Take initiative
The current drinking age is the equivalent of abstinence-only sexual education - a policy that inadvertently promotes hazardous habits by precluding reasonable discussion about safe precautions.
And it's encouraging to the Amethyst Initiative, a coalition of more than 100 college presidents, making strides toward reopening debate on drinking age.
It's no secret that the age requirement does not effectively prevent students from drinking under the age of 21. A look at the 74 Minor in Possession citations handed out over Welcome Weekend alone more than proves that point.
What the current legislation does, however, is make drinking taboo, which is an allure of its own. Worse, it works against candid discussions about moderation within the classroom or at home. At best, advice boils down to "don't get caught."
Ideally, perhaps, students would not drink. Alcohol too quickly becomes a vice, and many may benefit from avoiding it altogether.
However, the drinking age, higher than in most countries, imprudently enacts prohibition upon a select age bracket. Of course, this is rife with inconsistency: An 18-year-old is responsible enough to vote, drive a car and be drafted for war, but drinking in moderation is too great a responsibility.
The most detrimental effect of the drinking age is precisely that over which the university presidents at Amethyst Initiative are most concerned: It badly hinders universities' ability to encourage students to drink responsibly, instead forcing them to remain silent and to urge students - fruitlessly - to not touch alcohol for the majority of their college career.
The primary motivation behind the National Minimum Age Drinking Act of 1984, which forced states to accept a minimum age of 21 or face severely hindered federal highway funding, was concern about teenagers' drinking and driving habits, one of the most dangerous activities associated with alcohol.
Drunken-driving fatalities certainly have dropped since its enactment. In 1984, there were 24,762 alcohol-related fatal accidents in the U.S.; in 2006 that number had dropped to 15,829, according to statistics from alcoholalert.com.
However, it's hasty reasoning to attribute the drop to a higher drinking age. Harsher drunken-driving punishments, as well as greater awareness of the problem, played a significant role. Keeping harsh punishments would leave intact improvements within the last couple decades. Drunken driving is not a problem unique to minors, and is better addressed by its own legislation.
Of course, concerns do not end with the motivation behind the original law. Legally permitting freshmen to buy alcohol might only worsen the problem. Though alcohol could be discussed directly, it would also be more accessible.
But it's a risk worth taking - or at the very least worth discussing, despite University President Michael Rao's indifference toward the Amethyst Initiative.
