The Amethyst Initiative

By Jocelyn Wright     9/4/08 7:00pm

As the federal law that has set the drinking age at 21 comes up for review next year, college and university presidents and chancellors from across the country have come together to sign the Amethyst Initiative - begun in July - which advocates an informed and unimpeded debate to see if the current policy is working. The initiative, so named because of the ancient Greek myth that amethyst would ward off the effects of drunkenness, states that the current law has created a culture of binge-drinking often conducted in secret that endangers student health and safety. The initiative currently has over 120 signatories, including presidents of some of Rice's peer institutions, such as Duke University and Dartmouth University.Although President David Leebron said he was in favor of a debate about the merits of the current drinking age, he said he did not sign the Amethyst Initiative because he felt it was advocating that the drinking age should be lowered to 18. Leebron said he needed more research and information before he could advocate that position.

"I think it's good to have a policy debate and revisit the issue to see if it's working or not, especially since the United States has a somewhat unusual policy," Leebron said. "This puts on us the burden to see if [the drinking age of 21] is working and to that degree I support it. Universities are a place of inquiry."

The drinking age was raised from 18 to 21 by the National Minimum Drinking Age Act in 1984, which docked 10 percent of the annual funding for a state's federal highways if it did not enforce 21 as the minimum age for purchasing and publicly possessing alcoholic beverages. The constitutionality of the law was challenged in 1987 in the Supreme Court case South Dakota v. Dole, in which the state of South Dakota claimed the policy violated the 21st Amendment. The constitutionality of the law, however, was upheld in a 7-2 decision, in which Chief Justice William Rehnquist said the use of highway funds as an incentive to raise the drinking age is a pressure on - not a regulation of - the states and that therefore the law did not violate the 10th or 21st Amendments.

---

---

The Amethyst Initiative, which is run by the nonprofit organization Choose Responsibly, states that the current policy infantilizes adults ages 18 through 20 and that it has not made a significant portion of underage drinkers change their behavior. It also states that the illegality of drinking for adults under 21 both exacerbates binge drinking and pushes the behavior behind closed doors and off-campus, which makes it more dangerous.

The Amethyst Initiative has been opposed by several groups, including Mothers Against Drunk Driving. In a MADD press release last month, National President Laura Dean Mooney said lowering the drinking age will lead to more drunk driving. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the American Medical Association, the National Transportation Safety Board and the Governors Highway Safety Association are some of the organizations that have joined MADD in criticizing the Amethyst Initiative.

Hanszen College Master Wes Morris said the Amethyst Initiative brought up two issues that were closely related but were not the same and therefore did not have the same solution: drinking in excess and driving while intoxicated.

"It's a mistake to collapse one into the other," Morris said.

Morris said drunken driving already has a solution, which is that it is illegal. He said the current laws should be enforced more rigorously.

Leebron said that since the drinking age was raised at the same time that much stricter enforcement of drunken driving laws was enforced, it is difficult to gauge whether the National Minimum Drinking Age Act really was responsible for the reduction in drunken driving.

"Did the higher age contribute to a reduction in fatalities - because that's what the statistics say - or was it a combination of other things?" Leebron said. "We wouldn't want to make a policy decision to raise injury and fatality rates, but it might be the greater enforcement of drunken-driving laws that led to the reduction."

Brown College Master Steven Cox said while he was sympathetic to MADD's position and felt that they ought to have a voice at the table, he felt that the current prohibitionist attitude was not working.

"I don't see the current system as the best solution," Cox said. "What's the right compromise? I'm not sure, but I'm much happier putting limits on automobile use than on the consumption of alcohol."

Baker College sophomore Mina Fitzpatrick said she had a hard time understanding the huge time gap between when students could drive and when they could drink.

"Maybe we should support public transportation and raise the driving age," Fitzpatrick said. "People are less likely to violate that because of the monetary risks involved."

Leebron said he found the drinking age of 21 to be problematic, especially in a university setting.

"I think the 21-year-old drinking age prevents our ability to carry out our educational function," Leebron said. "We can't engage in a dialogue on how to drink responsibly. It's like Prohibition. Instead, we have to focus on the underage use of alcohol to be unacceptable."

Wiess College Master Mike Gustin said the main problem with the current situation was the hypocrisy, both at Rice and nationwide.

"There's a wink-wink attitude," Gustin said. "The idea behind the [Amethyst] initiative is to create an honest, open environment to deal with issues of subterranean alcohol consumption."

Leebron said that if the drinking age were lower, the administration would be able to engage more candidly with students about drinking.

"We could set a good example of reasonable drinking for students and show them how to be responsible, while making it very clear that irresponsible drinking will be dealt with very severely," Leebron said. "We try to do that now, but as part of the educational process, we could more effectively convey that drinking games, initiation ceremonies, drunk driving and using alcohol as an excuse are things we are extremely intolerant of."

Leebron said he remembered that when he was an undergraduate student at Harvard University, which had a residential college system, he would go over to the master's house and have sherry.

"It wasn't a separate student culture," Leebron said. "Most people drank little and drank responsibly, but [current legislation] makes it hard to engage in such conversations because I cannot say it's OK to drink a little and responsibly. You cannot drink at all [if you're underage], and that's the official position."

Cox said his experience in college, when drinking at 18 was legal, was that people drank more frequently because alcohol was readily available, but they did so with less intensity.

"The fridge was rarely out of beer," Cox said. "But it was one or two beers after homework instead of half a dozen on a Friday."

Rice alumnus Mark Godard (Sid '07) said the current policies have contributed to more binge drinking.

"When you turn 21, the social incentives to drink don't change drastically; however, being able to drink legally in public certainly reduces the incentive to take shots in your closet-like dorm room before heading to pub or a football game," Godard said. "I saw significantly more keg-stands, Everclear shots and other potentially irresponsible forms of alcohol use when my only exposure to drinking was at private, predominantly underage parties, than I do now at 23."

Morris, who was at Rice when the drinking age changed, said he didn't think the drinking culture at Rice changed much after the law went into effect, however.

"I don't think it changed anything other than driving drinking underground," Morris said. "The elaborate system of private and public parties evolved out of this. Private parties are supposed to be following the same rules as public parties, but they probably don't."

Leebron said while Rice took these measures to keep its students safe, he feels students are adults and should be treated as such.

"[Students] live in a free and democratic society," Leebron said. "We're not spying on our students to see what they're doing in their room or behind closed doors. We must treat them like adults. We cannot allow them to drink under 21, but we must trust them to behave properly and to know that any illegal behavior is unlawful and carries certain risks."

Gustin said he felt the Alcohol Policy at Rice was a good system.

"It creates a more trusting environment where administrators aren't police," Gustin said. "Rice is protective of the environment at the heart of the college system. We each respect each other's privacy and turf."

Wiess senior Jeremy Caves said the alcohol policy, which separates Emergency Medical Services and the Rice University Police Department, keeps Rice students much safer than those at public schools.

"My friends at public universities have this big dilemma," Caves said. "They can get in trouble and save their friend by calling the police if they're drunk, or they can stay out of trouble and hope their friend is okay."

Leebron said the debate was also complicated by the fact that only 46 percent of 18 and 19 year-olds are in college, and that even fewer are on residential college campuses.

"You can't separate people in college from what goes on outside college," Leebron said. "What's right for us may not be right for everyone."

Leebron said the discussion should not limit itself to the idea that there are only two solutions: a drinking age of 18 or 21.

"Is 18 the right number, or is it 21?" Leebron said. "Is 19 the right age? Is 20 right? There's nothing magic about 21."

Fitzpatrick said she felt Rice would benefit from opening up a debate on the current drinking age.

"I really believe the situation would improve if we lowered the drinking age back," Fitzpatrick said. "Having a family who's very open with having a glass of wine at dinner has allowed me to view drinking not as something to do to get drunk."

Cox said in his family, of Northern European heritage, alcohol was seen as part of a cultural awakening.

"Maybe I'm being overly romantic, but in my mind there is a powerful awakening with anything that makes you eat food more slowly," Cox said. "Food and alcohol go hand in hand. I'm not able to candidly express this to anyone except seniors, and then it's often too late for them. They've been drinking coke for too long to appreciate the power of beer and wine with food."

Wiess junior Erin Waller said the drinking age might be a situation in which the United States could benefit by studying Europe's policies.

"It works in Europe to have a lower drinking age because there's not as much of a breakaway moment where people go binge drinking or drunk driving so I guess in that way I think it's kind of good," Waller said.

Wiess sophomore Peter Hoagland said that it was misleading to compare the United States and Europe.

"I don't think you can compare what we have here to Europe because in Europe everything's so close together," Hoagland said. "Not so many people drive to get to the pub, so drunk driving isn't as much of a problem. Here, things are more spread out so you usually will have to drive somewhere if you're going to drink publicly unless you're on a college campus."

Amethyst Initiative Signings

Presidents of a few notable universities have already signed in favor of the Amethyst Initiative:

• Colgate University
• Dartmouth College
• Duke University
• Johns Hopkins University
• Middlebury College
• Millsaps College
• Occidental College
• Ohio State University
• Pomona College
• Santa Clara University
• Smith College
• Washington and Lee University

---