The Amethyst Initiative’s Supporters and Detractors

The Amethyst Initiative, a proposal by more than 100 American college presidents to “rethink the drinking age” has been a topic of conversation for weeks. At Penn State, interestingly, President Graham Spanier has come out strongly against the initiative’s proposal to engage in an “informed and dispassionate public debate.”

On the other hand, Ohio State University President and Big Ten peer E. Gordon Lee has come out in favor of The Amethyst Initiative, and has signed on to pledge his institution to “playing a vigorous, constructive role as these critical discussions unfold” over whether the current drinking age helps or harms young people.

Yet another opinion, again from Penn State, comes from Vice President for Student Affairs Damon Sims, who displayed great candor in admitting, “colleges and universities across the country have thrown millions of dollars at [preventing dangerous drinking]. I think if anyone tells you they’ve made a dent, they’re lying to you.”

Safeguard Old State, a non-profit higher education advocacy group I founded last year, issued a call late last month for Penn State University to sign on to The Amethyst Initiative, if for no other reason than to engage in a much needed debate on the issue.

Another worthwhile examination appeared in The Philadelphia Bulletin this past week. Sharon Herzberger, the president of Quaker-run Whittier College, chimes in to the debate:

“I, like many of the signatories, do not claim to know what the ‘magic’ legal drinking age should be nor if a change in the drinking age will lead to more responsible conduct. What I do know, however, as a president and as a parent of recent college graduates, is that our laws and policies regarding alcohol use by young people are simply not working.

“Let me offer an unpopular reality check. Despite legal consequences for underage drinking, decades of public-service marketing for restraint and a law implemented 24 years ago that may – or may not – have been a contributing factor in the statistical decline of related drunk-driving accidents, we continue to have a national crisis. Although it is perhaps more visible on college campuses, this crisis is in no way exclusive to college students. Underage drinking and related irresponsible or unhealthy behavior happens everywhere and anywhere.

“As the president of an institution that teaches students … I know I must lead by example.”

I am in agreement with Mr. Sims and Ms. Herzberger when it comes to the subject of dangerous drinking and the tactics used by college administrators to solve the mess we’re in. So, how can we chart a course toward common sense? I believe it’s largely a mess we’ve put ourselves in through choices on both a government level and as a society.

First, let’s be honest. The Amethyst Initiative’s most notable detractor, Mother’s Against Drunk Driving (MADD) is today little more than a neo-prohibitionist lobby. In my experience, MADD is not so much about combating drunk driving as it is opposed to alcohol consumption in general.

So, on a government level, our alcohol problem was born out of the well intentioned move to limit consumption to citizens 21 and older. In other words, the idea that we should limit free choice when it comes to alcohol by force of government control has generally produced poor results.

Second, our drinking crisis has been compounded by the disappearance of the family and the parents as the primary educators in temperance and moderation. Indeed, parents today fear the alcohol discussion almost as much as the talk about the birds and bees. It’s a sticky issue: we all know that kids will drink, so should we urge abstinence or moderation … or stay silent?

So, on a societal level, our youth are no longer learning the habits of responsibility in the home, perhaps mainly because our parents are unable to teach responsible drinking without fear of prosecution or penalty. In a practical sense, one cannot learn the habits of moderation in drink without the drink.

The current failed approach to alcohol education — the one that renders real experience illegal — is as absurd as trying to teach young people to drive responsibly without being able to get behind the wheel.