College Prez's Demand Drinking Age Debate...But Are They Just Dropping the Ball?

The AP recently put out a news story about a group of college administrators who beleive lawmakers should consider lowering the drinking age to 18. This group, called the Amethyst Initiative, is saying that the current legal age creates "a culture of dangerous, clandestine binge-drinking." In their written statement, the group argues "Adults under 21 are deemed capable of voting, signing contracts, serving on juries and enlisting in the military, but are told they are not mature enough to have a beer." They also state that "by choosing to use fake IDs, students make ethical compromises that erode respect for the law."

This story genuinely surprised me. Of all people, I would have thought that college administrators would know how rampant underage drinking is, and how dangerous it can be. Imagine my surprise when my school's chancellor, Syracuse's Nancy Cantor, added her support to the list.

With all due respect to Syracuse University, this declaration that the drinking age should be lowered is nothing more than a way to dodge the responsibility of sobering up unruly students.

While it is true that the maturity levels of a 21-year-old and an 18-year-old are not huge, the current group of underage students have done absolutely nothing to prove they are mature enough to be entrusted with alcohol. I can recall hearing ambulances outside my dorm practically every weekend last year. Not to mention the times I've seen fellow freshmen, sophomores, and juniors slumped against walls, passed out from too much beer. Or worse.

To suggest that these student drink because it's a way to stick it to "the man" is looking too far into what is a simple explanation:

Students like to get drunk. Buzzed. Whatever you want to call it.

The group's claim that fake ID's are a detriment to society may be true. But how about instead of eliminating the need for fake ID's, they prosecute those who use and abide by them. The bar raids carried out by campus police this last year was a great way of deterring that kind of behavior.

If the drinking age were lowered, the amount of drinking wouldn't follow suit. If anything, a lowering drinking age would absolve colleges from having to prevent drinking, and put extra pressure on high schools across the nation. Because, by the group's own argument, 16-year-olds would now be upset that they're being excluded, and would drink in protest! The "clandestine" drinking society wouldn't dissolve, it would just shift down to younger, more impressionable students.

Not to mention the potential impact of a lower drinking age on drunk-driving, which under the current drinking age has decreased.

I understand that tackling underage drinking is a monumental task. But to lower the drinking age wouldn't be solving the problem, it would merely solve the college's problem of having to take responsibility for their student's poor decisions. Setting the age at 18 would just be rewarding students for breaking the law.

How about instead of lowering the drinking age, we raise the punishments. I've seen far too many slaps on the wrist from a school whose policy is a "dry campus". Second, third, fourth, fifth chances are all too much. That these schools are attempting to shift the blame off of themselves is deplorable. These presidents and chancellors should be taking a stand and setting hard rules for stamping out underage drinking.