did not utilize the 21 drinking age, would slash 10% of their federal highway funds, a price too high not to back Act). Of course, like any statistics, their interpretation lies in the eye of the beholder, and McCardell’s Choose Responsibility points to other social and legal reasons why it is that the number of fatalities as connected to alcohol may likely have dropped over the past twenty plus years.
This is obviously a contentious issue, one fraught with a multitude of social, ethical, and even economic issues. For colleges and universities, and particularly their administrators who are saddled with the omnipresent job of in loco parentis, if the drinking age was lowered again to 18, though the AI pointedly and repeatedly states that they are not advancing a lowering of the age specifically, a great many in loco parentis issues, often gray in nature, would vanish entirely in to the world of black and white. The AI signees might logically state that just as students are treated as adults in all matters connected to their lives in the classroom, so should they be outside of it. MADD and their supporters might fire back by stating that AI’s movement is just an attempt on the part of administrators to shirk their in loco parentis duties; if a student is caught drinking, they should be punished just as any non-student should. However, it is simply not that black and white, not yet.
There’s no question that this issue is a difficult one, and I hope that a national debate about this continues and that some fruitful dialog and ideas are inspired by it. Personally, as a former student, and one who had President McCardell as his President (although that has no bearing on my opinion), I applaud his efforts at putting this on the national agenda. I do not think 21 is the answer, although I am not sure that 18 is. Somewhere in the back of my mind there is also the thought, and it is not one I can articulate fully, that there has to be some kind of responsibility taken on the part of parents; that the majority of parents who send their children to school are more than happy with foisting the alcohol issue on to the shoulders of the schools (see in loco parentis above). Lazy.
- As a side note, Rob Tod, founder of Allagash Brewing Company, is also a graduate of McCardell’s Middlebury College. No doubt he’s sending McCardell some cash these days, heheheheh.