College drinking should be discussed

By the Journal Editorial Board | Friday, September 19, 2008

Previous Page

Share

• del.icio.us
• Digg
• NewsVine
• Fark

Print

Email

None of the state’s university or college presidents have signed on to the Amethyst Initiative. That suggests two things – underage drinking isn’t a problem on college campuses in South Dakota or discussion of new ideas and challenging conventional thinking isn’t first and foremost on the state’s campuses.

Neither option serves the students, who would benefit greatly from the close look at the culture of drinking on campuses and a discussion about the drinking age.

The Amethyst Initiative is a movement by several university leaders to do two things: 1) Realize that college-age students drink alcohol and often ignore the legal drinking age creating a dangerous culture of binge drinking; and 2) encourage a debate on the drinking age which may lead to new ideas on how to help young adults make responsible drinking decisions.

Where is the danger in that?

An honest, vibrant discussion should not only be encouraged it should be embraced. Isn’t that what universities are supposed to do?

If South Dakota university leaders have decided to decline to enter the discussion about campus alcohol use, they’ve fallen short in offering a place where new, controversial and challenging ideas can and should be incubated.

College campuses are hotbeds of underage drinking and, by the same token, should be leaders in the discussion about alcohol use.

The Amethyst Initiative calls for a close look at the drinking age. Today the legal age is 21 only because state’s lost the right to set their own age limits where alcohol is concerned. In 1984, the federal government imposed the National Minimum Age Drinking Act linking highway funding to the 21-year-old drinking age limit. States couldn’t, or wouldn’t, accept the 10 percent loss in highway funding and bowed to the federal pressure.

That pressure is still in place making us wonder: Is the refusal too enter the discussion based on fear of losing federal dollars, or local pressure not to take the risk of that happening?

No one would say, of course, but we would speculate there’s some truth in that.

The Amethyst Initiative encourages a discussion about college age students drinking behavior. That’s a discussion that needs to take place. A discussion won’t put an end to underage drinking, to assume so would be folly, but it would lead to more understanding and education about alcohol. If handled properly, the serious would also serve to change the nature of drinking on universities.

Lowering the drinking age shouldn’t be the goal of the discussion, only an element. Supporters of a lower drinking age point out the rights 18-year-olds enjoy and often tout the slogan “old enough to die, old enough to drink.”

We don’t agree.

There’s a maturity level that should be reached before drinking alcohol should be legal. We’re not sure if 18 year olds have the level of maturity to drink responsibly. Compounding the problem is 18 year olds on a college campus…. We’d debate if any in that situation have the capacity to drink responsibly.

Still, the discussion, the debate, the challenge to conventional thinking should be taking place on the state’s campuses. By refusing to discuss the Amethyst Initiative, the universities are either sending the message drinking is not a problem or discussion of the issue isn’t relevant.

Sticking the university head in the sand isn’t an effective way to deal with underage drinking on college campuses, In fact, it’s no solution at all.