A group of 129 college presidents and chancellors formed the Amethyst Initiative in July. The initiative’s mission states that the 21-year-old drinking age may actually increase alcohol-related risks for young people and that we need to discuss the facts that surround the law. The movement has invited all college presidents and chancellors, including our own Chancellor James Oblinger, to sign up.
The big question is not whether the drinking age will be lowered – a decision that could take years – but whether a discussion is worth having. It’s not as if opening discussion on the drinking age will automatically change anything – it will merely shed light on the facts and political issues surrounding the law.
So why have only 129 presidents and chancellors signed on in support of the debate? What is it that these educated men and women are afraid of?
UNC System President Erskine Bowles’ statement reveals only that he is pleased with the current drinking age, that he “does not expect” the UNC Board of Governors to consider participation and that he encourages expansion of such programs like AlcoholEdu. Bowles, in a statement he issued, only gave two reasons why 21 is an ideal drinking age: The Skipper Bowles Center for Alcohol Research has “shared with [him]…convincing evidence…that [the law] really does saves [sic] lives,” and that he himself has “seen no scientific evidence that…lowering the legal drinking age would reduce binge-drinking or…other alcohol-related problems.”
Oblinger also issued a statement concerning the Amethyst Initiative, indicating his support for a discussion of non-age-related issues that surround binge drinking. What we have here are two statements that say almost nothing about the issue and lean mostly on personal opinion.
Regardless of President Bowles’ and Chancellor Oblinger’s personal beliefs, they should still get involved with the Amethyst Initiative’s proposed discussion. They should emulate the members of the initiative and come armed with facts to present. A refusal by either Bowles or Oblinger would lead me to believe that there are system-wide political issues holding them back, not an honest interest in young people’s health and happiness.
Students at N.C. State and in the UNC system deserve a well-rounded, complete explanation for why their campus’ leaders are not enthusiastic about an intelligent, fact-based, overdue debate. Even if it doesn’t ultimately lead to a lower drinking age, the discussion needs to happen, and the NCSU community should be represented.
E-mail your thoughts on the drinking age debate to [email protected].
