August 19, 2008

Drinking-Age Campaign Binges on Big Names, Big Media

A campaign to lower the legal drinking age to 18 has been joined by more than 100 college chiefs, including those of many well-known institutions. Dubbed the Amethyst Initiative, the effort is also generating a blitz of news-media coverage today.

John M. McCardell Jr., president emeritus of Middlebury College, is behind the campaign. As The Chronicle reported last year, Mr. McCardell founded Choose Responsibility, a nonprofit group that seeks to curb binge drinking by giving “drinking licenses” to 18- to 20-year-olds who have been educated about the downsides of alcohol.

The campaign began heating up in June, when Mr. McCardell spoke at a meeting of the Annapolis Group of liberal-arts colleges. Now presidents of major institutions such as the Johns Hopkins University, the University of Maryland at College Park, and Ohio State University have signed a statement that seeks to “rethink the drinking age.” But not all college presidents are fans of the campaign, which also has a powerful opponent in Mothers Against Drunk Driving. The advocacy group says signatories “shirk responsibility to protect students from dangers of underage drinking.”

For those wondering about the initiative’s name, the ancient Greeks apparently believed that the purple gemstone amethyst warded off drunkenness and promoted moderation, according to the group’s Web site. —Paul Fain

Comments

1. In Canada the drinking age is either 18 or 19. Doesn’t seem to affect binge drinking very much; it still happens.

   That being said, I figure if you can vote and go to war, and are legally an adult, you should be allowed to drink.

   — Canadian    Aug 19, 12:31 PM    #

2. Thank you John McCardell and the college Presidents who signed this. The 21 year old drinking age (the highest in the Western world) is a huge unfunded mandate on college administrators, and it is ineffective. A idea whose time has come.

   — Tom    Aug 19, 12:46 PM    #

3. Beth, I certainly agree. What business are colleges really in? Education? How does campaigning for lowering the drinking age support a college’s mission statement?

   — al    Aug 19, 01:19 PM    #

4. Good comments from everyone so far. Regarding unfunded mandates in message #3, K-12 schools are going to have a huge problem on their hands, and so are colleges, if the drinking age is lowered to 18. There is no evidence to suggest students will NOT binge just because they can legally drink, so, in fact, the problem is likely to get worse, so until these Presidents are willing to pony up additional resources for counselors, physicians, etc., they should think less about the “discussions” they want to have and more about the ER realities.

   That all said, I DO support a lower drinking age: let students deal with these issues with their parents, and then colleges can be a lot more clear about behavioral expectations and not have “oh, kids will be kids” or “oh, it was the alcohol as an excuse: (e.g., you pulled the fire extinguisher, you hit that guy in the face, you’re sleeping through all your classes, etc.).

   Have a lot of thoughts about this topic and will be interested to see what others think.

   — NYCEdPhD    Aug 19, 02:17 PM    #

5. 5. The reason 18-year-olds are asked to go to war is simple: they have strong, capable bodies. Their minds do not mature at the same rate. Studies —and observation—demonstrate that teens, even late teens, take risks older individuals are less likely to take. Ask the insurance companies about teens’ driving under the influence. Think about high school seniors’ and college freshmen’s often less-than-responsible behavior.

   — Amie    Aug 19, 02:20 PM    #

6. al,

   The reason why is that policing college students’ drinking behaviour is costing American universities a fortune and adding liability concerns

   — Tom    Aug 19, 02:27 PM    #

7. Legalizing pot may help reduce binge drinking on campuses.

   — Kyle David    Aug 19, 02:30 PM    #

8. I would prefer to see 19 to keep it ‘legally’ out of the high school set. I do believe that 21 is a nightmare for colleges to manage and I believe if students can choose to visit a local tavern to listen to music and talk then they may be less likely to binge drink.

   College is a reasonable time in life to figure out how to balance one’s life, which includes academic responsibilities, athletics, social lives and/or work. I have always struggled with the fact that someone who chooses not to go to college but works as a plumber (or whatever) making a good living cannot legally get a drink after work on a Friday evening with their colleagues if they so choose. It’s not reasonable.

   Let’s face it…kids drink in college anyway. Could it be worse? I don’t think so. Sometimes when you treat young people like adults they rise to the occasion, although I recognize that is not always the case.

   — vp27    Aug 19, 03:56 PM    #

9. With regard to any evidence that a lower age has any relationship to less binge drinking, observe the behavior of students at universities in Europe, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and many other countries in the world. They put away their share of alcohol, but they don’t tend to binge drink. They know their limits, and they’ve learned this from years of drinking with their families and being treated as adults right from the start rather than toddlers whose minds are unable to handle adult behaviors. Thanks so much, John McCardell, for being brave enough to get this initiative going.

   — May S.    Aug 19, 03:56 PM    #

10. If not the college presidents, who should open this issue up for discussion. I do not believe the insurance companies, MADD or high school administration would even consider opening this up.

    — DSTEW    Aug 19, 03:58 PM    #

11. Been there and done that. Michigan lowered the drinking age in 1971 to 18 while I was the Resident Hall Director for first year students at Western Michigan University. 18 year olds drank themselves to illness most weekends. The situation was better both before and after that period!

    — jim kraai    Aug 19, 03:59 PM    #

12. Parents seem to think that colleges can enforce laws that prohibit drinking under age 21. When it comes to drinking, they don’t want to rely on regular law enforcement agencies. And when something goes wrong, when their child dies or is injured because the student was drunk, the parents want to blame someone. So, they blame the college and sue the college. Last year in New Jersey, two parents even persuaded the local prosecutor to file criminal charges against student life administrators who were not even present at the event where the student got drunk (so drunk that he thought the door to thetrash chute was his room and fell into it and died). College administrators should take a stand on drinking, but that is different than making them liable when an adult (student 18or older) freely decides to drink to excess.

    — Katherine    Aug 19, 04:00 PM    #

13. From a Student Affairs perspective, where we’ve been asked to educate students about a behavior that 3/4 were not supposed to engage in, I welcome the opportunity to be more honest and authentic in my conversations with students. Much better than always saying, “I expect you not to drink, but anticipate that you will, so let me educate you while I try not to look the other way too much.” Tired of being a hypocrite – time to be able to have authentic conversations on this that might actually help deal with binge drinking.

    — David E.    Aug 19, 04:03 PM    #

14. Respectfully, May S., my experience has been that kids worldwide experiment with alcohol regardless of the age of legality. When I was young (as pterodactyls circled overhead) the age was 18. My dormitory was awash with alcohol. In Switzerland, with a 16-year age limit, ditto. Canada — 18 — as drunk as anyone anywhere. Asia — ritual bingeing is compulsory in business, and starts in school.

    I am unable to fathom why presidents are so eager to have more alcohol on their campuses, the inevitable result of lowering the age. There must be a reason nobody is willing to mention. Does anyone know what it is? We have the liability in either case, so that can’t be it.

    — TGH    Aug 19, 04:11 PM    #

15. #2 and #4: The topic is very relevant to college administrators. In the small picture, administrators at institutions with traditional-age students are increasingly expected to SHIFT the mission from education to oversight of personal behavior. In the big picture, the high drinking age and other societal trends have pushed the upper edges of adolescence way up, so that people in their mid-20s still don’t think of themselves as grown-ups (even those who are not particularly irresponsible). This has enormous potential for impact on all of society, through delayed adult roles in self-governance, career leadership, parenting, community decision-making, even tax paying. It is quite frightening to think that the Boomers expect to retire early and play for the next couple decades at the same time that Millennials expect to be adolescents and play until they are 40. Anyone else getting nervous?

    #12: I honestly think the binge drinking now is scarier than it was in the 1970s and 1980s. I agree that it was not utopia then, but it is a different league now.

    — HIED doc    Aug 19, 04:11 PM    #

16. #13 raises an important question: What responsibility will rest with colleges, or more appropriately college administrators (and not faculty, and not presidents) when students hurt themselves or others as a result of their legal, but perhaps ill-advised, drinking?

    Consider this: back in February, the faculty blogger at Slaves of Academe said the following about a college student’s alcohol related death: “teenagers sometimes do stupid things, and… sometimes they die because of their stupidity.”

    If this is the minority opinion, OK… but what if it’s not? Are colleges – not just college presidents – prepared for the drinking age to be lowered?

    #14, we can have very authentic conversations now, about harm reduction and protective norms, for example. I suspect that’s what you’re doing and what peer educators and health educators on campus do, as well. That’s what talented, savvy, research-oriented folks have been doing at many schools nationwide for years, with some good results.

    — NYCEdPhD    Aug 19, 04:14 PM    #

17. While I agree with rethinking the drinking age, I also feel that the conversation needs to be flushed out much more before completely jumping on board or claiming it will never work.

    One issue to throw out there is implementation. Lowering the age means that a huge population will go from illegal to legal all at once. Drinking licenses would help but not solve this issue. Besides that, you have potential for high school to become the rebellion period, simply shifting it to the earlier age. While it is already like that in a sense, college is still considered the time when the rules are open and everything is about experimenting. There would also have to be a restructuring of how we address alcohol for implementation to be successful and create new resources at the high school level to handle the issues that would develop more during that time. This also puts more of the responsibility on parents and many do not have the resources to appropriately address the issues.

    Look at the other side…many talk about the other “adult” things you can do at 18, but there is more to it. Waiting until 21 for legality also means that colleges are still allowing for illegal activities to occur on campus and hope that educational effort reach students within their 4-5 years. Most of these students will graduate only shortly after becoming legal and will simply continue the habits we have allowed the whole time. Meanwhile, a lower drinking age means that we could actually address dependence and abuse with students who are struggling to find their limits without having to set out a double standard where we say don’t drink but drink responsibly.

    It would not just be a legal shift but a culture one as well. We would need to be prepared for some heavy problem early on, but there is real potential for a change like this to work.

    — Dan    Aug 19, 04:15 PM    #

18. Too bad college presidents don’t sign a statement to rethink the cost of higher education and reduce it rather than the drinking age! I agree with Beth, perhaps healthcare providers or substance abuse counselors taking the lead, but college presidents?

    — Robert    Aug 19, 04:23 PM    #

19. A counter-anecdote to the views in #12. When I was an undergraduate at the University of Iowa in the 1970s, the drinking age was 18. Sure, we drank, but generally a couple of beers. Binging was pretty rare. We’d go to bars, pay a cover, listen to a band or dance, and see how long we could make the beers last because money was finite, and if we wanted to do this a couple times a week, we needed to deploy resources carefully. Drinking was an accompaniment to social events, not the raison de etre. I’ve been struck by the almost manic quality of drinking today among students, the idea of getting one’s money and time worth. Making drinking routinely availabe lessens the urgency of the whole thing. Sure, some 18 year olds will drink themselves silly, in the same fashion that the 40-year-olds did sitting behind me at a baseball game last week. For many others, it will actually reduce pressures and compulsions, I’m confident, and I’m glad the college presidents are taking up this side. As for assertions that this isn’t an education matter, I beg to differ; education is about the co-curriculum as well as the curriculum, the campus environment as well as the classroom.

    — Fahrenheit 451    Aug 19, 04:30 PM    #

20. Regarding #15s comments – no one is saying that a lower drinking age removes the alcohol from the campus. What it DOES do, in general, is to encourage adult behavior at a younger age. After many years of living overseas and working with both US and international students, I have come to see huge differences between the way that these two groups of students drink. They may drink the same amount, but those who have become familiar with the way that adults drink tend not to binge and tend to exhibit far less adolescent behaviors. I’m not saying that there aren’t those who do binge, but the tendency is much lower.
    I was at college when the drinking age was 18 and never experienced the kind of binging and alcohol poisonings that we see rather commonly now. Of course, alcohol wasn’t nearly as much the drug of choice back in those days either…

    — Heron    Aug 19, 04:33 PM    #

21. I wonder if those presidents would sign a statement opposing the withholding of financial aid for those who those convicted of possessing marijuana. SAFER (see http://www.saferchoice.org/content/view/24/53/) and MPP (http://tv.mpp.org/shorts/the-human-cost-of-marijuana-prohibition-part-1/) have been working to address such issues.

    — Ellis Godard    Aug 19, 04:49 PM    #

22. College presidents are on the front line, living with the current untenable and dangerous alcohol situation every. I thank the Amethyst Initiative presidents for having the courage to be honest and raise this subject for a national conversation. Having gone to college in the late ’60’s and early ’70’s, of course I remember students drinking on campus, sometimes to excess. But I also remember faculty, graduate students and administrators present to monitor and provide some parameters for student behavior. Now-a-days, it’s a free-for-all, and colleges dare not claim their rightful role in helping guide students to social maturity for fear of abetting underage drinking.

    I would very much like to know whether the claimed benefits of the 21 drinking age are causal or whether other developments— such as acceptance of the social convention of designated drivers, better DWI enforcement and car safety improvements, which occurred at the same time, may be responsible for the improved statistics.

    — Parent    Aug 19, 04:54 PM    #

23. Congratulation to the presidents that are trying to fix the stupidity of a law passed by politicians only interested in getting elected at some point in history. I run a company so can’t sign your petition but I support education and legal drinking over what we have created in this country, which are non enforceable laws that add no value. Add to that the hypocrisy that in the state I live in someone can legally be a bar tender at age 18, they just can’t taste their product. Go to another state and someone under 21 can’t ring up your beer at a grocery store.

    — John    Aug 19, 05:42 PM    #

24. As a former misdemeanor prosecutor, with jurisdiction over driving while intoxicated cases, I can tell you that M.A.D.D. wil fight this proposal tooth and nail, because that group favors structural fixes that often don’t address the real problem. I like the idea of lowering the drinking age to 18, with drinking licenses, as someone mentioned, for those between 18 and 21, which can be revoked or suspended in cases where the privilege is abused. I grew up in a family that allowed a small amount of drinking at family gatherings (a glass of wine with dinner, on special occasions, etc.) and I think the practice taught responsibility and adult behavior, which the current system does not.

    — Pablo    Aug 19, 06:07 PM    #

25. I support this initiative by the Amethyst Initiative and John McCardell. What an admirable undertaking. The current problem on most college campuses is that the administration cannot effectively deal with the problems of alcohol abuse because it is illegal for three-quarters of their student body. Colleges cannot condone alcohol consumption even though they know it is prevalent.

    As a result many students engage in dangerous behavior such as binge drinking, usually in the form of pre-loading. Preloading is when students drink several shots or beers before they go to a party where they cannot legally obtain alcohol. By the time they reach the party, the alcohol has taken its effect. This leads to many other bad behaviors for both men and women students, including date rape.

    It is time to let colleges effectively address the issue without the threat of legal liability. If it is not illegal, and therefore the liability of colleges is reduced, then the colleges can advocate responsible and safe behavior.

    — Al Grant    Aug 19, 06:29 PM    #

26. #6. So we can send 18 yr old kids off to war because they have strong, capable bodies? While we acknowledge limited decision making abilities? Are you saying that it is an OK mentality on our part to say, “More power to you with that M16, but put down that 40oz, Gomer.” We need to pick an age! At whatever that age is you’re an adult and both responsible and priviledged like all other adults. Your too dumb to drink; just dumb enough to die attitude is a little sick. As a vet who spent half my enlistment illegal and the other half legal while I was out tippin’ em’ back I can say the whole deal does not pass the sniff test. It is insulting and it is crippling our youth.

    — Mike    Aug 19, 06:48 PM    #

27. When I turned 21 they lowered the drinking age to 18, sin loi as the Vietnamese would say or too bad as we put it. The logic being if we could get killed in Viet Nam serving our country we should be able to raise our spirits with spirits. Some years later the drinking age was raised again to 21. The argument for raising it was the increase in drunken driving accidents and fatalities in that age bracket. Since I am too old to care, I am not looking this up. But someone should and it should be a part of the debate. Best I can remember there was a steep drop in the number of dead, drunk kids after they raised the drinking age back to 21.
    Apparently, college presidents don’t want to deal with the illegality of drinking which complicates issues such as date rape on campus and figure that if 18 year old drinking were legal then the universities would be off the liability hook.

    — John Jacobs    Aug 19, 07:08 PM    #

28. I actually teach a section of my class that looks into the issues of binge drinking, I like to ask students if we know that binge drinking will likely result in the death of one student on campus per year, are the benefits worth the cost of one student life per year? I am shocked by how many say “YES!”

    We need to recognize that binge drinking (not social drinking) is a social/normative problem. The new norm is to binge. It is a dangerous behavior that is not about stop with a drinking license, I mean if such an approach worked—just provide the information—everyone in the country would be eating a healthy diet, getting lots of sleep, exercise, etc. A lack of information is not the problem and this is where Cardell is wrong. The new norm is that binge drinking is funny, cool, expected, and the way to be a college student. We need to fight the norms in the trenches, but first we need to begin with ourselves. When I grew up it was cool to drive drunk, now that norm has changed. Binge drinking needs to go the way of drunk driving and it is a place where faculty can engage students in ethical conversations.

    One of my questions I also ask, if alcohol were potato chips, would you be willing to give up potato chips if someone on campus had an allergy and would be at great risk? Everyone is willing to give up potato chips, but not alcohol. Something drastic needs to be done to combat the messages on TV, movies, music that encourage binge drinking. This is a normative problem, not a problem because of a lack of information.

    BTW, binge drinking in Europe is on the rise, even the norms in other countries are changing. You got to ask yourself—who benefits from binge drinking? Do you hear the Budweiser frogs croaking?

    — BB    Aug 20, 12:47 AM    #

29. #28 and others who are saying that the presidents are signing because they don’t want to deal with underage drinking are all off-base. The presidents have been dealing with it since the age went to 21. While dealing with underage drinking college’s have mostly been doing so on their own. I have been a college administrator for over a decade and I can tell you that I rarely saw organizations like MADD actually address underage drinking on college campuses. I was 17 when the age was raised. I’m 39 now. While drunk driving deaths may have lowered, I believe that other incidents such as alcohol poisoning, physical and sexual assualts, and vandalism have risen.

    I currently work on a dry campus so there is to be no alcohol even for 21 year olds. Yet, we still deal with issues of underage drinking because if the students can’t drink in their rooms they will find a bar that will serve them. Someone will comment “well just shut down that bar” It’s not that simple. One is shut down and another opens up in the same location a month later.

    Colleges barely get any support from parents while enforcing the drinking age. I’ve often heard parents state “Well it’s college and that’s what they are supposed to do” The students see the hypocrisy of “I can die for my country, I can vote for the president, but I can’t drink”

    Whether the age is lowered or not a discussion needs to happen and it needs to involve more then the colleges. It needs input from parents, students, and elected officials. It has to stop being only the college’s problem.

    — Carl    Aug 20, 06:34 AM    #

30. Old enough to vote and go to war at 18..yes, but also I’ve never seen a generation quite like this whose parents hover over there young adults…a good thing and a bad thing. They’re right there picking out their friends, their college courses, their job choices, where they’re living, etc…up and beyond the age of 21..do these young people ever have the opportunity to make mistakes and learn by them and eventually grow up? Also…do mothers want the laws enforced because they were never at home to enforce them there. Responsible drinking and knowledge of the consequences should start with the parents but parents really do want enforcement to handle that to. There’s nothing like a good vomiting session to dispell the grandiosity of drinking.

    — jessica212    Aug 20, 07:10 AM    #

31. I really struggle to understand the logic behind statements like, “I can die for my country, I can vote for president, but I can’t drink.” Isn’t that like saying, “I can die, I can vote, but I can’t drive my car as fast as I want? I can’t yell fire in a crowded movie theater? How hypocritical!” How is that hypocracy? Unfortunate, maybe – but hypocritical?

    Lowering the age to 18 only opens access to those even younger – and please if I hear the “we’re behind the rest of the western world” arguement one more time I think I’m going to vomit….which I’ve seen plenty of under 21s in others parts of the non-US western world do as a result of binge drinking…….or maybe that’s the alcohol.

    Chesterton said it best…..I believe what really happens in history is this: the old man is always wrong; and the young people are always wrong about what is wrong with him. The practical form it takes is this: that, while the old man may stand by some stupid custom, the young man always attacks it with some theory that turns out to be equally stupid.”

    — Paul    Aug 20, 07:28 AM    #

32. Whether ironic or not, Kyle has another great idea. However, instilling responsibility, as the Amethyst Initiative is advocating, would be at the cost of instilling docility and malleability. But perhaps this is why much of the Amethyst Initiative is comprised of those responsible for educating the patriciate.

    — Jesse    Aug 20, 07:33 AM    #

33. Paul…because fighting a war for our freedoms and voting for the leadership in this country are not the same as yelling fire in a movie theatre. If you don’t know the difference then I’d like to ask…have you been drinking?

    — jessica212    Aug 20, 07:37 AM    #

34. BB, post #29, hit the nail on the head with respect to the issue of our social norm (binging is an acceptable and expected rite of passage in our society, and apparently, spreading to Europe.) BB also hits the nail on the head by noting the economic interests of the alcohol industry.

    For those who question whether college presidents should be speaking, I say better college presidents than political and business leaders whose stake in this is more material than human. At least we can count on college presidents and their staffs to be more likley to advocate on behalf of those they serve, students.

    A call for careful reexamination of the legal drinking age is fine, as far as it goes. But careful reexamination needs to take into account the volumes of scientific, medical evidence about the effect of alcohol on the human brain and the human body in general. It also needs to reexamine the data about the social consequences of alcohol consumption (sexual assault, physical violence, property damage, etc.)

    This is not simply about the right to drink as an individual; this is about how individual behavior impacts the community and what can be done to mitigate the potential negative effects of alcohol. As a nation we have experimented , and failed, over the course of our history to adequately address problems with alcohol. I think it is because we too often take a moralistic stance, over-focus on individual rights and fail to consider facts related to alcohol consumption. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on this matter, but to borrow from John Adams, “Facts are stubborn things.” And the fact is that alcohol presents real risks of harm that we must face and address. Lowering the legal age for consumption, by itself, will do nothing to help address the serious and complicated issues associated with alcohol consumption.

    And this is not simply a problem for colleges, just look at the data in your own community about the impact of alcohol outside of colleges. During the 1970’s and 1980’s when I was completing my graduate studies in counseling, I learned that alcoholism was the #1 addiction in the USA. That was before we went to the uniform legal age of 21. We have a bigger problem than just college students binge drinking.

    — Rick    Aug 20, 08:01 AM    #

35. Binge drinking is rampant, because the kids are not 21 and they have to hide. So they chug hard liquor which is easier to conceal than beer. If you can fight in a war and vote for President, you should be able to have a drink. And drinking on campus – sometimes with faculty present (at smaller colleges) – in plain view, may help with learning to drink responsibly. If the kids didn’t have to drink furtively, there might not be so many ambulance runs on campus. In terms of fatalities from alcohol poisoning, I believe hard liquor to be more dangerous than beer or wine. And finally, yes, college presidents need to take a stand on this issue – it affects pretty much all college age students.

    — PWD    Aug 20, 08:38 AM    #

36. years ago when my college had a liquor license and pubs on campus the students didn’t go into local bars with fake IDs. Their drinking was therefore more controlled and less inclined to bingeing. Like PWD, I think that was preferable.

    — historian    Aug 20, 08:46 AM    #

37. Very disappointing. The presidents are passing the problem to the high schools—-a group that is not equipped to deal with it. This is a classic case of passing the buck. Terrible!

    — Ken    Aug 20, 09:07 AM    #

38. Ken,

    How is this passing the problem to the high schools? I see it as sharing the problem with the rest of society. It not soley the responsibility of colleges and universitys to address underage drinking. As Rick mentioned our country has done a poor job in addressing alcohol. This is a national issue and needs to be front and center.

    — Carl    Aug 20, 09:26 AM    #

39. The whole subject of high-risk drinking is complex and, as seen here, approached from many perspectives. There is also a pervasive lack of well-informed discourse on the subject combined with an ambivalence shared by many who may use the drug discussing another population segment not using the drug.

    Just some thoughts:
    The WHO report of a few years ago show that most European countries have more problems as a result of alcohol consumption than does the United States.

    The 21 drinking age has never been an unenforceable mandate. Rather it is a law that many “adults” are unwilling to enforce. This unwillingness is usually due to economics and most often it is not the cost of the enforcement but the possible loss of easy income.

    Many adults consume alcohol. This should not be confused with drinking alcohol being an adult behavior.

    The media and the alcohol beverage industry do promote over consumption of alcohol and do target youth in the marketing of alcohol.

    College presidents serve many constituencies and are swayed by many political pressures. Sometimes these pressures result in less than optimum decisions.

    While some parents teach responsible drinking the behavior of many adults, including those on college campuses, indicate that adults cannot socialize without consuming alcohol. Frequently that consumption is not moderate. The modeling, not the teaching, leads to the perceived norm.

    Underage and dangerous drinking is not just a college problem; it is a community and societal problem.

    We, as a society, do not respect the dangers of the alcohol the way we do other drugs. Most of us think long and hard about whether or not we will use street drugs or Rx off label, even tobacco. With alcohol most us us simply think about when we will begin using.

    Looking to a world where we all can socialize – party, if you will – and perhaps have a drink of alcohol is what many in prevention work for. We cannot get there from this present focus on drinking to get drunk and an alcohol sign on every corner. Alcohol poses the number one health and success risk to college students and this will not change with making it more available. The problem is that it has remained too available. Perhaps we should concentrate on finally and responsibly enforcing a good law and curbing economic incentives to promote over consumption. We may then see what we need to do to get to that ideal situation.

    — Gerry    Aug 20, 09:53 AM    #

40. Why not take a more creative approach and require that anyone under 21 who wishes to drink legally must be a high school graduate. That would truly help reduce our dropout rate and encourage the young adult behavior that would reduce binge drinking. I was raised in a family of German heritage and alcohol was available at a very young age. By the time I got to college, drinking was not a big deal. There is always a way for underage students to get alcohol, so I think a better option is to make it legal and require the completion of a state sponsored program and a high school diploma to obtain the priviledge to drink before the age of 21.

    — Dan    Aug 20, 10:22 AM    #

41. Does anyone else see a problem with someone having to binge drink to go to a social function? Maybe lowering the age so thyey’re legal isn’t the answer. Many of these kids have already been drinking irresponsibly in high school and are well on their way to becoming alcoholics. Seems to me we’re just helping them along in the process. Somehow we can ban trans fats but we can’t leave the drinking age at 21. After all, old enough to fight in a war and vote but not eat greasy french fries.

    — Robert    Aug 20, 10:26 AM    #

42. For everyone who believes that the drinking age and voting age ought to be the same – let’s make the voting age 21 again. An additional three years of life experience for the electorate would not be a bad thing. At least it would eliminate the need for a presidential candidate to have a “town meeting” with teenagers on MTV so they could ask him whether he wears boxers or briefs.

    I am not in favor of raising the age for military service. Remember, there is no draft, so service in the military is now an opportunity for both service and growth that I do not want to take away from our young people. Enlistment into the military right out of high school is a wonderful opportunity for those who cannot afford college to either earn GI Bill benefits or to learn a skill that can be used on the civilian market. Raising the age of enlistment would deny a large number of young people the opportunity to both serve their country (all of you) and to better themselves along the way.

    — FB    Aug 20, 10:28 AM    #

43. Kudos to the presidents; someone has to be sensible about this. So many of the comments here worry that this move is just “passing the buck” to high schools, worry that this would exacerbate the problem of binge drinking. Newsflash: middle schoolers are dealing scripts, high schoolers get drunk and laid. It happens—don’t you folks remember high school? And it happens partly because they are not treated like adults. I mean, if we load em up on amphetamines from the age of 5 so they can handle their ADD, why shouldn’t they feel like they can toss back a few to chill out after the homecoming game? Enforcing laws doesn’t work if the laws are perceived as unreasonable by the ones they’re supposed to “protect” (eg. how many of us speed on a regular basis? That’s pretty irresponsible, dangerous, illegal, puts lives at risk, etc. etc. but we can, it’s fun sometimes, and it gets us where we need to go. Same deal.). Underage drinking is not the problem. Binge drinking is the problem. Alcohol availability is NOT the cause.
    But Ellis and Kyle raise a good point: what about decriminalizing or legalizing marijuana? It’s immeasurably safer than alcohol. When’s the last time you heard someone get loaded and cause a bar fight? Or go stoned-driving and kill one of their buddies in a car accident? Hmmm…never. Once again, cheers to the presidents for taking a stand for the well-being of their students, fiscal responsibility, and old-fashioned common sense.

    — Just a thought...    Aug 20, 10:45 AM    #

44. The binge-drinking phenomenon is very prevalent – perhaps the norm – on our campus, and I’m not convinced that changing the drinking age would do anything to diminish it.

    What COULD change if the drinking age were lowered is that students might be less fearful about calling an ambulance to a party where an underage drinking student has collapsed or is violently ill from drinking. Last year on our campus a student died of alcohol poisoning, in part because those around her feared the punishment they might receive for their own underage drinking, were they to call in authorities to assist their ill friend (also underage). She might be alive today, had they not tried so hard to “protect her” from punishment for her underage drinking.

    — Ashley    Aug 20, 10:53 AM    #

45. Why not pair a lowering of the drinking age with a lowering of the blood-alcohol level for DUI? It is one way to make the consequences for heavy drinking more costly.

    — economist    Aug 20, 10:54 AM    #

46. Hey “Just a thought’,” why have any laws? I’m sure we can find pedophiles who think it’s unreasonable to have laws against what they do. By the way, children and teens are not little adults. They need to be protected.

    — Robert    Aug 20, 10:57 AM    #

47. FB,

    Which is the higher risk activity: binge drinking in college or intimate encounters with IEDs in Iraq? The idea that somehow we must stop people under 21 from drinking because it is harmful to them but that we should encourage people under 21 to enlist in the military which has a much higher probability of loss of life or lifelong psychological and physical trauma than binge drinking is appalling to me. I’m not saying binge drinking is good, but it’s no where near as bad as being traumatized by war. I’d rather have kids drinking heavily in college that getting blown to bits by suicide bombers, and I’d rather see them get a good education in college than the “wonderful opportunity” they will get in the military.

    — Michael    Aug 20, 11:41 AM    #

48. I am absolutely amazed that very few of the (presumably) well educated individuals here have proposed a critique of how higher education actually promotes binge drinking (particularly in Division I institutions). During the Fall, universities across the country invite their alumni on campus for approximately 5 large parties (BYOB of course). During these social gatherings, many of them tailgate on campus. This is encouraged since happy alumni = large contributions. During Winter, we usually offer 30 opportunities for the alumni to come to campus in a major way (depending on the success of various athletic teams). We sponsor and recognize fraternal organizations that have a long record of irresponsibility and then say that it’s up to the national organizations to police them. We fail to oppose the establishment of new liquor licenses within walking distance of our campuses, AND we often sell (or license) shot glasses, beer glasses, wine glasses, and beer cozies with our college logos on them. We do all of these things in order to create and market the “collegiate experience” as well as generate revenue for the institution. We then expect students to ignore all of that and listen to the message of a few student affairs administrators and even a well intentioned program or two. I used to co-coordinate one of those programs, it was a lot of work with little recognizable impact, but we did it because we said “if we can help one student….” Of course we should have had the guts to challenge our own administration about the mixed messages it sent with the main field for Fall tailgating located right next to the Freshmen residence halls.

    — JS    Aug 20, 11:50 AM    #

49. Concerns about drinking in Chicago can result in a variety of retaliatory actions.

    1. IIT sought a restraining order for discussing their all you can drink and frequent alcohol being associated with deaths and terminated me. They said things like “if you talk you will be fired” and “if you talk on a train you will be fired.”

    2. Their graduates took actions like charged money for asking where my mother was, not letting me visit my mother, not letting me phone my mother, disputing food, dental ,optical, transportation, medical, prescription, clothes bills to make money for the Cook County system, denying mother’s rights then having sheriff push me from the Daley Center, denying requests for my mother to get fresh air away from smokers, get fresh air, go home, go to church. Their graduates requested that my access be restricted because a nursing home director said “You are going to be dead if you say things like” about contacting the US Attorney about treatment of the elderly like slaves or persons in camps. They withheld my mother’s location, withheld chemicals put in my mother, charged money to lie about not getting letters from my mother that she wanted to be visited, go home, get phone calls, go outside away from smokers. Their graduates engaged in direct retaliation behavior such as handcuffing parent for avoiding nursing home smokers and handcuffing her because we were told we could stay in an apartment and dispute an eviction. I had also discussed issues like Illinois and Cook County taxing Boeing involved in wars.

    Be careful about being concerned about “all you can drink” and frequent alcohol in Illinois because graduates retaliate against alcohol and other concerns. These graduates were working for Cook County but even talking about the County taxing alcohol, tobacco and a corporation involved in wars can result in retaliatory actions in Cook County.

    Cook County will do things like to your family too. If you get a diagnosis of any kind, Cook County might take you as property. Any diagnoses such as upset by alcohol issues, anemia anything. Cook County will then charge to express any right such as going to the zoo, museums or getting fresh air. Almost every request results in jail threats and being pushed from the Daley Center. I am not sure why that is. They appear to respond to concerns with retaliation of many kinds.

    — James T. Struck    Aug 20, 01:22 PM    #

50. If the colleges took a stand with their pocketbooks, and banned alcohol advertising for college sporting events, their concern might be more believable. And consider that many more 18 year olds are not in residential college settings than are, this campaign seems like a very provincial approach.

    — a parent    Aug 20, 01:25 PM    #

51. The whole problem of binge drinking of college students could be greatly lessened if parents modeled moderate use of alcohol and allowed moderate teenage drinking in the home during mealtime. Binge drinking only occurs since college students don’t know how to drink in a responsible manner by not having positive use provided as examples. Alcohol is too often treated like a forbidden fruit by parents. It’s no wonder that many students imbibe irresponsibly large quantities of the forbidden fruit in college since responsible moderate usage is never allowed or encouraged in the home.

    — Paul Dahl    Aug 20, 02:00 PM    #

52. I agree with Paul, #52, in that parents should model responsible drinking behavior, but let’s not forget that not all parents drink.

    More recently, some parents have gotten into trouble for allowing their teens to consume alcohol, even at holidays, which is a gross invasion of privacy and a violation of families’ rights to dictate their own family norms.

    Let’s also remember that binging doesn’t start in college for lots of kids—it starts in high school. I’m not so far removed from it yet that I can’t remember the weekly parties, people talking about how drunk they got the weekend before. Again, a family, not a state, responsibility.

    I firmly believe that the drinking age should be lowered to 18 because, in the US, that is when you legally become an adult—you can also buy cigarettes, which are just as harmful, if not more so, than alcohol to young bodies. As far as I’m concerned, it’s not down to the state to decide when you’re responsible enough, mature enough, etc., to have a drink—even 18 is arbitrary, though I’ll admit that there probably should be some baseline age, and 18 make the most sense. I’ve seen adults in their late 20s binging and puking their guts out, and under-21s drinking responsibly—there’s no magic formula. All we can do is encourage people to drink responsibly, and give them the tools to do so. Most will choose that path, and some will not. That’s the case now, as well.

    — Julia    Aug 20, 03:08 PM    #

53. This debate should include consideration of the physical effect of alcohol on the still developing brain of young college students. See the AMA statement regarding irreversible brain damage. Educators and Administrators should consider this information in the debate. My reading of the research says that 21 is a pretty safe age to ensure the brain will not suffer long term damage. Of course large doses of alcohol in adult brains also causes longterm damage.

    http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/9416.html

    — fairly new instructor    Aug 20, 03:17 PM    #

54. I agree with 20, 21, 23, 26, 36 and ESP 45

    Please also realize that for a woman having a “first drunk” around high school friends with home nearby is very very very different from a “first drunk” surrounded by other freshmen and near strangers.

    I have just joined a FaceBook group about this. Following is my comment from there.

    I am more than twice 21. I am joining this group because as a student and then a professor I have seen the human toll. The drinking age increase has caused a change in patterns of drinking. Believe it or not, when the drinking age was 18 we did not binge via “pre-drinking”. Certainly people make mistakes in any situation but it is far far more difficult to manage to drink reasonably when pre-drinking. Prohibition has changed the party culture on campuses in a way that is dangerous to the point of deadly.

    It is also the case that when a high school student over drinks his or her parents are available to drive and to take them safely home. At a party full of freshman there is no safety net. Again, prohibition has changed patterns of experimentation and introduction to alcohol in a manner that is dangerous to the point of deadly.

    Thank you to the students on FaceBook AND the University leaders for their political activism on this point.

    — Jean Camp    Aug 20, 04:45 PM    #

55. Fairly new instructor (#54) reminds us of what I pointed out in my previous post – there is scientific evidence about the effect of alcohol on the developing brain that suggests we need to be more concerned about alcohol consumption by adolescents and young adults, whether or not they are college students.

    This is not a simple issue. Like so many complex problems, it seems to me that is plagued with a surfeit of simple answers and opinions.

    — Rick    Aug 21, 07:13 AM    #

56. As has already been noted, binge drinking has been going on on college campuses since long before the legal drinking age was raised to 21. I doubt lowering it back to 18 is going to make it go away. I don’t think I’ve seen this mentioned, though. Many young people get started drinking because they’re away from home for the first time, they’re living on their own (more or less) and they’re surrounded by all kinds of temptation which may or may not have been around for practice in high school. They don’t know anyone yet. They go to the parties to meet people. They accept the drinks to loosen up. It goes from there.

    Who better than college presidents to address this issue? The students are living right there at their colleges, where these problems are happening. But I think they’re wrong about the solution. Often, making an illegal activity suddenly legal takes the excitement out of it, but not in this case. If that were true, binge drinking wouldn’t have been a problem in the 70s and movies like “Animal House” wouldn’t be the cult classics that they are.

    They need to keep looking.

    — Carlo    Aug 21, 09:42 AM    #

57. Unfortunately, advocates of lowering the drinking age may not be aware that reverting to these outdated 60’s and 70’s era policies costs lives. MADD has compiled powerful evidence regarding the consequences of lowering the drinking age. Consider this:
    • As one of the most studied public health laws in history, the scientific research from more than 50 high-quality studies all found that the 21 law saves lives. Studies show that the 21 law causes those under the age of 21 to drink less and to continue to drink less throughout their 20s.
    • About 5,000 people under age 21 die each year due to underage drinking. This does not include sexual assaults, violence and injuries.
    • The earlier youth drink (average age of first drink is about 16), the more likely they will become dependent on alcohol and drive drunk later in life.
    • Setting the drinking age at 21 has saved lives on our roads. Between 1983 and 1989, the number of drivers at a .10 BAC (the old illegal limit for adults) involved in fatal crashes increased, except for two age groups – 16-20 year olds, which decreased 32 percent, and 21-24 year olds, which decreased 18 percent.
    • The Centers for Disease Control has looked at 49 peer-reviewed studies of places that changed their drinking age and found conclusively that a 21 minimum drinking age decreases fatalities by 16 percent.
    • All underage drinking is unsafe drinking. Research has shown that the brain continues to
    develop into the early twenties. The part that controls reasoning and cognitive ability takes the longest to mature; thus, underage drinking, especially heavy drinking, affects memory and reasoning. The part of the brain responsible for forming new memories, is noticeably smaller in youth who abuse alcohol. Alcohol use in adolescence also decreases executive functioning, memory, spatial operations, and attention among adolescents.

    — Kathy Ryan, MSN, FNP Lincoln High School Nurse    Aug 21, 10:45 AM    #

58. Kathy, has any research been done on the effect of moderate drinking at meals by teenagers in regards to the developing brain. I certainly understand the impact of heavy or excessive drinking but I am curious if there is research on the impact of moderate amounts of alcohol (like 1 glass of wine, etc.) on the developing brain.

    — Paul Dahl    Aug 21, 01:34 PM    #

59. Let’s remember that a third of 18 – 20 year olds are not in college. This can’t just be looked at as a college issue.

    Does anyone think the high school drinking problem was reduced when the drinking age was raised from 18 to 21 years ago?

    However this is decided, please don’t bring back 3.2 beer.

    — MBS    Aug 21, 02:23 PM    #

60. There are two issues mingled in this discussion. It’s not binge drinking that is most affected by this proposal, but drinking and driving. If MADD lived up to their name, they’d understand this better, but they’ve mostly become a broadly prohibitionist movement.
    If alcohol is illegal, and you were obtaining it illicitly, then would you get a case of beer or a bottle of Everclear? And you can’t drink in your dorm room, so you might want to drive out to some private spot where you’d be less likely to be caught. Criminalization of drink puts more drunks in cars, not fewer.
    When keg parties in my dorm were legal, lo many years ago, there weren’t so many liquor bottles lying about, nor did guests have to drive home after the party was over.
    Current prohibitions on drinking are about as effective as abstinence-only sex education. Time to change the curriculum.

    — Cal    Aug 21, 04:08 PM    #

61. As long as society in general condones drinking among adults, kids will want to do it. As long as it is considered a cool, adult thing to do, what on earth makes anybody think we can keep kids from doing it? Why do people need to drink to have fun, anyway? I have plenty of fun and don’t drink. There has been documentation in medical literature for years now that the human brain, particularly the part responsible for higher reasoning, is not developed until about the mid-20s. So we have kids and we have them drunk.

    — Deborah    Aug 21, 04:38 PM    #

62. I think allowing a 16 or 17 year old to pilot a 5,000 pound vehicle aka the family car is far more dangerous than allowing a 19 year old to legally purchase a glass of wine.

    — Mark Smith    Aug 22, 12:38 AM    #

63. Who ever said that raising the age for military service to 21…here, here..although, many young people enter military service as a way to pay for their education,however, that shouldn’t mean you should ship them off to war at age 18 either…I think sending anyone to war at a young age IS child abuse. And then there’s the question as to the affect of alcohol on under developed minds (is there good science here?). I think binge drinking has been always here..I just don’t recall anyone in the 60’s dying from it in the numbers as today but…there’s more of us now. Whenever the population gets out of hand…there’ll be more rules and regualtions..ie, more cars on the road…seat belts required. There’s much to consider, however, I don’t think dropping it into a universities lap is the answer..that’s just ‘passing the buck’.

    — jessica212    Aug 22, 07:42 AM    #

64. Paul (post #59) – the AMA may have answered your question in 2001 when they released their 20 year review of the literature on the effect of alcohol on the brain (I believe it was in the December 2001 JAMA). Along with the review of the literature, I recall reading in the news release a description of a study involving a group of 21-24 year olds who were given a learning and memory test, then permitted to consume alcohol while their BAC was monitored to keep it below .08, then the learning and memory test was again administered. Result: immediate 25% reduction performance. If .08 or less is considered moderate drinking, then it appears alcohol can have an immediate detrimental effect on learning and memory. What we do not know yet scientifically (at least as far as I have read) is the duration of this effect.

    — Rick    Aug 22, 10:33 PM    #

65. Regarding the various messages regarding binge drinking as social norm — the Social Norms Institute has actually proven that the vast majority of students do not binge drink, and a number of them don’t drink at all. In fact, they have found that alcohol problems are lower among college students than among the general population and age-matched non-college cohorts.

    The social norms institute has also demonstrated that alcohol education programs that raise awareness about the facts about how majority of real college students actually behave have been remarkably effective.

    See their website:
    www.socialnorms.org

    [NB: I am a professor of history and am in no way affiliated with the Social Norms Institute]

    — Heather Munro Prescott    Aug 23, 07:54 AM    #

66. Dear Rick and others,

    Have you read this June 19, 2008 article (Should You Drink With Your Kids?) from Time magazine located at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1816475,00.html

    I realize that it isn’t a peer reviewed article so it won’t be viewed as scientifically plausible that parents allowing older adolescents (16+) to drink a small amount of alcohol at family meals may lead to positive alcohol usage as an adult.

    I personally believe that parents communicating and demonstrating to their children that alcohol drank at a meal is the proper way to drink will lead to the desired effect of non-binge drinking in adulthood. There will certainly be far less than 100% effectiveness since some parents don’t drink and some view alcohol as an complete evil.

    Please note that I believe that binge drinking in all its forms is hazardous to the body (and potentially one’s life) and possesses the ability to harm others as well since misguided actions done when intoxicated have unpredictable outcomes.

    — Paul Dahl    Aug 24, 05:42 PM    #

67. Paul (#67) – No, I have not seen the Time magazine article. You are correct, I would not credit it per se since it is not a peer reviewed journal but that does not mean that I would not consider carefully evidence that proper modeling of moderate acohol consumption would be helpful.

    Again, I remain concerned that absent fuller consideration and investigation of the effect of alcohol on the developing human brain we, as a society, will likely make an ill-informed decision with serious health consequences for another generation. This is an issue that needs more careful study and caution, since the consequences for not taking seriously scientific studies and the evidence they provide, are fairly serious.

    We should keep in mind the number of alcoholics in our society, and their cost to society in lives, health and monetary expense. This is not just about individual rights, this is about community responsibility too from my perspective.

    If modeling of moderate drinking really makes a contribution to the reduction of binge drinking and other forms of alcohol abuse, then I would be open to that as long as the moderate and “safe” levels of alcohol consumption take into account the impact of alcohol on the developing brain.

    I am not an unreasonable person and am willing to permit new facts and information to influence my thinking (just not that willing to let alcohol influence my thinking. :))

    — Rick    Aug 26, 08:04 AM    #

Previous: Law-Schools Meeting Finds a Way to Deal With Boycott Threat
Next: 2 Professors Explain Why They Resigned From U. of Missouri at Kansas City