You are undoubtedly correct when you say “[D]espite decades of research, hundreds of campus task forces, and millions invested in bold experiments, college drinking remains as much of a problem as ever…. More students now drink to get drunk, choose hard liquor over beer, and front-load, or drink in advance of social events. For many the goal is to black out.” (“Why Colleges Haven’t Stopped Binge Drinking,” The Chronicle, December 2.)
To blame college administrators for the fact that the binge drinking rate has “hovered above 40 percent for two decades” is to misinterpret the evidence. The conclusion is inescapable: Twenty-one doesn’t work.
Some institutions have tried to crack down, only to discover that drinking moves into clandestine and risky settings and away from low-alcohol beer to shots of hard liquor. It’s the 1920s all over again; Prohibition also fostered a culture of defiance and dissolute behavior.
The Minimum Legal Drinking Age Act (MLDA-21) enacted in 1984 was the federal government’s response to a campaign against drunk driving launched by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD). It pinned the blame for a nationwide problem affecting all age groups on one cohort, those between 18 (the legal age of majority in virtually all other aspects of American citizenship) and 21. Alcohol-related highway fatalities declined. But binge drinking did not.
Interestingly, in neighboring Canada during the same period, alcohol-related traffic fatalities declined at the same rate; but the Canadians made no changes in their drinking age, 19 in most provinces, 18 in Quebec. Ask American students who have studied in countries where the drinking age is 18 or lower, and they will tell you the drinking behaviors there are far more civilized than back home.
Solutions? First, repeal the enforcement provision of the 1984 law that penalizes states that don’t maintain MLDA-21 10 percent of their federal highway funds. Let the genius of federalism produce best (or at least better) practices.
Second, education works. To earn the privilege of buying and consuming alcohol, 18-year-olds should be required to take a course, not unlike driver’s ed. Current law assumes, nobly yet naively, that everyone will, upon turning 21, awaken capable of making responsible decisions about alcohol. Perhaps we ought to take the same approach when it comes to operating a motor vehicle: Simply hand over the keys when a young person reaches legal driving age, relying on law enforcement (or perhaps the dean) to apprehend and punish errant, inexperienced drivers.
Third, a blood-alcohol-content limit of 0.06% is an appropriate standard. Moreover, conviction for DUI should be severe—even jail time for egregious offenders. Studies suggest that these policies are far more likely to reduce drunk driving than MLDA21.
Finally, no one favors drunk driving. The surest way to take drunks off the road is to mandate ignition interlocks, certainly for first-time offenders of any age, possibly for all drivers under the age of 21.
Freed from the constraints of MLDA-21, colleges could do what they do best: teach, and lead, by example. Out in the open is generally better than behind closed doors. Professors could legally have a beer with students after class and demonstrate that responsible adults don’t drink to get drunk. Those who abuse alcohol, and there always will be some, will be more readily identifiable and guided to treatment.
All this won’t happen overnight. We have allowed several generations of young people to learn bad habits that have become ingrained in campus life. But until we recognize that MLDA-21 is part of the problem—and not the solution—we will continue to read about the “college binge drinking crisis” and its apparent intractability.
John M. McCardell
Vice Chancellor
Sewanee, the University of the South
Sewanee, Tenn.
Barrett Seaman
President
Choose Responsibility