College Presidents seek debate on legal drinking age

<p>Mini, I encourage you to read the Baccalaureate Address given to graduating seniors during Middlebury’s commencement this year. Pressident Ron Liebowitz devoted a significant portion of his speech to this topic. I can tell you that afterward, many parents and students reacted negatively to this portion of the speech, saying that it didn’t really have a place at this celebration. Others thought it was a bold move. You can argue that this speech should be given to incoming freshmen, not graduating seniors. Well Middlebury has revamped thier orientation this year to do just that.</p>

<p>Here is a portion of Liebowitz’s address: </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>[05/24/08:</a> Baccalaureate Address 2008](<a href=“Ronald D. Liebowitz | Middlebury”>Ronald D. Liebowitz | Middlebury)</p>

<p>Yes, (I had read it - it circulated quickly in my circle), and note with pleasure that Liebowitz is a successor to McCardell, who lacked the guts and courage to take the issue on. I especially applaud is reference to the data (though I can see why the parents could be squeamish):</p>

<p>“Almost a third of our first-years who took part in a survey on alcohol use said that within two weeks of completing the survey they had experienced a blackout—a period of amnesia that can last for seconds, minutes, hours, and/or days that prohibits the natural development of memory and recollection of recent events.”</p>

<p>I hope, however, that he does much more than what he referenced in the speech. He really could learn a thing or two from colleagues who have launched some relatively successful efforts, from the President’s Office, to deal with the issue. (But I expect he is.)</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Which goes right to the heart of the problem, a systematic enabling of alcohol abuse in high school and college students by peers, parents, teachers, and school administrators.</p>

<p>I don’t know if anyone else has touched on these but, here are some of the other issues involved:</p>

<p>If you are over 18 but under 21 and drink and get caught doing it, it’s NOT a juvenile offense. The conviction will show up on any future search for a criminal record. IMO, we have to either raise the age for juvenile offenses to 21 OR lower the drinking age. Giving someone a permanent adult criminal record for juvenile drinking strikes me as the worst of all possible worlds.</p>

<p>One special category of offender is those over 21 who buy for those underage. There is incredible pressure on those who turn 21 earlier than their classmates to do the buying. Being an officer in a frat or sorority that has parties with booze for those under 21 exposes you to serious liability. </p>

<p>During Prohibition, people of all ages flaunted the law. When they did so, it brought in an era in which other criminal activities flourished. College kids today think the drinking laws are silly. They ignore them. This brings about a social attitude where ignoring laws you dislike is okay. I feel strongly that we as a society suffer when an entire generation feels it’s “no big deal” to not only ignore the drinking laws but use phony IDs. </p>

<p>It also feeds criminal enterprises. I think a conservative estimate would be that 20% of all college students have phony id’s. Heck, when Barbara Bush was a student at Yale, a Connecticut state trooper took hers as a trophy. (I think it was a Maryland driver’s license. My source for this is an article years ago in Newsweek about underage drinking.) While some of these are created by the kid with computer skills in a dorm, many are supplied by criminal enterprises which also supply phony drivers licenses to illegal aliens, etc. Shut off the college kids phony id part of their businesses and they would lose a lot of money. This money is used to fund other criminal enterprises. </p>

<p>Using one of these companies and giving it real information about yourself–including DOB and social security number–is setting yourself up for identity theft. (Most kids give these companies real information about themselves and many of these kids have absolutely NO idea whom they are giving this information.) </p>

<p>Morover, using phony id to drink sets you up for being charged with some serious offenses–falsifying/forging government documents, etc. I told my own offspring NEVER to get involved with this–I may have been ignored. I do know that my D when under 21 would often tell bouncers at clubs that she “forgot” her ID. Usually, they’d laugh and they would let her in anyway. The clubs in some states are now under a lot of pressure to scan IDs and confiscate phonies. Who knows for sure that every bouncer turns in or destroys all the phony IDs he confiscates? </p>

<p>I also think too many college campuses are polarized between drinkers and non-drinkers. The two groups don’t mix. I think this is difficult for the kids in the middle–the kids who drink but are not binge drinkers. Reality is that when kids are at a party, many drink what they consider the “average amount.” If none of the kids who don’t drink at all are at the party, the kid who would take one beer will take more. Make drinking legal and thus create a situation where you don’t run a risk merely being at a party where booze is served, and I think you’d help create a situation in which everyone partied together. IMO, this would be in the best interests of the kids who are social drinkers, but not drink 'til you’re drunk types. </p>

<p>The studies I’ve seen show that while the percentage of college kids who drink hasn’t really changed since the 1920s, the percentage of those who binge drink has soared. I personally think this is in part because there is now a “drinking culture” on too many campuses. You either join that culture or you don’t. A lot of those who don’t are kids who don’t for religious reasons and kids who don’t share those beliefs can end up feeling a disconnect between the “drinking culture” and the “born again kids.” (Please understand I am NOT knocking the latter; I’m just saying that it’s tough to be a non-drinking kid on some campuses if you aren’t religious, since many of the parties for non-drinkers will be frequented mostly by those who are.) </p>

<p>So, I think there’s more than the “drunk driving” angle to this. I’m not saying that’s not important–it is. But, I don’t think it’s the only issue.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>This discussion might benefit from your explaining some of these successful efforts by other college presidents.</p>

<p>I wish there was more discussion of middle ground solutions, like the “drinking license” somebody mentioned, or allowing the sale of beer only, or 3.2 beer, to those between 18 and 21.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I do not see our society at a point yet where it is willing to dedicate the resources, time and money to accomplish this - partly because there is no consensu on HOW to accomplish this. My guess is it’s cheaper and easier, overall, to stay with the 21 age limit (not to mention also, at least, accomplishing some social good) - just not for certain factions of society, ie those that benefit from the sale of alcohol or those that benefit from reducing some of their liability resulting from the older age limit (such as colleges). </p>

<p>Yes, we have made great strides in tackling some of the underage drinking social issues, but we have certainly not reached a point as a society where we can now step back and proclaim to our younger citizens that since they have proven themselves to be capable of drinking responsibly (and brain research alone suggests that they are NOT). Nor have many of our parental citizens demonstrated an ability to monitor closely enough the drinking behavior of their children, including those who are well under 18, let alone their 18-20 year olds who are living on college campuses. Indeed, over the past few decades we, as a society, have created a system that has led to the perpetuation and growth of this counterculture that supports not just extremeness/excessiveness in drinking behaviors but in other areas besides drinking, and we are seeing it at younger and younger ages. </p>

<p>Perhaps this is just another example of the age-old “which comes first, the chicken or the egg?” dilemma. Certainly, we all would like to believe that we can create responsible citizens by, first, treating them responsibly. But this involves much more than just telling them that they are all “adults” at one and only one age and are entitled to all rights and responsibilities that are given to adults. At the same, our laws are very unfair when they treat 18-20 yrs old drinkers in the same way as over 21 drinkers (and this is one area where we could be working for change). But, as a society I don’t think we have a very good understanding of all the social forces at work that effect the development and growth of our youth, particulaly in the area of drinking but more generally with respect to risk-taking behaviors, and frankly, until we do, I feel there are enough unhatched eggs out there that must be our first priority. So, in the case of alcohol, at least, the greater good of society (as it currently exists) is still better served by the higher 21 age limit: </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually college binge drinking rates are little changed over the past 15 years (though they are a little bit lower than six years ago). There was a sizeable drop following the age change in the mid-1980s, not as great as the change among 12th graders, but still statistically significant. </p>

<p>But I think the steady state hides some other changes. As colleges become less white, more female, with more low-income students, and have numbers of older students (as role models), the binge drinking rate should fall. What this likely means that on campuses with high numbers of higher income, white, and male students, without signficant numbers of older students, binge drinking may have increased (because of them). One cannot generalize from the Williams, Middleburys, Dukes, and Dartmouths of the world. </p>

<p>I also think we need to remember that experiemental data strongly suggest that binge drinking numbers we have at our disposal are significant underestimates.</p>

<p>jonri most kids don’t have phony ID’s made they just use the ID of someone older who looks like them in the picture.</p>

<p>For those arguing that the "brain development " of an 18-20 year old justifies the prohibition against alcohol, what do you think about an 18-20 year old with access to college loans? Consumer credit? Use of firearms? Serving as police officers/first responders? Military service in a combat zone? Skydiving? 1000cc motorcycles? Pilot’s licenses? Hang-gliding? Decisions to refuse medical treatment? Last Will and Testament? Organ donations? Choice of religion? </p>

<p>If they are so incompetent mentally that they can’t choose to have a beer, why don’t we just keep them in diapers and suckling till they are 21? ;)</p>

<p>I have yet to see the study that connects college drinking by college students with drinking problems later in life. What I see is many people who enjoy their college years and then slide into a much more sober adulthood of jobs and other responsibilities.</p>

<p>At least the other rights granted to 18-20 yr olds are not (normally) effected by intoxication, whereas intoxication, and its consequences, is exactly the issue here…and it is only that particular state that makes them “incompetent” mentally or otherwise… (and that we are attempting to control).</p>

<p>I don’t believe so, scansmom. That may be what you are arguing, but there are others arguing that there is something in the brain development of 18-20 year olds that makes them incapable of making good choices concerning alcohol while sober. If that is so, why do we allow all these other, and sometimes more deadly, choices to be made by their inferior brains? I’d like to hear some thoughts. (I for one am far more afraid of some of the other decisions.)</p>

<p>re: post #41

</p>

<p>The Amethyst Initiative is an offshoot of Choose Responsibility to which the Amethyst Initiative is [registered[/url</a>]. This group was also the founded by Middlebury’s John McCardell. The Amethyst Initiative [url=<a href=“http://www.amethystinitiative.org/about/”>http://www.amethystinitiative.org/about/&lt;/a&gt;] About web page](<a href=“http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=AmethystInitiative.com]registered[/url”>http://www.networksolutions.com/whois/results.jsp?domain=AmethystInitiative.com) makes a reference to Choose Responsibility.</p>

<p>The Amethyst Initiative focuses on a general statement; Choose Responsibility’s focus is on a specific proposal,

Yet [Choose</a> Responsibility](<a href=“http://www.chooseresponsibility.org/proposal/]Choose”>http://www.chooseresponsibility.org/proposal/) , far from being neutral, advocates for lowering the drinking age.

</p>

<p>While The Amethyst Initiative solicits signatories, Choose Responsibility solicits donations.</p>

<p>“I have yet to see the study that connects college drinking by college students with drinking problems later in life. What I see is many people who enjoy their college years and then slide into a much more sober adulthood of jobs and other responsibilities.”</p>

<p>Let’s not go there AGAIN. I have posted literally DOZENS of links.</p>

<p>Agreed, and of course, those risk-taking behaviors are very convenient to society when it comes to policing, soldiering, hang-gliding, flying jets ;)</p>

<p>But it’s only because of the consequences that drinking and in particular, binge drinking, is such a big issue, and, unlike with other risky behaviors, once the decision is made to drink, the effect on the body goes way beyond that of an adrenalin rush.</p>

<p>Why can’t we just crack down harder on binge drinking and drunk driving and such rather than trying to dust those problems under the rug by upping the drinking age? Why can’t we make the punishments even harder for them? Why can’t we spend more money on educating people about responsible drinking? Why can’t we make public transit more available to people?</p>

<p>It is not like older adults don’t do it. You’re punishing responsible young adults by denying anyone under 21 the right to drink. I’ve never been a fan of that philosophy - punish everyone because of the few that abuse the privilege. You might as well ban drinking altogether.</p>

<p>My dad drives drunk every now and then to this day. Nothing I or my mom say could get him to stop. It amazes me how after 25 years or so of drinking he hasn’t gotten a DUI charge or anything like that. I don’t know how he gets away with it. :/</p>

<p>mini, my data may be out of date, but my understanding is that the binge drinking rates at the big 10 universities are a lot higher than those at the colleges you named in post 108.</p>

<p>I havent read through all 8 pages of this thread so Im not sure if it has already been mentioned (sorry if it has) but I wanted to bring up the idea of Amnesty Policies.</p>

<p>Basically, the Amnesty Policy at my school means that:
If a student (no matter what his age) is in any kind of danger, his friends may call the campus police or health services for assistance. They will take him to the hospital and care for him, no questions asked. There is a guarantee that no one will get in trouble for drinking. The most important thing is that the students get proper care and are safe. </p>

<p>I think this is a great way to encourage students to get eachother the proper care when drinking gets out of control. I feel like some schools are so strict on the drinking policies that students may feel scared to go to authorities when help is needed. </p>

<p>What are your thoughts on policies like this one?</p>

<p>I don’t think there should even be an age limit. Go ahead and douse me with all your propaganda. I standzz by what I sayzz, homefriez. :)</p>