CAMPUS

For the Right Reasons? The Amethyst Initiative and collegiate drinking woes

This past July, the presidents of 130 colleges (and counting) all over the United States formed the Amethyst Initiative, a group whose goal is to “re-examine the drinking age.” These presidents want to “support a debate” about the current drinking age because they believe that the forbidden nature of alcohol–due to a nationwide drinking age of 21–contributes significantly to dangerous binge-drinking.

Although a direct demand for lowering the drinking age cannot be found anywhere on the Initiative’s website, the goals outlined make it clear that this group does in fact want it lowered. Two paragraph titles on the Initiative’s Statement–“Twenty-one is not working” and “How many times must we relearn the lessons of prohibition?”–illustrate the group’s direct attack on the 1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which denied 10% of federal highway funding to any state setting its drinking age lower than 21.

Predictably, the Initiative faces significant opposition from many angles, but most notably from Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the original force behind the 1984 Act. MADD cites the current drinking age as a reason for declining numbers in drunk-driving deaths, even saying that 900 lives are saved every year because of drinking age laws. They certainly don’t want the drinking age lowered.

But it should be lowered. This may sound strange–coming from a social conservative and a complete abstainer–but my inner libertarian wants for people who can vote and join the military to be able to consume alcohol. Just because I choose not to drink it doesn’t mean that no one should be allowed to do so. I also really do want to curb binge-drinking. Not only is it dangerous for those actually consuming, it is often dangerous, and certainly irritating, to all those around them. For example, I would really prefer not to be woken up at 2.30am on a Thursday by someone shouting “I’m being disruptive! I’M DISRUPTING YOU!”, after a night at Fish Co. I wish I were kidding, but that actually happened; I am ready to jump on board for something that might reduce that kind of behavior, which is what the Initiative is trying to do.

Outside of their feud with the Initiative, MADD has done plenty of research into the reasons why the drinking age is a good thing. MADD reminds us that drunk-driving deaths as a whole have decreased since the 1980s, and since alcohol-related fatalities have declined more than have non-alcohol related fatalities, they argue that this is proof that their efforts brought about change.

While MADD has obviously done its research, it needs to do a bit more. First, car safety features overall have improved since 1984, and most likely have contributed to the decrease in fatalities as a whole. Second, the way MADD responds to the Initiative makes it clear that they do not understand what the Initiative’s goals are. The Initiative is clearly equally concerned about young people consuming to the point of impairment, and their goal is to reduce dangerous binge drinking. In fact, they actually agree on one point: both groups want to help young people make “responsible” (Initiative) or “safe and smart” (MADD) decisions about alcohol.

The way MADD phrases their arguments, you would think every president on the Initiative’s list wants to personally hand each student a 40oz. The national president of MADD actually said that those colleges whose presidents had signed the Initiative had “waved the white flag on underage and binge drinking policies.” They are not waving any flags and hate binge drinking as much as you do. They too (perhaps especially) have to deal with the consequences of overconsuming.

Of course, this is not to discount every argument MADD has made. Clearly overconsuming is a serious problem, and each group has a different way of dealing with it. Perhaps we can compare the two movements: MADD generally considers all alcohol consumption by young people to be a bad thing, while the Initiative feels alcohol consumption can be done responsibly. I find myself on the side of the Initiative, and although my peers regularly fail to live up to the “responsible” part of the Initiative’s goal, I know that it can be done, and hopefully getting rid of the “forbidden element” of alcohol (by removing the drinking age) will help.

However, I do have several issues with the Initiative. The first is simply semantics, but the actual name of the group may turn out to be very important. “The Amethyst Initiative” in itself sounds very pretentious, and it’s completely unclear why they would want to call themselves that until one reads the description on their site (unless you have a background in ancient history). The word “amethyst” is apparently derived from two ancient Greek words which, when put together, mean “not intoxicated.” Additionally, in ancient Greece, jewelry and drinking vessels were made out of the semi-precious stone in order to ward off drunkenness. This is all good background, but if the Initiative is looking to convert people, what are they thinking?

My last criticism — which goes beyond semantics — is more of a wish: I hope that these presidents created the Initiative for the right reasons. While all of their arguments that “twenty-one is not working” are true, it hasn’t been examined if the drinking age is not working because they aren’t trying hard enough. While the Presidents may be supporting the initiative in order to stop binge-drinking, it is undeniable that, if the Initiative’s desires are met, the presidents no longer have to worry about so-called underage drinking. Everything from hiring and training public safety officers to enforcing rules about parties would become significantly easier for all of these presidents with a lower drinking age, and so I hope that the Initiative didn’t arise from the laziness of the Presidents

Hopefully the Amethyst Initiative will be able to open a true debate on an issue that’s been untouched for far too long, and although I hate to question its founders, I truly hope they have their students’ best interests at heart.