Admins: Use leverage to lower drinking age
Issue date: 11/8/07 Section: Editorial
Last update: 11/8/07 at 7:13 AM EST
Last update: 11/8/07 at 7:13 AM EST
- Page 1 of 2 next >
This Saturday's final home football game marks the last Tailgate of the year and with it raises anew the age-old discussion of underage drinking.
This is a conversation that most college students have at least a few times a year, and this editorial board, along with nearly all college students, has time and again called for a reduction of the drinking age from 21 to 18 years old.
The strongest rhetorical reason for changing the drinking age is that if you could die fighting for your country and are able to vote, you should have the right to kick back and have a couple of beers once in a while. Perhaps not as apparent but more logically sound is the argument that the current drinking age makes drinking among college-aged students needlessly unsafe by driving underage alcohol use behind closed doors, which often leads to reckless binge drinking.
If all college-aged students were allowed to drink legally (and, we would hope, responsibly) the University could provide a safe setting for alcohol consumption and play a greater role in addressing the effects of drinking on campus culture. Although administrators know that underage drinking is rampant and unpreventable, they are discouraged from advocating for student-friendly solutions for fear of appearing to disobey federal drinking laws.
This sentiment was expressed by Vice President for Student Affairs Larry Moneta in a letter to the editor he wrote addressing Tailgate. "The legal drinking age is 21 and whether I like it or not (I don't), I have a legal and ethical obligation to acknowledge it," Moneta wrote. "Don't waste your time encouraging me to support on-campus activities that encourage and promote underage drinking. That's just not an option for any faculty or staff member."
While administrators cannot be expected to endorse underage drinking activities at the moment, this board feels that university administrators-both at Duke and at colleges across the United States-are in a unique position to advocate for a reduced drinking age, since they have a respected position in society and also bear the responsibility for the safety of 18- to 21-year-olds. Such a grassroots effort from University administrators would have to be seriously considered.
This is a conversation that most college students have at least a few times a year, and this editorial board, along with nearly all college students, has time and again called for a reduction of the drinking age from 21 to 18 years old.
The strongest rhetorical reason for changing the drinking age is that if you could die fighting for your country and are able to vote, you should have the right to kick back and have a couple of beers once in a while. Perhaps not as apparent but more logically sound is the argument that the current drinking age makes drinking among college-aged students needlessly unsafe by driving underage alcohol use behind closed doors, which often leads to reckless binge drinking.
If all college-aged students were allowed to drink legally (and, we would hope, responsibly) the University could provide a safe setting for alcohol consumption and play a greater role in addressing the effects of drinking on campus culture. Although administrators know that underage drinking is rampant and unpreventable, they are discouraged from advocating for student-friendly solutions for fear of appearing to disobey federal drinking laws.
This sentiment was expressed by Vice President for Student Affairs Larry Moneta in a letter to the editor he wrote addressing Tailgate. "The legal drinking age is 21 and whether I like it or not (I don't), I have a legal and ethical obligation to acknowledge it," Moneta wrote. "Don't waste your time encouraging me to support on-campus activities that encourage and promote underage drinking. That's just not an option for any faculty or staff member."
While administrators cannot be expected to endorse underage drinking activities at the moment, this board feels that university administrators-both at Duke and at colleges across the United States-are in a unique position to advocate for a reduced drinking age, since they have a respected position in society and also bear the responsibility for the safety of 18- to 21-year-olds. Such a grassroots effort from University administrators would have to be seriously considered.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 11
rml
posted 11/08/07 @ 9:05 AM EST
Yup, the whole lacrosse thing problably would not have happened if students could still party on Main West. All restrictions on drinking are doing is driving drinking further and further away from campus. (Continued…)
DukeProf
posted 11/08/07 @ 9:23 AM EST
The current alcohol regulatory environment is ridiculous. I'm not sure what it is based on other than the tradition of 21 years old being an important lankmark birthday. (Continued…)
rgb
posted 11/08/07 @ 11:00 AM EST
Speaking as a double Duke alum as well as professor who attended Duke when the drinking age was 18 for beer and wine (and when of course there was little practical regulation of hard liquor at campus events) as well as a parent of two boys in the age range 17-20, I have the following comments. (Continued…)
Rudy
posted 11/08/07 @ 11:20 AM EST
Dr. McCardell helped found "Choose Responsibility" an advocacy group that would combine education and licensing with lowering the drinking age to 18. (Continued…)
Rob
posted 11/08/07 @ 12:41 PM EST
Why not make the drinking age 19? A strong counter-argument to an 18 year old drinking age is that high schoolers turn 18 their senior year and will flood high schools with alcohol. (Continued…)
Anonymous
posted 11/08/07 @ 12:50 PM EST
I would be in favor of lowering the drinking age to 18 or 19 coupled with VERY STRICT ENFORCEMENT of drunk driving laws. First DUI offense, your license is supended for a year, and if you are caught driving without a license, you go to prison for a year. (Continued…)
Almu8284
posted 11/08/07 @ 12:58 PM EST
rgb does a very good job explaining a lot of this. I was at Duke for the last years before the drinking age changed and am very aware of how it was changed. (Continued…)
Locomotive Breath
posted 11/08/07 @ 2:00 PM EST
Part of the history of this issue is the role of MADD (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) in getting these laws enacted. Here's what Candy Lightner had to say as she left the organization she founded. (Continued…)
hc
posted 11/08/07 @ 3:56 PM EST
RGB,
Although I agree with most of your comments, the Supreme Court has squarely held that the trying of highway funds to a reduction in drinking age is constitutional under the general welfare clause. (Continued…)
Concernedparent
posted 11/08/07 @ 5:15 PM EST
I'm a mother and I am against drunk driving, but I think it the current drinking age is absolutely wrong for a number of reasons. First, we don't know that driving fatalities are down because the drinking age is 21--it could be because of seat belts and bigger cars. (Continued…)
Post a Comment