Alumnus and President emeritus asks: Why 21?
Briana Gapsis
Issue date: 4/3/07 Section: News
How would you celebrate a twenty-first birthday? For many Americans, the answer is simple; twenty-one years, why not try twenty-one shots? Even if the celebration is less extreme than going shot for shot with your age, the inclination is often to celebrate this final right of passage by imbibing the long-forbidden fruit of the distillery. It might be traditional to do so, but the question remains: why is it a tradition? While American citizens are allowed to drive, vote, gamble, get married, purchase firearms, and even die for their country by the age of eighteen, drinking is forbidden for another three years.
This is just the question that John M. McCardell Jr., the former president of Middlebury College and W&L Class of '71, raised in his presentation "Why 21?" The answer, it seems, is money. While states have the freedom to legislate this issue independently should they so choose, under the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, any state to permit the consumption of alcohol by adults under 21 will be punished by the federal government fiscally through the denial of highway funding. The lack of federal funding for highways would dramatically affect the annual budget of any state and is sufficient incentive to enforce the drinking age limit as a national policy.
In order to re-open the issue of the drinking age for public discussion, McCardell founded the organization Choose Responsibility. This group advocates the abolition of the highway penalty for states so that each may legislate to its own needs, creating practical ways to address underage drinking. Choose Responsibility argues that, "Legal Age 21 breeds disrespect for the law in general and leads to ethical compromises - few of the young adults who choose to drink underage give more than a nod of acknowledgement to the fact that they are breaking the law each time they pop open a beer can or use a false ID to buy a drink."
As the president of a College, McCardell was intimately involved with the lives of students on both sides of this key age, and, as such, is keenly aware of the realities of underage drinking, and his organization, Choose Responsibility, offers one alternative to Legal Age 21; they suggest a graduated licensing system. "Simply returning the legal age for alcohol consumption to 18 would accomplish little," says the organization. "Instead, [CR] proposes a multifaced approach." Upon turning 18, an individual can drink openly in the home. This would allow them to learn such appropriate drinking habits as restraint and moderation with the support and guidance of their families. Upon graduating high school, individuals would be eligible to enter an alcohol education program that, like drivers ed, would teach appropriate drinking behavior and educate individuals on the dangers entailed with the consumption of alcohol. After taking an exam, individuals who pass would earn a license to purchase and consume alcohol. Like driving, drinking would be a privilege, not a right, that could be revoked for dangerous behavior.
This is just the question that John M. McCardell Jr., the former president of Middlebury College and W&L Class of '71, raised in his presentation "Why 21?" The answer, it seems, is money. While states have the freedom to legislate this issue independently should they so choose, under the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, any state to permit the consumption of alcohol by adults under 21 will be punished by the federal government fiscally through the denial of highway funding. The lack of federal funding for highways would dramatically affect the annual budget of any state and is sufficient incentive to enforce the drinking age limit as a national policy.
In order to re-open the issue of the drinking age for public discussion, McCardell founded the organization Choose Responsibility. This group advocates the abolition of the highway penalty for states so that each may legislate to its own needs, creating practical ways to address underage drinking. Choose Responsibility argues that, "Legal Age 21 breeds disrespect for the law in general and leads to ethical compromises - few of the young adults who choose to drink underage give more than a nod of acknowledgement to the fact that they are breaking the law each time they pop open a beer can or use a false ID to buy a drink."
As the president of a College, McCardell was intimately involved with the lives of students on both sides of this key age, and, as such, is keenly aware of the realities of underage drinking, and his organization, Choose Responsibility, offers one alternative to Legal Age 21; they suggest a graduated licensing system. "Simply returning the legal age for alcohol consumption to 18 would accomplish little," says the organization. "Instead, [CR] proposes a multifaced approach." Upon turning 18, an individual can drink openly in the home. This would allow them to learn such appropriate drinking habits as restraint and moderation with the support and guidance of their families. Upon graduating high school, individuals would be eligible to enter an alcohol education program that, like drivers ed, would teach appropriate drinking behavior and educate individuals on the dangers entailed with the consumption of alcohol. After taking an exam, individuals who pass would earn a license to purchase and consume alcohol. Like driving, drinking would be a privilege, not a right, that could be revoked for dangerous behavior.
Be the first to comment on this story