EDITORIAL: Forever 21? Maybe not

‘ ‘ ‘ One of the largest, ongoing problems facing college campuses is underage drinking…. ‘ ‘ ‘ One of the largest, ongoing problems facing college campuses is underage drinking. According to the 2005 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, about 75 percent of people aged12 to 20 reported having consumed alcohol at some point in their lives, and about 28 percent reported having consumed alcohol in the past month. ‘ ‘ ‘ And among people aged 18 to 22, those enrolled full time in college were about 33 percent more likely to have consumed alcohol in the past month than those who were not in school. ‘ ‘ ‘ A group of college and university chancellors, presidents and other leaders aim to change this, with the argument that the current drinking age promotes a culture of dangerous binge drinking and unsupervised behavior. But they don’t just want to enforce the current laws more rigidly ‘mdash; they want to change the structure of the law altogether to lower the drinking age. ‘ ‘ ‘ The group has faced opposition from Mothers Against Drunk Driving and other groups, even though the statement that the members have signed does not explicitly call for a lowered drinking age, but rather seeks to call an informed debate over the failures of the current law. ‘ ‘ ‘ While it’s clear that there are some major problems with the current drinking age limit, it isn’t as clear that lowering the bar of entry is going to help. Lowering the drinking age seems more like a cry of surrender rather than a legitimate tactic that trusts 18-year-olds to be as mature as people three years older. ‘ ‘ ‘ Not to mention the point that if the drinking age is lowered from 21 to 18, the problem doesn’t simply go away. College students might be able to drink legally at that point, but just as it’s easy to imagine an 18-year-old with a fake driver’s license that lists him as 21, it’s also easy to imagine a 16-year-old with an ID that says he’s 18. ‘ ‘ ‘ Lowering the drinking age simply takes the underage problem out of the hands of colleges and universities and plants it firmly in the lap of high schools instead. ‘ ‘ ‘ The Amethyst Initiative is doing the country a service by raising the bar for the discussion of the drinking age ‘mdash; with the backing of so many high-level college and university officials, such as the presidents of Duke and Ohio State University (although Chancellor Nordenberg has yet to sign), it’s clearly something to be taken seriously. ‘ ‘ ‘ But limiting the discussion to the idea that because 21 isn’t working, we should scrap the whole thing, doesn’t seem very productive. ‘ ‘ ‘ Instead, we should look at why 21 isn’t working. Many of the signatories of the Amethyst Initiative simply seem to feel that college students are going to drink no matter what, but the current culture of tolerance mediated with light legal punishment does little to discourage the culture. ‘ ‘ ‘ The issue is too split already for the discussion to be truly meaningful. Rather than resign themselves to discussing the hopeless fate of underage drinking on college campuses, perhaps the Amethyst Initiative could promote discussion about discouraging underage drinking, educating and helping students, and enforcing the laws as they stand. ‘ ‘ ‘ Instead of redefining the law so the problem isn’t a problem any more, this debate might be a good opportunity to discuss how to make the current laws work the way they should, and what colleges and universities can do to help.