Current Conditions
30°F - CLEAR
College presidents want lower alcohol age
Elizabethtown leader supports initiative
Intelligencer Journal
Published: Aug 19, 2008
01:11 EST
Elizabethtown
By JENNIFER TODD, Staff

Ted Long
 
1 of 1
Elizabethtown College President Ted Long said Monday he wants the drinking age lowered so the school can concentrate on educating its students about the dangers of alcohol and the need for responsible behavior.

"With the drinking age at 21, what that does is create two classes of students — about two-thirds who are not eligible to drink and a third who are," Long said Monday night. "We, as faculty, are forced to assume the role of policemen when we could be putting all our efforts into being effective (alcohol) educators instead."

Long is among about 100 college presidents, including some from among the country's most prestigious schools, who are backing a movement to lower the drinking age.

The group is calling on lawmakers to consider lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18, saying current laws encourage dangerous binge drinking by college students. Other schools represented include Duke University, Dartmouth College, Gettysburg College, Ohio State University and Tufts University.

As an example, Long said if he becomes aware of a party where alcohol is bring served, he is required to enforce the law.

"You don't have the opportunity at that point to educate them about responsible drinking," Long said. "You can't pull them aside and engage them personally about the dangers of alcohol, because it's your responsibility at that point to be a police response."

He also said lowering the drinking age lessens the need for students to fight the system, creating a more conducive atmosphere for alcohol education.

The movement, called the Amethyst Initiative, quietly began recruiting college presidents more than a year ago to provoke national debate about the drinking age.

The statement the presidents signed avoids calling explicitly for lowering the drinking age.

Rather, it seeks "an informed and dispassionate debate" over the issue and the federal highway law that made 21 the de facto national drinking age by denying money to any state that bucks the trend.

But the statement makes clear the signers believe the current law isn't working, citing a "culture of dangerous, clandestine binge-drinking" and noting that while adults under 21 can vote and enlist in the military, they "are told they are not mature enough to have a beer."

Furthermore, "by choosing to use fake IDs, students make ethical compromises that erode respect for the law," the statement says.

Millersville University and Franklin & Marshall College are not on the list of supporting institutions.

Janet Kacskos, MU's director of communications, said the issue had not been discussed by school officials.

"This is not something I've heard about before now," Kacskos said Monday evening. "I will certainly bring it to the attention of the president, and I'm sure it will warrant some discussion. Where it goes from there, I really can't say."

F&M President John Fry said he has read extensively about the the initiative but is holding off on taking action so he can discuss the issue with college officials.

"It's an important issue that's been raised, and I think it's only right to have some campus discussion rather than rush to sign," Fry said Monday night. "We do a lot of alcohol-education work on campus, and I think it's only appropriate to let those groups dig in and study the issue before we take action."

Even before the presidents begin the public phase of their efforts, which may include publishing ads in newspapers in coming weeks, they are already facing sharp criticism.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving says lowering the drinking age would lead to more fatal car crashes.

It accuses the presidents of misrepresenting science and looking for an easy way out of an inconvenient problem. MADD officials are even urging parents to think carefully about the safety of colleges whose presidents have signed on.

Both sides agree alcohol abuse by college students is a huge problem.

Research has found more than 40 percent of college students reported at least one symptom of alcohol abuse or dependence.

One study estimated that more than 500,000 full-time students at four-year colleges suffer injuries each year related in some way to drinking, and about 1,700 die in such accidents.

A recent Associated Press analysis of federal records found that 157 college-age people (18 to 23) drank themselves to death from 1999 through 2005.

"This is a law that is routinely evaded," said John McCardell, former president of Middlebury College in Vermont, who started the organization. "It is a law that the people at whom it is directed believe is unjust and unfair and discriminatory."

But other college administrators sharply disagree that lowering the drinking age would help.

University of Miami president Donna Shalala, who served as secretary of health and human services under President Clinton, declined to sign.

"I remember college campuses when we had 18-year-old drinking ages, and I honestly believe we've made some progress," Shalala said. "To just shift it back down to the high schools makes no sense at all."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

E-mail: jtodd@lnpnews.com


Recent Posts
Showing 5 most recent comments out of 109 total TalkBack comments about this article
View full comments | Comment on this article
Exactly my original point. Angel, Would you rather college try to define drinking for your kid or yourself? The colleges will do nothing. The kids go out and get loaded and come home to a dorm where there is nobody to answer to. If the drinking age is lowered the kid deals with coming to a parent who just might be awake and able to point the kid in the right direction.
QUOTE(InterestRP08 @ Aug 20 2008, 11:21 PM)

Then what is a PARENT? If you don't want your 14 year old doing stupid things, then take responsibility for being a PARENT, and PARENT your 14 year old!!

Government is NOT a nanny system, although most of the population still answers to it...

Sure, the presidents of colleges are being outspoken, probably being pushed to the edge on this issue. What do you expect when they have thousands of lemmings running around whos parents allow them to believe what they see on Fox News, and during commercials?! (beer commercials!!) Come on. Parent your own kid, don't worry about anyone elses kids. Realize the drinking age is generating income for the government AT THE EXPENSE of parents who expect the nanny state, because they won't question the god who is government.



PedroHead
QUOTE(InterestRP08 @ Aug 20 2008, 11:21 PM)

Then what is a PARENT? If you don't want your 14 year old doing stupid things, then take responsibility for being a PARENT, and PARENT your 14 year old!!

Government is NOT a nanny system, although most of the population still answers to it...

Sure, the presidents of colleges are being outspoken, probably being pushed to the edge on this issue. What do you expect when they have thousands of lemmings running around whos parents allow them to believe what they see on Fox News, and during commercials?! (beer commercials!!) Come on. Parent your own kid, don't worry about anyone elses kids. Realize the drinking age is generating income for the government AT THE EXPENSE of parents who expect the nanny state, because they won't question the god who is government.

Only it isn't MY kid who is the problem. It is the kids who all you macho guys want to teach how to hold their liquor at age 14, who drink regularly at 16, and who kill people driving under the influence, or kill themselves and their friends doing shots and end up with alcohol poisoning.

The law was changed to 21 for a reason. Too many dead kids and too many traffic fatalities. Let's leave it there.

QUOTE(PedroHead @ Aug 20 2008, 11:39 PM)

Exactly my original point. Angel, Would you rather college try to define drinking for your kid or yourself? The colleges will do nothing. The kids go out and get loaded and come home to a dorm where there is nobody to answer to. If the drinking age is lowered the kid deals with coming to a parent who just might be awake and able to point the kid in the right direction.


You can do that NOW! No matter what the age is, you can TEACH YOUR KIDS. And you don't have to have them drunk, or GET them DRUNK to teach them about alcohol!
You don't have to SERVE your kids alcohol to EDUCATE your kids. God only knows, the newspapers, the nightly news, and their fellow students offer MORE than enough cautionary tales to do the job quite nicely.

P.S. Lower the drinking age, and those kids are MORE OFTEN going to binge drink (it's legal now!!!), and STILL come back to a dorm with nobody to answer to. Mr. College Prez now has ZERO responsibility for students' drinking.
AngelFace
QUOTE(AngelFace @ Aug 20 2008, 01:10 PM)

Only people who are not LIVING LIFE and LOVING LIFE and ENGAGED WITH REAL LIFE look for "mind altering" substances. And merry-go-rounds, roller coasters etc. are HARDLY examples of that. They are doing REAL LIFE.

Stop excusing checking out of reality using POISONS.

Note in my original post I used the word Experiences, and I still stand by that, and accept that many people, and cultures, have found Substances to provide this experience.

Mansfield
QUOTE(AngelFace @ Aug 21 2008, 02:06 AM)
Only it isn't MY kid who is the problem. It is the kids who all you macho guys want to teach how to hold their liquor at age 14, who drink regularly at 16, and who kill people driving under the influence, or kill themselves and their friends doing shots and end up with alcohol poisoning.
The law was changed to 21 for a reason. Too many dead kids and too many traffic fatalities. Let's leave it there.

You can do that NOW! No matter what the age is, you can TEACH YOUR KIDS. And you don't have to have them drunk, or GET them DRUNK to teach them about alcohol!
You don't have to SERVE your kids alcohol to EDUCATE your kids. God only knows, the newspapers, the nightly news, and their fellow students offer MORE than enough cautionary tales to do the job quite nicely.

P.S. Lower the drinking age, and those kids are MORE OFTEN going to binge drink (it's legal now!!!), and STILL come back to a dorm with nobody to answer to. Mr. College Prez now has ZERO responsibility for students' drinking.

Nah, it's not reason for a law. So, it's everyone elses kids? Well then let those kids and their parents deal with the consequences. And no, the history that someone shared earlier in the thread didn't prove that the law was because of fatalities.

What you are trying to prove, is that we need 'protection law' to protect us from ourselves and our parents. ?? No thanks.

InterestRP08
QUOTE(InterestRP08 @ Aug 21 2008, 09:09 AM)

Nah, it's not reason for a law. So, it's everyone elses kids? Well then let those kids and their parents deal with the consequences. And no, the history that someone shared earlier in the thread didn't prove that the law was because of fatalities.

What you are trying to prove, is that we need 'protection law' to protect us from ourselves and our parents. ?? No thanks.


No. WE need a protection law from lousy parents and bad kids who are left to run amok and inflict carnage on the innocent. Plain enough?
AngelFace
Top Ads