Call it the locusts of social issues. And here it comes again: the movement to lower the drinking age. To 18.
It’s been 21 across the country since 1984 – when a federal highway law, in effect, left no state behind.
If I were 18, 19 or 20, I’d be in favor of lowering the age. Of course, I would. And, if pressed by the usual, spoil-sport suspects, I’d be re-issuing sophistic arguments about voting and military service and discrimination.
Moreover, if I were 15, 16 or 17, I’d also be hugely in favor of the age-lowering, because the ambit of legality — and the means of circumvention — would be that much closer. This is the way kids think.
When you’re immortal, you don’t need to read minutes of previous meetings. And former kids should remember that.
It comes with the territory of the consequences-free zone of adolescence. It’s why the sobering restraints preached by adults — including those who practically invented underage mischief — and legal proscriptions will always be necessary. If only to mitigate the inevitable damage.
Fortunately, the youthful self-interest lobby is ineluctably trumped by the incumbent clout of their elders. Shockingly, however, a bunch of contemporary college presidents are not among them this time.
Behold the Amethyst Initiative.
This is the pedantic (the Ancients thought amethyst might be a remedy for intoxication) handle for a group of some 100 presidents of American universities who are urging lawmakers to consider lowering the drinking age to 18. They say that current laws are, among other things, counterproductive and actually encourage binge drinking on campus.
Among the Amethyst 100: Duke, Dartmouth, Ohio State, Syracuse, Colgate, Tufts – and St. Leo University and Eckerd College. According to Eckerd President Donald Eastman, the 21-year-old drinking age is “hypocritical, ineffective and guilt-inducing… .” Eastman also adds that “It is a form of mini-prohibition and needs to be replaced with education and focus on the value of moderation, not intolerance.”
We expect this sort of societal piffle, including veiled references to the Volstead Act and “guilt,” from undergraduate editorialists and social science professors — not those actually in charge. From loco parentis to loco.
If you want a president’s take, make it Laura Dean-Mooney’s. She’s president of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers and she says a lower drinking age would lead to more fatal car crashes. If necessary, common sense underscores it as well. She also counsels parents to consider the implications of colleges whose presidents have signed on to the Amethyst Initiative.
There’s also Donna Shalala, the University of Miami president, who remembers what it was like when universities had an 18-year-old drinking age.
“I honestly believe we’ve made some progress,” assesses Shalala. “To just shift it back down to the high schools makes no sense at all.”
It seems that the Amethyst Initiative impetus – other than liability roulette — has been a “culture of dangerous, clandestine binge-drinking.” To its credit, Amethystians are arguably trying to address this deadly serious issue. Education and an increased focus on moderation are, of course, admirable.
To its utter discredit, a lowered drinking age would make matters worse. A legal binge drinker is no improvement – and the ripple effect, as Miami’s Shalala notes, would be profound on high schools.