Author: Kevin Abrams & Riley Hooper
In Ancient Greece, the purple gemstone amethyst was believed to ward off drunkenness and promote moderation in drinking. Today, college presidents across the nation are hoping to use this ancient symbol to encourage responsibility and moderation in drinking amongst America’s youth.
In July 2008, former president of Middlebury College in Vermont John McCardell launched a movement known as the Amethyst Initiative, which includes a petition now signed by 130 college presidents that calls for serious debate and reassessment over current drinking laws in the U.S. The Initiative is a subproject of Choose Responsibility, McCardell’s non-profit organization that aims to inform the public about the dangers involved in reckless underage drinking. McCardell himself argues that current drinking laws “infantilize” young adults and unintentionally promote immature drinking behavior.
The Amethyst Initiative
“It’s time to rethink the drinking age,” begins the petition statement of the Amethyst Initiative. It goes on to state that college presidents observe that “21 is not working” and that binge-drinking is a problem on campuses across the nation. The petition states that adults under 21 are able to vote, sign contracts, serve on juries and enlist in the military, but “are told they are not mature enough to have a beer.” The petition asks, “How many times must we relearn the lessons of prohibition?” and calls upon elected officials to:
• Support an informed and moderate public debate over the effects of the 21 year-old drinking age.
• Consider whether the 10% highway fund “incentive” encourages or inhibits that debate.
• Invite new ideas about the best ways to prepare young adults to make responsible decisions about alcohol.
The petition ends by stating, “We pledge ourselves and our institutions to playing a vigorous, constructive role as these critical discussions unfold.”
Twenty-four years ago, Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984. This law did not mandate or establish a new legal drinking age in America – under our legislative system, this issue is still reserved for state discretion. What the Act did do, however, was pressure individual states to revise their drinking laws by creating a system whereby any state which refused to enact and enforce 21 as the minimum age for the purchase and public possession of alcoholic beverages stood to lose 10% of its annual federal highway apportionment – a percentage which, for most states, amounts to tens of millions of dollars. Consequently, by 1988, all 50 states had adopted the new drinking age.
As the Amethyst Initiative challenges the current drinking law, it has drawn a significant amount of criticism from groups that favor 21 as the drinking age. The most prominent of these critics include Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), the American Medical Association, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and the National Transportation Safety Board, among others. These organizations and many others have signed on to a sub-project of MADD known as the Support 21 Coalition.
MADD stands as one of the most outspoken advocates of maintaining the current drinking age laws. On their website, MADD refers to the Amethyst Initiative as “a misguided initiative that uses deliberately misleading information to confuse the public on the effectiveness of the 21 law,” and cites evidence that said law “has reduced drunk driving and underage binge drinking.”
In an effort to protect the 21 law, MADD has advised the public to write to college presidents, and has requested that presidents on the initiative’s list remove their names. Additionally, on their website, MADD President Laura Dean-Mooney “call[s] into question whether or not these campuses are [even] bothering to enforce the 21 drinking age,” and advises that “parents should think twice before sending their teens to these colleges” whose presidents have signed on to the initiative.
MADD cites numerous studies and statistics to back their pro-21 position, the main one being that “the 21 law saves lives”-about 1,000 lives per year.
Other organizations that side with MADD on the drinking age issue have also provided evidence toward the same conclusion. A 2005 study from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration concluded that “the number of young people killed annually in crashes involving drunk drivers under 21 has been cut in half” since the early 1980’s.
A 2002 study from the American Medical Association reports that “alcohol use during adolescence and young adulthood causes damage to memory and learning capabilities.”
In agreement, the Narcotic Education Foundation of America claims that the human brain does not fully develop until one’s early- to mid-20’s. During this development, they argue, “alcohol negatively affects all parts of the brain, including coordination, motional control, thinking, decision-making, hand-eye movement, speech and memory.”
According to the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, “individuals who begin drinking in their early teens are not only at greater risk for developing alcoholism sometime in their lives, they are also at greater risk for developing alcoholism more quickly and at younger ages.”
In an interview with the LA Times, Amethyst Initiative founder McCardell stated that his movement is “not ignoring science. There is science on both sides of the question.” For starters, he considers the possibility that the reduction in traffic fatalities which MADD cites may be credited, at least partially, to outside factors, such as safer automobile designs, better medical care and improvements in technology overall.
McCardell and his allies in the Amethyst Initiative have studies to cite as well. A 2003 study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention concluded that although fewer high school-age students have been drinking, the rates of binge drinking have increased by 56% among underage drinkers since the late 1970’s.
Choose Responsibility cites research which shows that in many countries with lower drinking ages, 15- and 16-year-olds were less likely to become intoxicated compared with teens in the U.S. McCardell entertains the notion that the current system may be to blame for such undisciplined drinking behavior, which “drives underage youth to drink in clandestine settings and apart from older adults who might model more appropriate behavior.”
Addressing the potential medical problems associated with changing the 21 law, McCardell says he agrees underage drinking can cause undesirable health effects, but that this problem pertains mainly to younger teens. “Between 13 and 18, the effect is dramatic. But between 18 and 21 it’s visible but insignificant,” he says. “What we ought to look at is not keeping 18-year-olds from drinking, it’s keeping 13-year-olds from drinking.”
David J. Hanson, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the State University of New York at Potsdam, agrees. “There is little evidence in humans to suggest that mild to moderate drinking in late adolescence causes any damage,” he said. “The research is almost exclusively based on rats and humans who are alcohol addicted . . . It doesn’t look at moderate drinking at all. We’ve got a lot of cross-cultural evidence that it isn’t harmful at all.”
Amethyst at Oxy
“It’s a petition to have a discussion and it’s an important topic, so therefore to have a discussion is a good thing,” Skotheim said in regards to his decision to sign the Amethyst Initiative. “I saw nothing controversial about it,” he adds, stating that those who do, such as groups like MADD, misinterpreted the petition.
When asked whether the petition affirmed that those who signed it agree with the statement in the petition that “21 isn’t working,” Skotheim replied, “well, nothing is working. Binge drinkers aren’t working, the alcohol isn’t working, nothing is working.”
“We don’t know if any age would work. We don’t know if rules w
ork,” Skothiem said. The President said that he personally did not know enough about the issue to say whether lowering the drinking age would have a positive or negative effect, “but what we do know, on campus, is that drinking is a problem,” he said.
Both Skotheim and Vice President of Student Affairs and Dean of Students, Barbara Avery, agreed that drinking on Occidental’s campus is a problem. Classifying Oxy as much like any other college, Avery stated, “there’s tremendous binge drinking here.” Avery cited that from articles written and research conducted on college students, and from incident reports from Occidental Campus Safety officers and Resident Advisors, they are able to quantify this problem.
“We know it’s a problem because the neighbors are furious. We know it’s a problem because the police are furious,” Skotheim said. “And the paramedics call us crazy,” Avery added.
Avery cited research that binge drinking is more prevalent amongst three groups on college campuses: first-year students, members of fraternities and sororities and athletes. She also cited research that, amongst college students, binge drinking is most prevalent during the first year, and tends to lessen after that. Avery states that drinking at Occidental is typical of other college campuses in both regards. From looking at incident reports, Avery said she can conclude that there are fewer write-ups for juniors and seniors. “As they mature, you do see fewer students drinking,” she said.
Typical of other college campuses, this is not the first time Occidental has faced problems concerning alcohol. “Occidental has been preoccupied for a long time with this phenomenon because binge drinking has been a problem on American campuses for a long time,” President Skotheim said. He noted that Avery and college administrators across the country have been looking at this issue and trying to solve it for years.
“There’s nothing new about any of this,” Skotheim said. What is different this time, he notes, is only that there is a petition. “What those college presidents were trying to do in circulating that petition was to put the spotlight on it [the issue of drinking] right now,” Skotheim said.
In signing the petition, President Skotheim consulted only himself. Since signing the petition, he has met with the other president signatories and has also discussed the issue extensively with Avery.
Amethyst in the Future
As for what happens next on campus, Skotheim said a shift will be made sooner or later to the area of student services. “We’re actually hoping that discussions [concerning drinking issues] will happen in the General Assembly,” Avery said. “We know that discussions will happen in hall spreads,” she added. Expressing a desire to know what students’ feelings are on the issue, Avery stated “I think it’s the type of discussion that we need to have as a community.”
In addition to campus-wide discussions, Occidental will continue to regulate alcohol use on campus by following its Alcohol and Other Drugs Policy as defined by the Student Handbook. According to the General College Policies section of the handbook, which was revised in 2008, “Members of Occidental College are subject to and must abide by California State Law regarding the possession, consumption, and distribution of drugs and alcohol.” The handbook then states, “The laws of the State of California specify that people under the age of 21 may not consume, possess or distribute alcohol.”
According to the Alcohol Policy Information System (APIS), a project of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, a division of the National Institute of Health, California law states that underage possession of alcohol is prohibited unless the person is at a private location, has the consent of a parent/guardian, or has a legal-age spouse. Underage consumption of alcohol, according to California law, is not explicitly prohibited. These laws have been in effect since Jan. 1, 2007.
The student handbook and APIS are concurrent in stating that California law prohibits the underage purchase of alcohol and furnishing of alcohol to minors.
According to APIS, provisions specific to school or university property can be added to state laws. In the Student Handbook, Residence Life and Housing Policies section, the Prohibited Items in Student Rooms section states that “possession, use, or exchange of alcohol by persons under the age of 21” is prohibited. The Alcohol and other Drugs Policy states that a student who is of legal drinking age “may consume alcohol in her/his room in all residence halls except Braun, Stewie, and Bell-Young.” The policy also prohibits drinking in the lounges, living rooms and basement areas of dorms, and prohibits common sources of alcohol, such as kegs and beer balls in the dorms.
According to the handbook, “Violations of the policies outlined in the Alcohol and Other Drugs Policy will result in disciplinary action by the College and possible criminal prosecution. Such action may involve a sanction or combination of sanctions that may include but not be limited to: educational programs letter of censure, counseling referral, disciplinary probation, suspension and dismissal.”
In an interview with the LA Times, Avery outlined Occidental’s policies toward drinking. “At Occidental,” the article states, “residence hall officials do not search rooms for alcohol, but students discovered drunk or hosting a drinking party are required to attend a meeting with administrators and may have a reprimand placed in their file . . . Counseling may be recommended, and parents may be alerted about repeated violations, but students typically do not face suspension or expulsion unless their drinking led to physical injuries or property damage.”
The only case in which a student’s parents would be notified about a student’s behavior, Avery told the Weekly, is if the student “looks like they are in serious difficulty, or their actions could possibly hurt themselves or others.” In these cases, Avery said, “parents are called because at that point, parents have a right to know.” In all other cases, she said “we have to get your permission to talk to the parents about anything that’s going on in your life.”
President Skotheim described a time in higher education-in fact, a time when he was in college-when “in loco parentis” (Latin for “in the place of a parent”), a doctrine which allowed the institution to take over the legal responsibility and the attitude of the parents, was in place. At this time, any comments concerning a students’ behavior were sent straight to the parents, without any notification to the student. “Loco parentis” allowed the college to enforce rules rigidly and expel students for disobeying them.
Now, Skotheim notes, the law has changed and college students are regarded as adults. “Instead, the idea was that that’s not the way that adults treat adults. Adults treat adults by persuasion and discussion,” Skotheim said. He said that now there are relatively few rules and things are much less rigid. The case of underage alcohol consumption, Skothiem said, is unique in that “here we have a leftover ‘it’s against the law.’ But notice that we do not enforce it.” He said that in the situation of underage drinking, historically the college would have acted like parents or policemen and expel students.
In addition to the school’s policies and procedures, the Office of Student Life sponsors Alcohol Awareness Week every year to educate students on the effects and risks of alcohol consumption. Emmons Health Center provides resources for students to examine and handle their alcohol usage. Starting this year, the College also implemented a new online course titled “Alcohol Wise,” which all incoming students (first-years and transfers under 21) are required to take.
The course, implemented and supported by The Division of Student Affairs’ leadership team, composed of the Dean, three Assistant Deans and Associate Dean Jonathan O’Brien, is designed to provide students with “basic
information on alcohol and its effects on health, wellness, and academic success,” O’Brien said. “We realized that we needed to at least attempt to educate students what the issues are around drinking,” Avery said about the decision to implement the course.
Since the course is not fully completed until students take the second portion at the end of the semester, no conclusions have been drawn yet as to its effectiveness. “We’re hoping it will make a difference but we won’t know until the end of the semester,” Avery said. As a result of the course, “we hope there will be a significant reduction in policy violations and, ultimately, less alcohol-related injury, hospitalization, and other issues like sexual harassment and assault that are associated with excessive alcohol consumption,” O’Brien said.
Results from a survey conclude that a vast majority of Occidental students who took the test this fall either ‘agree’ or ‘strongly agree’ that the course content was: clear and easy to understand, interesting and helpful, and will help them avoid future problems with alcohol.
As for the future of the Amethyst Initiative, Skotheim said there were no immediate or implicit instructions for presidents who signed, but he stated, “I think the Amethyst planners hope that there will be some conclusions made.” Skotheim said that while he believes some are hoping the initiative will result in legislative action to lower the legal drinking age, this is not the general consensus. “There will be some people who will hope that will happen,” said Skotheim. “But by far, the greater effort will not be that, it will be what goes on at individual campuses trying to figure out something new.”
Skotheim said that the issues of underage drinking and alcohol abuse go beyond the college campus. He explained the college as just one little piece in a larger scheme where the college, the parents, and legislation and law enforcement all influence students’ use of alcohol. “The college is not nearly as influential in the lives of students as the families are,” Skotheim said. Therefore, he believes the real question is what are families doing about the issue. “You’re really talking about behaviors and attitudes that young people bring from their homes. In other words, this really has to do with families, this really has to do with parents.” Nevertheless, he believe the college’s role is an “important piece” in the equation.
President Skotheim remains positive about his decision to sign the petition. In response to MADD’s suggestion encouraging parents to think twice about sending their students to institutions where presidents have signed the petition, Skotheim responds, “Only an absurd person would think that their child is being ill-served by going to a college where something is going to be discussed. Most people send their children to college to discuss things.”
This article has been archived, for more requests please contact us via the support system.
