OUR OPINIONS

A RECENT ARTICLE BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS describes an effort by the Amethyst Initiative, a newly formed organization of university chancellors and presidents, to reignite the debate about the drinking age in America. While the organization does not explicitly advocate lowering the drinking age from 21 years old to 18, it does urge for “an informed and dispassionate debateâ€Â about the matter.

As might be expected, the movement has provoked some opposition, particularly from Mothers Against Drunk Driving. According to the article however, both sides still consider alcohol abuse among college students “a huge problem.â€Â

We think it̢۪s a huge problem as well. It does seem curious that the push for reconsideration should come from an organization comprised of college administrators.

We ask them: what is the difference, from the university̢۪s perspective? Colleges need to be vigilant about monitoring alcohol consumption and try to curb its abuse, among both legal and illegal drinking populations.

The article also cites research indicating “more than 40 percent of college students [who] reported at least one symptom of alcohol abuse or dependence,â€Â with more than 500,000 college students from four-year universities suffering alcohol-related injuries annually.

These figures don’t delineate how many of the students are legal drinkers and how many are underage. They don’t really need to either—the indication is that alcohol is a major issue on university campuses.

The AP article quotes Moana Jagasia, a Duke sophomore from Singapore, where the drinking age is lower. Jagasia says “There isn’t that much difference in maturity between 21 and 18.â€Â This effectively encapsulates the Amethyst Initiative’s argument as well — both center on the issue of maturity.

Maturity, however, is not quantifiable — it is subjective and it is abstract. Different communities define maturity in different ways, and even within those communities, the age of “maturityâ€Â varies from person to person. Universities are often comprised of students from diverse communities — from those from Singapore to those from Cedar Rapids, Iowa — and so are not in a particularly good position to make blanket statements about maturity.

Because here is what is concrete: the aforementioned research includes all of these students as well.

Maturity should be ancillary — the primary issue needs to be tackling the abuse itself.

Because here is what is quantifiable: 1,700 students of the aforementioned 500,000 die as a result of their alcohol-related injuries every year.

And these are our students, too.

So it is difficult for us to see this as anything more than an effort to skirt the primary issue. If more than 40 percent of our community suffers from symptoms of alcohol abuse, then the people at the top need to be as aggressive as possible in trying to eradicate that problem.

There is nothing aggressive about the Amethyst Initiative — to the extent that they will not even take a firm stand on dropping the age limit.

The organization says it chose its name because the Greeks associated amethyst with sobriety. A cursory search also reveals that Egyptians associated the stone with a freedom from guilt.

And it is this secondary association — even more than the first — that characterizes the organization’s effort.

Age — and whatever it might indicate of maturity — is beside the point.

Universities must make a stronger effort to educate students about and eliminate alcohol abuse on their campuses, for real and for good.