Amethyst Initiative Founder Discusses Controversial Movement
Aug 26, 2008 by Jeff Robinson
(KCPW News) A movement begun by college presidents that questions the effectiveness of the minimum drinking age of 21 drew controversy in Utah when the president of Westminster College signed on to it. But the man who started the Amethyst Initiative says it's not about lowering the drinking age. John McCardell is the former president of Middlebury College in Vermont He says the initiative simply declares that the minimum drinking age of 21 doesn't protect young adults from alcohol abuse."You don't need reams of data; you need simply to look around to determine that on its own terms, this law has not been successful," said McCardell. "And that leads you to conclude that either we are a nation of lawbreakers, which is possible, or this is a bad law, in that it is not in step with social and cultural reality.
McCardell says college administrators have their hands tied, in that they're only allowed to tell their students to abstain from alcohol even when they know that drinking will happen off-campus anyway.
Another point of the initiative is to question the federal government's policy of withholding highway funds from the states unless they set a minimum drinking age of 21.
"A number of state initiatives over the years have fallen short because no state can afford to put that amount of money at risk. That is one of the obstacles to debate," he said.
The initiative was signed by more than 100 college presidents. It was condemned by Mothers Against Drunk Driving, which advised parents to think twice before sending their children to any of the colleges that have signed on to the initiative.
Email to a friendPosted in KCPW Newsroom. Copyright 2009 KCPW
1. Raymond Takashi Swenson said:
After the US Constitution was amended during the Vietnam War to lower the voting age to 18, most states proceeded to make 18 the legal age of adulthood for all purposes. However, there was an observed increase in teenage drinking, with associated traffic fatalities. There are plenty of 18 year olds still in high school, so 17 and 16 year olds had easy access to alcohol by hanging out with oldert classmates. The movement to raise the alcohol age to 21 was a deliberate response to a a real problem that was killing people. Apparently the college presidents who have signed this petition have decided that it's worth killing a few thousand teenagers a year so that the colleges don't have the burden of enforcing the ban on underage drinking and college dorms can be havens for alcohol the way they already are havens for unlimited sexual activity.
2. IThinkThoughts said:
The average age that kids in America try alcohol is currently around 11-12 for males and 12-13 for females. Binging starts at ages 15-16. On college campuses roughly 50% of incoming freshman have tried alcohol. The number is 80% before the end of the first semester. The only conclusion that can be reached is that 17 and 16 year olds (and in fact 11 year olds) already have easy access to alcohol under the 21 age limit law.
One alarming thing about this is that there are only a few ways to get alcohol at those ages. 1: Steal it from your parents (or someone else). This leads to such behavior as drinking a whole bottle before your parents can get home. 2: Get a fake ID. Fake ID's are often sold by career criminals and the risk of dealing with them as well as the repercussions of providing them with funds to funnel into the criminal underground are terrible. Finally, 3: get someone that is 21 to buy it for you. This is more alarming than it might seem because it leads to a group of 15-16 year olds hanging out with 21+ year olds in order to get booze. The risks for abuse here are incredibly high.
Kids that want to drink will drink and are currently required to go to extreme, extra-legal, and incredibly risky behavior to do so. Decreasing the age limit would allow parents to gradually introduce alcohol to their children. It would allow responsible young adults to enjoy one of life's pleasures without turning into a criminal. It would decrease or eliminate the need for and risks associated with fake IDs, theft, and age discrepant groups. Finally it would end the hypocrisy of the age of maturity and would bring the law one step closer to coinciding with realty.