Last week was met with a flurry of debate on the viability of the national drinking age, which many argue should be lowered from 21 to 18. The debate continues and is being generated from the collective opinion of the Amethyst Initiative, a group of over 100 college presidents from mostly private universities who advocate that serious consideration should be put into changing a law that, in their opinion, is not working.
According to the Middlebury, VT organization:
“21 is not working as well as the public may think, its unintended consequences are posing increasing risks to young people, and it is time for a serious debate among our elected representatives about whether current public policies are in line with current realities.”
The risks – as explicated by presidents from high profile colleges such as Duke, Tufts, Queens College and Ohio State – include severe health concerns associated with a culture of binge drinking and an inability to effectively develop alcohol education programs on campus.
So the debate is on. Quickly jumping in to offer their opinion was Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), a high profile public interest organization strongly opposed to any change. A visit to MADD’s website provides a considerable amount of evidence on the current law’s effectiveness, as well as statements from various groups sympathetic to MADD’s opposition to change. Ronald Ruecker, president of the International Association of Police Chiefs (IAPC), stated that “lowering the minimum drinking age to 18 is both misguided and dangerous.” Talk radio and television weighed in too; one segment on NPR afforded the audience a debate between MADD’s director of community relations and an academic leader in agreement with the Amethyst Initiative. And just yesterday, the Press Telegram’s Tom Hennessey published an opinion opposing a revisit of the 21-year-old drinking law.
It is apparent that lowering the drinking age is a hot issue, one that will certainly generate more media attention as the two sides engage in further debate nationally. As this process ensues, I’m interested in how the debate will play out locally in Long Beach, seeing as we host two colleges right in our backyard. My understanding was made easier following an interview with Dr. Doug Robinson, vice president of student services at Cal State Long Beach. Dr. Robinson is a respected administrator at CSULB and within the CSU system, one who enjoys widespread support from both colleagues and students, and one who certainly knows something about student success.
My questions to Dr. Robinson were simple: does CSULB have a position on the drinking age issue, and are there unique circumstances at Cal State Long Beach that inform this position? His response was immediate and unwavering: “Both I and the university are opposed to this movement,” Robinson says, “and you will notice that most of the chancellors and presidents signing on to the initiative are from private colleges with more freedom to adopt independent positions.”
That CSULB is opposed is not surprising. It’s one of 23 state university campuses highly regulated by the California legislature and the CSU Office of the Chancellor, and one can imagine the public relations campaign needed to stave off critics of the world’s largest public university advocating for a law that could adversely affect hundreds of thousands of students; students who are, by law, afforded an accessible, quality higher education.
“But the Chancellor’s Office has not,” according to Dr. Robinson, “directed the individual campuses on this issue.” CSULB’s position is one adopted internally; one grounded in the culture of the 59 year old campus and the experience of veteran administrators like Robinson. “I’m also opposed to this because I know what happens to people when they drink…bad things happen, and we know that as people mature they make better decisions,” he continued.
Dr. Robinson noted the university’s programs in place to address alcohol related disasters. They include a 1-2-3 program used to educate students involved in incidents. The first step is to provide the student an educational seminar through Student Health Services, second is to provide counseling, and last comes disciplinary action if necessary.
“Acting out on campus is usually a result of alcohol consumption,” Robinson notes. “Sexual assaults, fights, and relationship conflicts at CSULB are 90-percent alcohol related. So why would we support such a step backwards,” he rhetorically questions. “It just doesn’t make sense.”
Also confusing to Robinson is the argument that the drinking age should be lowered to that in which we allow people to vote and enlist in the military – one of the Initiative’s main arguments in considering the change from age 21 to 18. “We know that people are going to drink and drive and they’re going to have impaired judgment. My response is that we raise the draft age to 21, not lower the drinking age to 18 and send more drunk drivers onto the streets.” Robinson has some support on this piece of the puzzle, as both MADD and the IAPC have made similar points.
Overall, my interview with Dr. Robinson was fruitful. This issue is more complicated than meets the eye, and certainly more involved than the topics presented by the Amethyst Initiative. One thing is for certain, though. Higher education leaders are powerful individuals, ones often connected politically and ones who generally enjoy broad support from their campus and local communities. A call by 129 of them to revisit this law will not go unanswered. In the end, my humble opinion is that the law will remain unchanged, but not after a thorough national debate plays out. That, in my opinion, is what the public deserves. After all, these presidents are smart people who likely have the best interests of their students in mind. The questions, however, is who jumps in first. Amethyst is calling for a public debate spearheaded by the elected, and I can’t image which politician wants to initiate the debate in legislative circles.
Thank you, Dr. Robinson, for your time discussing this topic. Administrators from Long Beach City College did not comment on this topic.