EDITORIAL: Younger drinking age not the answer

Not since 1984 has debating over the minimum drinking age been so heavily questioned, thanks largely to the recently popularized Amethyst Initiative. More than 130 college presidents and officials have signed the statement, urging a public forum concerning the drinking age limit and proclaiming "21 is not working," referencing the extreme amounts of binge-drinking on college campuses.

As of now, NIC will not be on that list of schools backing the initiative. Pres. Priscilla Bell and the Board of Trustees are more concerned with the procurement of land for the Education Corridor, as well they should be, and are not prepared to sign the document.

While Mothers Against Drunk Driving vehemently argues the drinking age actually is saving lives, the signers of the Amethyst Initiative insist that a lower drinking age would create a more unified university structure, one where underage drinkers would not be forced to binge-drink illegally and design fake IDs.

But if lowering the drinking age solves alcohol-related issues at college campuses, assuming M.A.D.D. is wrong about the lives saved since the Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984 was passed (though statistics prove otherwise), all we are doing is forcing the drinking dilemma to a younger audience: high schools.

It may be true that 18-year-olds can vote, serve on a jury, fight in Iraq and decide to get married, but they certainly are not physically or emotionally mature enough to handle the pressures and hassles of alcohol.

It is entirely different to be trained on how to shoot a gun than to learn the rigors of drinking controllably.

If high schools are already having problems with students text-messaging in the hallways, they would be completely incapable of preventing seniors from downing vodka Red Bulls in the parking lot.

The last thing universities need is incoming freshmen already skilled in binge drinking.

College avoids lower drinking age movement

Pres. Priscilla Bell and the Board of Trustees are working rigorously to attain the necessary land next to NIC and set up the infamous and heavily-debated Education Corridor. With such a heated topic already on their agenda, Bell and the Board are not prepared to sign the Amethyst Initiative as many other schools have done.

"It's an interesting idea," Bell said. "I know there are a lot of big-time university presidents that have signed this."

More than 130 other presidents have signed on, debating the minimum drinking age is not working.

"(The drinking age)is not a simple question," said Richard H. Brodhead of Duke University. "But the current answer is also not an effective solution to the problem."

Meanwhile, Bell is not as sure the initiative is a guaranteed end-all to binge drinking and drunk driving.

"Whether lowering the drinking age would change that is highly problematic in my view," she said. "You go to Europe, where people start drinking early in life. It's just a very different kind of culture, where alcohol and wine are more respected. They're not misused in the way we tend to do. That seems to be part of the fabric of our culture, perhaps more than it is a product of the drinking age."

Even if the drinking age were to be lowered, however, the residence hall would stay completely dry.

"I certainly wouldn't want drinking in our dorms in any event," she said. "Almost everything that happens in a college dorm that's bad has alcohol or drugs connected. Even if the drinking age were 18 or 19, it would not be in the dorms; not on college trips, either; it's just not going to happen."

Yet, on the Amethyst Initiative, itself: "I don't have a position on this, and I wouldn't take one without the board being behind it in any event. I don't think it's going to be a high priority."