College Presidents seek debate on legal drinking age

Parent Cafe
21

<p>This new effort is an offshoot of John McCardell’s organization Choose Responsibility, which was originally funded by a grant from the Robertson Foundation.</p>

<p>[Choose</a> Responsibility, drinking age, John McCardell, Middlebury, Changing the culture of Young Adult Drinking in America Choose Responsibility](<a href=“http://www.chooseresponsibility.org/home/]Choose”>http://www.chooseresponsibility.org/home/)</p>

<p>I think it’s great that these college presidents are speaking up and inspiring debate.</p>

22

<p>The moderators put words in my mouth when they changed the thread topic. What I wrote was:</p>

<p>**College Presidents speak out in favor of increased teen drunk driving **</p>

<p>I see no need to sugar coat their proposal. Nobody in the field believes that a return to the 18 year drinking age wouldn’t be accompanied by a significant increase in teen drunk driving and associated fatalities.</p>

<p>It is not unbiased to pretend that the college presidents are not calling for something that would increase teen drunk driving.</p>

23

<p>^^
When we revise a thread title the change is automatically reflected in the first post.
Let the record state that interesteddad did originally title his opening post
**College Presidents speak out in favor of increased teen drunk driving **.</p>

<p>Posters, feel free to carry on the discussion – always, of course, remembering to stay well within the Courtesy guidelines of the TOS. This includes discussing/debating the issues, and not charactersitics of fellow posters.</p>

<p>THANKS for the anticipated cooperation!</p>

24

<p>It is just disingenuous to argue that the college presidents are not calling for a change in the drinking age. Here is their statement:</p>

<p>

</p>

25

<p>They ARE calling for debate about a change in the drinking age! What they are not doing is what you claimed in your thread title which was that they were speaking in favor of increased teen drunk driving. One could interpret that this change in drinking age could result in such a way but that was not what they were pushing for. They are looking to debate the legal drinking age.</p>

<p>It is one thing to debate their proposal and another to claim they stated something which they did not.</p>

26

<p>Are you suggesting that 100 college presidents aren’t even aware that lowering the drinking age would result in increased teenage drunk driving? Do you really think they are all that stupid? Or, are they cynically ignoring that?</p>

<p>BTW, who is funding this organization?</p>

27

<p>I’ve never liked the law. I agree with the Presidents. Their position is reasonable, and imho the only realistic position to take. Ban it for everybody or let all legal adults share in the vices and virtues. Aren’t we “infantalizing” these kids enough?</p>

28

<p>idad and mini - perhaps you have done so before, so excuse me if I’m asking for something that’s already been shared in the past…but could you please provide the evidence that clearly shows a cause and effect here? I know that drunk driving fatalities have been reduced since the drinking age was increased to 21. But some of this reduction may be due to people using seat belts (a huge percentage increase) or a change in cultural beliefs regarding drunk driving. Or perhaps better lighted highways. Really now, how can you absolutely prove the reduction in deaths was a result of the change in drinking age? I don’t think people who question this relationship are stupid - I think they’re using their heads to question something that might not be as cut and dry as it seems. Numbers can be presented in many ways - and those skilled with statistics will use them to bolster their case. Why not question it? That’s what academics do…<br>
Also, I remember reading that the highest rate of drunk driving fatalities was for 21 year olds, followed by 22 and 23 year olds. Interesting.</p>

29

<p>

i’ll go one better, we should outlaw alcohol. if you don’t agree with you favor drunk driving and the killing of innocent people.</p>

30

<p>Oh good! Ollie and Otis can drive around drunk in their BMWs!!!</p>

<p>I agree with the presidents. It’s a good topic to discuss. I also agree that binge drinking on campuses is a huge problem. I’m not sure the drinking age keeps many 18-20 year olds from drinking. In fact, I’m sure it does NOT. I haven’t met many college kids who DON’T have fake IDs.</p>

31

<p>An easy solution would be to raise the driving age to 21. :)</p>

32

<p>“mini - perhaps you have done so before, so excuse me if I’m asking for something that’s already been shared in the past…but could you please provide the evidence that clearly shows a cause and effect here? I know that drunk driving fatalities have been reduced since the drinking age was increased to 21. But some of this reduction may be due to people using seat belts (a huge percentage increase) or a change in cultural beliefs regarding drunk driving. Or perhaps better lighted highways. Really now, how can you absolutely prove the reduction in deaths was a result of the change in drinking age?”</p>

<p>So here’s how it was proven (I have posted the links before). States actually changed their drinking rates in different years. Often, there were contiguous states with different drinking rates. Demographers would match up characteristics in neighboring communities to ensure the comparison groups were reliable. They would then not only compare rates of drinking-driving fatalities before and after (again, the data is pretty stunning), but also what was happening in contiguous states and contiguous communities (with the same seatbelt laws, etc.) Really, it was about as pure a “natural” experiment as one ever finds in the world of human behavior.</p>

<p>Then the data is tested for statistical significance (because just because there are “apparent” differences doesn’t mean this isn’t a result of “noise” in the data). An awful lot of Ph.Ds were awarded (the data sets were so rich!) ;)</p>

<p>From a scientific perspective, it is very “cut and dry”. Changes in the drinking age had HUGE impacts on both rates of traffic accidents and on traffic fatalities among young adults. </p>

<p>And, yes, NOW, highest rate of drunk-drive fatalities are among young “legal” drinkers. Any guess way? (How 'bout using Occam’s Razor - laws against under-21 drinkers actually work?)</p>

<p>There were increases in underage drinking between the early 90s, and 2000. College drinking, however, has actually declined somewhat in the past six years, and is likely attributable to four factors: 1) A higher rate of minorities - especially African Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanics attending college - all three groups have much lower drinking rates than Caucasians; 2) More older students attending college - the median age of an UNDERGRADUATE is now 24.5 years of age (18-22 year olds are the exceptions, not the rule, though I note that college drinking has declined for them as well); 3) More female students (they drink less); and 4) the effectiveness of new efforts at many colleges at harm reduction (i.e. reducing the amount that drinking students drink) and in enforcement of drinking laws.</p>

<p>If you don’t believe the drinking age (and enforcement of same) can impact college drinking behavior among 18-20 year olds, I urge you to take a trip to the University of Oklahoma.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, if the college presidents were really interested in moderating rates of binge drinking, there are only a couple of dozen proven, evidence-based practices being utilized on other campuses around the country today that are well short of “debates” about a law which has been proven to save lives. No one stops them from taking action tomorrow - something McCardell never had the courage to do.</p>

33

<p>Oh I like that one Bay!! Just because people do things does not mean they are right. Young teens are not mentally or emotionally able to handle the effects of alcohol the way that older adults are. In addition- let’s not just look at drunk driving- look at the amount of substance abuse issues out there. Look at the number of alcohol related crime, injury, and illnesses. Alcohol does lead to atypical behavior, I was a “wildchild” I don’t know why I am still alive- I shouldn’t be. Don’t think for one minute that the kids on college campus’s would drink less, or binge less if it was legal- they already think it is and nobody ever tells them otherwise. Remember- Living within established laws are the one thing that make us a civilized society, I hope we don’t abolish all the laws that are inconvenient to uphold.</p>

34

<p>I wholeheartedly agree with the Presidents and have for many years. I think it’s ridiculous to think that a 20 year old can handle going to war, getting married and many other adult responsibilities but not a drink. I also think that having my young adults be able to legally have a drink in my home while I can still observe and advise them would be preferrable to not letting them have a legal drink until they are 21 and out of my house.</p>

<p>But it won’t matter what I think, or the Presidents because ID isn’t about to listen to anybody elses opinions and there is nothing anybody can say.</p>

35

<p>Whatever the college presidents are or are not calling for, we have ourselves a debate. At the very least a group of presumably esteemed higher education professionals have expressed concern for current policy. I do remember the problem as it existed when I was a student and have an inkling from the experiences of my friends’ kids that alcohol abuse has not lessened on college campuses since my day. I have often wondered why not raise the age to 23 and virtually eliminate drinking (among undergrads, at least) altogether. I do, however, think it’s glaringly wrong to tell an 18 year-old he/she can fight and die in the military, vote, marry, have children but cannot have a beer. </p>

<p>It seems to me that what’s at issue with teens drinking and teens driving (without even considering driving AND drinking) is judgement. Judgement is borne, in large part anyway, of experience. Teen drivers have little enough time on the road to have developed good judgement under the best of circumstances, so how can we expect anything but disaster if they are allowed the opportunity to impair what judgement they have developed. I don’t mean to suggest for a second that an older, more experienced driver’s judgement is any less impaired by drinking, but I do believe they at least have had greater opportunity to develop good judgement. </p>

<p>What if 18-year-olds were licensed to drink as they are licensed to drive? If they were required to take drinker’s education classes and drink only when a parent is present for a period of six or twelve months and then became fully licensed after that period? Alternatively, they could wait until age 21 and drink with no license.</p>

<p>I don’t know what the answer is, but I do know there are a great many kids who drink and/or whose parents simply let them drink well before their 21st birthday regardless of the law. If all these college presidents, who are so close to the situation, are calling for a better answer, I think it makes sense to at least discuss alternatives.</p>

36

<p>

</p>

<p>So why aren’t 100 college presidents calling for a dialog about mandatory prison sentences for teenagers caught using fake IDs?</p>

<p>Who is funding their organization?</p>

37

<p>

</p>

<p>He probably couldn’t get liquor company funding for an effort to reduce campus drinking like he can for a “legitimate” effort to lower the drinking age.</p>

38

<p>Yeah- I’m sure Jack Daniels is funding the college presidents! ID- I think you are losing it.</p>

<p>I really think you (ID) should write to each and every one of the signatories and suggest that they focus on mandatory prison terms for fake ID possession. Start right away!</p>

39

<p>It’s a simple question. Who is funding the organization? </p>

<p>Most organizations characterize their funding sources on their websites. This one does not. It’s a legitimate question. Who is paying for the website with the slick photos of college students drinking?</p>

40

<p>“He probably couldn’t get liquor company funding for an effort to reduce campus drinking like he can for a “legitimate” effort to lower the drinking age.”</p>

<p>And that’s the thing: McCardell was in a legitimate position to make a real difference in his students’ lives, and he muffed it. </p>

<p>I have no problem with a legitimate long-term debate about laws. I have my own opinions about them, and others may too. And that’s fine. (I’m actually much more concerned about the long-term chronic effects of drinking begun in college - professionally, I get to deal with the results.) But I also think that college presidents even calling for the debate lets them off the hook MUCH too easily. I would like to know what each and every one of those college presidents is doing TODAY to curb binge and heavy drinking on their campuses.</p>

<p>I think for the most part they’ve simply cheapened themselves.</p>