How old is old enough?
The Amethyst Initiative, stating that 'twenty-one is not working,' calls on elected officials to
begin a debate on the effects of the legal drinking age.
September 21, 2008
Age is only a small part of the issue
By Sharon Herzberger
College administrators struggle to succeed where prior efforts by parents, teachers, clergy and
coaches too often have failed.
I am one of the approximately 130 signatories of the Amethyst Initiative, all presidents of
colleges and universities calling for a national conversation about underage drinking and the
surrounding public policies and laws. For signing the initiative and calling for this conversation,
we have been mischaracterized and denounced by Mothers Against Drunk Driving as people
who won't hold young people accountable for underage drinking.
Moreover, the issue has been simplified as a debate over whether the drinking age should be 18
or 21. Unfortunately, the legal drinking age is only a small part of the issue.
I signed the Amethyst Initiative because I took seriously its call for a thorough review of the
evidence about drinking by teens and young adults, and the byproducts of such behavior, such as
traffic fatalities.
I do not know whether the current law continues to produce its full intended effects or has
outlived its usefulness. But I do know – as a parent, community member and college president –
that something isn't working. While the focus of recent media attention has been on college
students, underage drinking is not just a problem that exists on our campuses.
Let me provide some facts. According to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism, 50 percent of high school seniors admitted to consuming alcohol in the month
before being surveyed in 2005.
Perhaps even more disturbing are the statistics on younger teens. Nearly 25 percent of teenagers
reported having their first alcoholic drink before age 13. More than 6 percent of 12-to 14-yearolds reported drinking in the last month and consuming an average of 13.6 drinks in that time
frame. The number rose to 25 percent of 15-to 17-year olds, consuming an average of 29 drinks.
Colleges and universities across the United States are doing what they can to uphold the current
law. We spend much time educating students about alcohol use and abuse and the consequences
for violating both the law and college policy. In doing so, college administrators struggle to
succeed where prior efforts by parents, teachers, clergy and coaches too often have failed. I lead
a college, founded by Quakers who believed in the value of listening to diverse voices around us
and who developed a mechanism to remind us to listen. At our college, we make it a point to
pause for a moment of silence before we take up important matters for discussion. The silence
reminds us to open our minds, prepare to listen to others, and look for common ground. A good
practice to follow as we start this important national conversation.
Here is the bottom line: college presidents and MADD are working for similar outcomes. Neither
advocates for youth drinking, or for drinking and driving at any age. But it has been a long time
since we have had an honest, open, national conversation on this issue, one that acknowledges
what is working and what is not. I'll bet that opening this discussion to multiple perspectives,
having unfettered conversation, and truly listening to each other will result in some creative
solutions. That's why I signed the Amethyst Initiative, and that's why I urge all of us to join in
this call.
Herzberger is president of Whittier College.
Valid reasons many haven't signed on
By James Lange
Research has repeatedly shown that lowering the drinking age increased problems, while raising
it decreased problems.
About 130 college presidents and chancellors have signed on to support the Amethyst Initiative,
a movement described as opening debate on the drinking age in the United States. As impressive
as this sounds, it's humbling to consider that more than 6,700 presidents have not signed on. Why
have so many chosen not to support this initiative?
Perhaps because most presidents recognize that the initiative takes the side of lowering the
drinking age even though research has repeatedly demonstrated that doing so increases problems,
while raising the age decreases problems.
In the early '70s, the argument that returning soldiers should be permitted a beer was very
persuasive in some states. But by the end of the decade it was plainly clear that having some
states with lower drinking ages was a disaster. First, within the low-age states traffic fatalities
were up. Second, “bloody borders” emerged with young people in neighboring high-age states
driving long distances to drink in low-age states; their return trips often ended tragically.
San Diego has its own “bloody border” with Mexico, so we know well the allure of a permissive
jurisdiction. Several years ago, through breath-test surveys, we estimated that 300 drunken
drivers emanate from the San Ysidro border crossing every weekend night. Sober drivers sharing
the roads are justifiably worried.
In the '80s, Congress stepped in and put strings on highway funding to assure that all states had
an age-21 law. As predicted, traffic fatalities started to decline. The National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration estimates that between 700 and 1,000 lives are saved every year because
of age-21 laws. Injuries and teenage alcohol consumption also declined.
New Zealand recently became the “guinea pig” for lowering the drinking age; it has seen a 12
percent increase in crashes among those aged 18 to 20; 15-to 17-year-olds are crashing 14
percent more often. Young people usually get alcohol from social sources; lowering the legal age
pushes social access down as well. Age-21 opponents offer no studies to support their hypothesis
that lowering the drinking age would reduce deaths or injuries. Instead, they tend to focus on
persistent problems associated with underage drinking.
It's a strange argument, tantamount to saying “because there are still speeders, speed limits
should be abolished.” But our collective effort to abide by speed limit laws makes us safer even
if each of us occasionally speed.
Underage drinking is similar; the laws reduce underage consumption and the toll it takes on all of
us, even if sometimes our young people fail to abstain. Now it is true that age-21 laws changed
behavior more among non-college young adults than for those college-enrolled. But there are
1,700 college-student deaths from alcohol-related incidents each year. About 78 percent of those
are from vehicle crashes. There is no study, evidence or experience to make one believe lowering
the drinking age would reduce that number; to the contrary, all the evidence available says it
would increase it.
Lange is San Diego State University's coordinator of alcohol and other anti-drug initiatives.