The recent movement by some college presidents to reduce the legal drinking age to 18 is shortsighted. Trying to lower the drinking age is a superficial response to a deep issue (“College presidents want lower drinking age,” USATODAY.com, Aug. 18).
It is unlikely that the law would be changed, no matter how many college presidents join this movement. So why are they getting involved?
Know this: Not all students go to college to drink. I’ve talked to countless students across the country who long for their college experience to be different. They are developing virtues of delayed gratification, self-control and sacrifice. They are students who want to think more deeply about the goal of education and the meaning of life. Some are students who have been hurt by the effects of alcohol abuse. Many didn’t mind waiting a few years to drink legally and have learned to do so responsibly.
Developing students such as these will require college presidents with the moral clarity and courage to make strong decisions about what is acceptable behavior at their colleges.
What is needed is an atmosphere on our nation’s campuses conducive to shaping students’ character so that waiting to drink until the age of 21 wouldn’t seem like such a sacrifice.
Of all the absurdities in this delightful nation, this one has to rank high. If alcohol is legal for adults then there is no justification for treating persons between 18 and 21 as a discrete class, especially if they can vote and enlist. It got really absurd when university receptions couldn’t have wine if there was a possibility of undergraduates attending.
When I was in college, drinking beer and wine was legal at 18, hard liquor at 21. This seemed to work fine – with much less travel “off campus” to drink, less driving, etc. The trick for a college is to be so tough academically so that too much drinking will be detrimental to your GPA – as my college was. The whole idea of treating young adults as children makes them act as children.
The real absurdity is permitting 18 year olds to take on unlimited student loans, which cannot be discharged in bancruptcy court. I say that instead of rolling back the drinking age to 18, we increase the age of military eligibility (without parental consent) and the age to make legal contracts to 21. If that means the military loses its cannon fodder so be it.
The university presidents who have fostered a hostile “work” environment but permitting excessive drinking, drug use, and rampant promiscuity, simply wish to excuse themselves from the obvious consequences of their failures, by saying “it’s just legal behavior by consenting adults”.
My daughter says:
“Oh, man! If they lower the drinking age just as I turn 21, I am going to be SO MAD at someone!”
On the other hand, one of the things that had to be cancelled permanently was the wine and cheese parties at the Episcopal Campus center when the drinking age was raised to 21. Such a pity. 🙂
I went undergraduate in the Seventies to two colleges, the first in California where the drinking age was 21, the second in Massachusetts where the drinking age was 18. Alcohol abuse was MUCH lower at my Massachusetts school. In fact, the college had an official student pub that served wine, beer and food that was always well attended, and students were basically well-behaved because it was out in the open, and you didn’t want to look like a dork by getting blitzed.
Looking at #4 LibraryJim’s comments, I would also mention the difference in culture in drinking publicly before the drinking age was raised. My Massachusetts college regularly had mixers and receptions, and when it was warm, garden parties, where faculty and students would mix and have wine, cheese and hors d’oeuvres. Male students were expected to wear coat and tie, women to be in nice dresses, and people were expected to be civilized. Or professors would invite their students to their homes to discuss class subjects over wine and cheese. One of my most memorable evenings at a professor’s home was when the British ambassador to Iran was a guest and gave a fascinating talk and slide show about Persian and Islamic art–this was before the Shah fell and Iran fell into fundamentalist barbarism, and Iran was still a great place to visit, especially places like Isfahan.
Yes, it was all class socialization when colleges believed in things like that (the Sixties didn’t immolate my college until probably the late Seventies, early Eighties), but that also presented the consumption of alcohol in a different atmosphere than just getting blitzed in a dorm room.
The problem many college students now have in imbibing alcohol isn’t the age at which they start – it’s the rate at which they consume when they do drink. Lowering the age to 18 isn’t going to teach them how to drink responsibly. As long as they set out drinking to get drunk, they’re going to have issues. (Yes, I know not all college students binge drink and not all drink with the intention of getting drunk – I’m not speaking all or nothing here).
(From a response on my blog which I just posted to the above.)
Now admittedly most ill informed people could construct a stronger argument for retaining this absurd law. But it does serve to illustrate the weak rationales employed by those who continue to support this foolishness.
Back when I was in the Navy right after I made Petty Officer 3rd class, a crusty old boatswains mate who was in the canoe club before Noah took me aside and gave me some words of advice that have stuck with me through the years. “Never give an order that you know is likely to be ignored and that you are either unable or unwilling to enforce it. It lowers respect for authority in general and you in particular.”
The 21 year old drinking age is without a doubt the most universally ignored law since they repealed the 55 MPH speed limit. Is there anyone who does not know an 18 year old who cannot get his hands on a beer if he wants one? Its passage was one of the most blatant assaults on States Rights in recent memory. Congress has no authority to regulate people’s dietary habits and the law was only able to pass by blackmailing the states into submission. But even more than being unconstitutional and generally unenforceable it is flawed on multiple levels.
It serves no demonstrable purpose. The argument for it was that it would save lives in traffic accidents. But the statistical evidence on this is at best inconclusive. Much of the lowered fatality rates claimed by supporters of the law can be attributed to tougher safety laws (like seat belt requirements) and the construction of much safer automobiles today than when the law was passed. Further, there is a growing suspicion that the law may have had an opposite effect by encouraging binge drinking by young people in places where for obvious reasons there is little or no presence on the part of responsible adults. In such situations excessive drinking is far more common. Often these illicit drinking parties occur in remote places and those participating drive to and from. How many accidents have have been caused by this? As far as I am aware there have been no studies.
If one stands by the (IMO spurious) argument that the 21 yo drinking law saves lives, why then did we not ban drinking by those over 21? I guarantee you that if it works for those under 21 (which I doubt) than it would work for those over that age. There is of course one very good reason why drinking was not banned for those over 21. They vote.
No member of Congress is going to vote to deny a large block of reliable voters a basic right of adulthood. They would be committing political suicide. However, one undeniable statistic is that persons under the age of 21 are among the least likely to vote. This has been proven in every election since the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18. This demographic group is thus regarded by most politicians as a safe target for discrimination.
Which brings us to the subject of discrimination. At age 18 in these United States…
* You are considered an adult in virtually ever respect under the law.
* You can sign contracts and go into legal debt.
* You can sue and be sued.
* You can own real property.
* You can own a firearm.
* You can serve in the armed forces and get shot or killed while fighting for your country. But if you order a beer in a bar you risk jail.
* You are eligible for the draft should it be reinstated.
* You can vote.
* You can buy cigarettes(!) but not a beer.
* You are subject to the full rigor of the criminal code as an adult.
* You can even be sentenced to death in more than thirty states. But you could not order a beer with your last meal before they fry you!
All things considered I can not think of a single well reasoned argument in support of retaining this modern day mini version of prohibition. As someone who is well past 21 and who drinks so rarely that I have been called a teetotaler I have no dog in this fight. But I intensely dislike hypocrisy, especially when it comes from grandstanding politicians and moral busy bodies. The basic premise of this law boils down to this. Some people think they have a right to tell other people how to live their lives, but don’t want the same standards applied to their own. This is moral hypocrisy at its most guttural level. If you’re a Baptist or a Temperance person and you don’t think people should drink, that’s fine. Preach it from the pulpit. Excommunicate or shun those who don’t tow the line. But if you try telling others how to live by passing laws you are crossing a line that I feel compelled to push back on.
The right to regulate by law the behavior of others ceases when their behavior does not interfere with your rights. Until someone can demonstrate how an 18 year old soldier or sailor just back from Iraq having a beer constitutes a threat to the public safety, this law will remain not merely absurd, but an immoral attack on liberty which every citizen who is concerned with the ever increasing encroachment by government on individual rights should be outraged over.
To those young adults who may wander onto this site and read this post, I have a modest suggestion. Start a petition drive online and at every college campus in America with the signers pledging that they will under no circumstances vote for any candidate for Congress or President who does not publicly support the repeal of the 21 year old drinking law. That just might get some attention from Washington.
ICXC NIKA
[url=http://ad-orientem.blogspot.com/]John[/url]
I agree with the Amythest Coalition of University Presidents. When I read about the letter, the first thing I said to myself was “I am going to write the president of my college and ask him to sign it.” Then I found the website and looked at the list, I was proud to see that He already has. I was in the “moving class”. When I entered as a freshman, the age was 18, it went up to 19 then 20 then 21. So our class (Class of 1987) was the last one in which everybody (well except for those very few prodigies who graduated HS at 16 or so) could drink legally. We could have classes with the professor over a pitcher of beer. During summer school sessions, the university provided a keg every Friday and a “party” was held on the lawn of the President’s house. During my senior year, every Friday our genetics class had mimosas (OJ and Champagne) during our 9AM class. Students drank at the Football games. Everybody went to Frat parties. Just about nobody (I can only think of 2 times during 4 years) ever was DUI. During Party weekends, the University provided transportation between parties and dorms. After the Easter Vigil(and thus the end of lent) there was a reception with Champagne. All of these experiences are among my happy memories (as well as getting Honors on my comprehensivce examination.)
None of them are available to students of today. Now, they have to “skulk around” to drink. There are DUI’s. When people finally turn 21 they get plastered. (BTW, I was only “plastered” ONCE in my entire University “career” and that was due to the fact that I had no experience with GRAIN ALCOHOL PUNCH which somebody kept handing me cups of.)
So, allow the drinking age to be lowered. I would even restrict it to “on campus” rather than “in public.”
#6 – Jim the Puritan – that was my experience as well. You were treated as an adult who was able to drink socially – and you learned how to drink responsibly if you didn’t already know from your parents. The 21 age limit is arbitrary, capricious, and detrimental, in my opinion.
All I can say is… my last son turns 21 in 10 days and I can not wait!!!
I don’t think the legal drinking age should be 18, but I definitely think 21 is way to late. I had one son join the Marines at 18. He could be shipped overseas and die, but he could not buy a beer on base… Something is wrong with that picture.
the reason kids/students drink (or they they deserve to drink) has nothing to do with age…the reason they drink is because that is what they see adults do as the kids/students grow up…they watch adults drink for relaxation…they watch adults drink for celebration…they watch adults drink when they’re upset…they watch adults drink when they’re happy…they watch adults drink at home…they watch adults drink at parties…and they notice that every major function serves alcohol…so kids/students drink because they have seen adults drink when they are happy, sad, angry, lonely, joyful, exhausted, exhilirated and on and on and on…that’s why they want to drink…so they can get what adults get from alcohol.
oops…in #12, the first line should read…(or THAT they deserve to drink)
Again, my quarrel is not that a person who is allowed to die in war or get into debt should not be able to order a beer. My quarrel is that we are abandoning our children by allowing them to take on the trappings of adulthood when a large number of them are not able to handle it.
Kids shouldn’t be allowed to get into debt at 18. Twenty one is soon enough.
Kids shouldn’t be expected to fend for themselves at 18. In previous generations there was a whole community who supported you, and throught most of this century there was a family who supported you.
Now most parents cant wait for their kid to turn 18, so that they can be formally let off the hook for their bad behavior, moodiness, room and board, and education.
Some parents “emancipate” their kids at 16 or even under.
I see it all the time.
Saying this is about letting the poor guys in the Marine corps get a beer between tours muddys the picture. This is about making sure the college president doesn’t have to deal with the consequences of the frat party/binge drinking “accidental” death on campus. If the kids are “legal” then it’s the kids fault, not the colleges’.
Maybe we can make drinking, going into debt, joining the Marines legal for 16 year olds too. That would solve a lot of parental headaches. Or maybe 13, once they stop being cute little fashion accessories, and start being mouthy, moody, albatrosses.
Or maybe we adults could actually grow up, and take responsibility for our children and save up for college, insist on good behavior, enforce campus discipline, and maybe even go to war if we think the war is important enough, instead of enlisting children too young to drink in the Army, just because they are now 18 and have no place else to go.
I think that you have oversimplified the situation. If we raised our children right, they will turn out ok? I’ve learned, (the hard way) that good parenting will win out in the end, but kids are kids. There is a HUGE difference between a 16 year old and a 19 or 20 year old.
Fact is, we have a problem with our youth. Good parenting helps them survive, but they are influenced by the culture. Just about every bit of media entertainment out there, (music, movie, tv, etc) draws out the very worst in our culture, and our kids are plunking down $ after $ to drink it in. The immoral and violent has become a yawn.
All I can say is am delighted that all mine are over 21, (almost). And they are maturing and they are productive. I wouldn’t want to go through the land mine of raising kids of that age again.
I think it would have been easier for me had they been able to drink alcohol at a younger age, (19 or 20). This past year has been difficult for me as the consequences of a 20 year old drinking (at least in this town) is the same as if he were 15 or 16. That is silly. And we did make it through safely.
I have great kids, but it took a lot of parenting to get them through this maze of youth…
Again, I agree. There is a HUGE difference between 21 and 16. There is much less of a difference between 18 and 16. (I notice you said “19 or 20”, not “18” as a good age to drink).
If there is a huge difference between 21 and 18, maybe we shouldn’t be loading our kids down with college debt, sending them off to wars (let alone letting them take personal responsibility for countering the “culture” that for the most part has been foisted on them by adults.
That is a good reason for keeping the age of majority at 21. Kids who want to join the military (whose parents think it would be of benefit) could still join with parental consent, just as they can now join at 17 with parental consent. (Some kids benefit from the structure the military offers).
It used to be that for kids to take on college debt, if they were under 21, their parents had to countersign. How many kids would have taken on 150,000 dollars to buy a BA in Art History if their parents had to sign on the dotted line for them?
The reason this college president wishes the drinking age dropped to 18 is for the same reason he and his ilk got the loan age dropped to 18. It is more profitable for a college to pretend that an 18 year old is completely responsible for the crappy college culture, his gigantic college debt etc.