The American drinking age is up for debate for the first time in nearly 30 years. An activist group of college presidents and chancellors across the country known as Choose Responsibility is circulating a statement known as the Amethyst Initiative, a proposal to lower the drinking age back to 18.

“The Amethyst Initiative supports informed and unimpeded debate on the 21 year-old drinking age,” states the organization’s website.The group came together in June of 2008 when John McCardell, retired President of Middlebury College in Vermont and founder of Choose Responsibility, was invited to speak before the Annapolis Group, an organization of 120 liberal arts college presidents. Soon after the meeting, the presidents started sending the message to many others across the country.

Choose Responsibility criticizes the 21-year-old drinking age because they feel teaching only abstinence is not leading to a significant change in the behavior of America’s youth.

“[The Initiative] states clearly the signatories’ belief that 21 is not working as well as the public may think, that its unintended consequences are posing increasing risks to young people, and that it’s time for a serious debate among our elected representatives about whether current public policies are in line with current realities,” reads the organization’s website.

“Young adults aged 18 to 22 enrolled full-time in college were more likely than their peers not enrolled full-time to use alcohol in the past month, binge drink, or drink heavily,” according to a Department of Health and Human Services study.

The Initiative also brings attention to a government trusting individuals over 18 to join the military and participate in juries and elections, yet not trusting them to drink responsibly; and says a high drinking age promotes disrespect for the law among young people.

“By choosing to use fake IDs, students make ethical compromises that erode respect for the law,” reads the Initiative’s main statement.

The Initiative is strongly contested by the Support 21 Coalition, an organization made up of many prominent American health and safety groups including Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), the National Transportation Safety Board and the American Medical Association.

“The [current] law not only saves lives… but it also makes it less likely that young people will abuse alcohol throughout their life… MADD supports the Minimum Legal Drinking Age law because it is a vital tool in our goal to eliminate drunk driving,” reads MADD’s website.

The drinking age was raised to 21 in 1984 when Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. Under this act, any state with a drinking age lower than 21 would receive a cut of 10 percent in its annual federal highway funding in accordance with the Federal Aid Highway Act.

The Initiative currently has 130 signatures. Signatories in the Pioneer Valley include President Jack M. Wilson of the University of Massachusetts, President Ralph J. Hexter of Hampshire College, President Joanne V. Creighton of Mount Holyoke College and President Carol T. Christ of Smith College.

UMass Chancellor Robert C. Holub told the press, “Binge drinking and alcohol abuse by college students are serious national issues… The Amethyst Initiative can serve as a tool to launch an informed and open debate about reducing student drinking and the related behaviors it produces.”

Students at UMass have mixed views on the issue. Junior Brett Frazer and fifth-year student Justin Murphy, who are both old enough to drink, feel the minimum age should not change.

“When you’re 18 years old, you’re still a senior in high school. I don’t think it’s appropriate for seniors in high school to be able to buy alcohol,” said Frazer.

“There are a number of people [under 21] who are extremely irresponsible, and I think 21 is a very good catch-all,” said Murphy. He feels the overall scene at UMass would worsen if the age were lowered.

“If you have a group of 18-year-olds together in a freshman dorm that are away from their parents for the first time and able to buy alcohol legally, it’s going to turn into an absolute shit-show,” continued Murphy. “The collective grade point average would go down a few points.”

Others on campus disagree and question the sense behind such a high drinking age.

“People mature at an age younger than 21. If you have the right to vote and die for your country in a war, then why can’t you have a drink?” asks junior Andrea Vella, a native of Australia.

“Teenagers are going to do what teenagers do,” she added.

“It might expose some of the drinking that happens behind closed doors, and might help people learn more responsible drinking habits,” said sophomore Sam Martin.

“Lowering the drinking age would definitely have some benefits, but it’s not going to solve every problem [related to alcohol],” he said.

The Amethyst Initiative has fallen under scrutiny and criticism since its inception in July. The proposal raises the debate of whether or not Americans are responsible enough to drink at age 18.

John McCardell wrote in a September 13, 2004 New York Times opinion piece, “Our latter-day prohibitionists have driven drinking behind closed doors and underground… No college president will say that drinking has become less of a problem in the years since the age was raised.”

According to an August 21, 2008 article in the Washington Post, members of the Initiative feel groups such as the Support 21 Coalition are distorting their message. Signatories of the petition feel alcohol abuse on college campuses is getting to a point where it has become a candidate for serious debate.

President Richard H. Brodhead of Duke University told the Post, “We want to encourage an honest and constructive dialogue among educators, lawmakers, parents and students… If what we are doing now doesn’t work, then we have an obligation to ourselves, and to society, to explore what might.”

Relating to Brodhead’s comment, University of Massachusetts senior Rosemarie Lee, a third-year resident assistant, said whenever she has to take disciplinary action against a resident, it involves alcohol about 90 percent of the time.

“Alcohol contributes to a lot of other problems, such as noise and capacity violations,” said Lee.

UMass junior Mike Greehan and sophomore Alexis Harewood, also RAs, predict a short-term increase in 18-21-year-olds partying before it gets old.

“I think there will be a surge [at first] where people that just turned 18 will go crazy with it,” said Greehan.

“At first, everyone is going to go out and get drunk every weekend,” agreed Harewood, “I think at first there will be less write-ups, but more 911 calls… but 30 years down the road people [becoming of age] will be more responsible about it.” Harewood added that as years go on, the thrill of drinking would be deterred because it would become more of a social norm.

“It can also lead to more honesty. Right now, students have to hide [alcohol] so much more. [Because it’s illegal] they are less likely to be safe about it,” added Greehan.

“They [underage residents] drink faster so they don’t get caught,” explained Harewood.

According to Dr. David Buchanan, a professor of public health at the University of Massachusetts, there’s no reason to believe lowering the drinking age will prevent abuse.

“There’s a pretty direct correlation between the ease of access [to alcohol] and the overall level of consumption.” Buchanan said although the biological differences between 18 and 21 are few, they are still notable.

“The earlier people start to drink, the more likely they are to develop chronic long term drinking problems. At ages 18 through 20, there is still some cognitive development going on. If alcohol becomes a relied upon coping mechanism, there is cause for concern.”

Buchanan also cited the risks of drunk driving associated with excessive alcohol abuse.

UMass student Justin Murphy, a fifth-year student, also disagrees with the lowering of the drinking age.

“Most of the time, the people crying for the age to be lowered to 18 are the irresponsible ones. The responsible ones don’t really care simply because they are responsible enough to know why the age is 21.”

Murphy also touched on the fact that irresponsible students are the ones more likely to drive drunk. He laments the fact that underage students on campus are desperately seeking alcohol on the weekends.

“I’ve had people knock on my door that I don’t even know that are like ‘hey, can you buy me alcohol?’” he said.

Two influential advocacy groups are passionately standing by their ideals on a subject that hasn’t been debated in nearly 30 years. The final decision, of course, lies in
the hands of Congress. 

Though there’s no known time as to when the Amethyst Initiative will reach Congress, many are already speculating an outcome.

Members of MADD are not optimistic regarding America’s readiness to decrease the age. According to a gallop poll taken by the organization in July of 2007, 77 percent of the American public would not support a law decreasing the national American drinking age to 18.

Additionally, MADD is armed with statistics pertaining to drunk driving before and after the law was changed in 1984.

According to a study by the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the number of alcohol related traffic fatalities per year has decreased by 60 percent from 1982, prior to the raised drinking age, to 2006.

MADD started their official “Campaign to Eliminate Drunk Driving,” in 2006. The campaign includes demanding stronger zero tolerance laws, more sobriety checkpoints and the development of new technologies to prevent a vehicle from being operated by a drunk driver. The organization hopes to mobilize the national community in support of these demands.

Comparative literature professor David Lenson of the University of Massachusetts is more optimistic that lawmakers will listen to the points made by the Initiative.

“I would hope their persuasive arguments might hold water, maybe with better chances when the new Congress is seated this January,” he said.

“The current town-gown animosity about student partying could be resolved more easily with a drinking age of 18,” he continued. “Because there are no public venues available on campus, drinking is driven into private spaces where the consequences of overindulgence go unobserved.”

Lenson reflected on UMass during the 1970s, when on-campus establishments such as the Blue Wall and the Hatch were able to serve alcohol.

“The environment was social rather than reclusive, and with a redeployment of security from the dorms to the Campus Center and Student Union, a safe atmosphere could be created,” he said.

“This would also keep students from having to drive after drinking, and should assuage the town’s worries about unruly behavior,” said Lenson.

He thinks the only obstacle for the Initiative’s goals would be the willingness of the federal government to cooperate.

“It would require a federal relaxation of the provisions in highway funding appropriation,” he said. “You would need to have the consent of the federal government.”

Other critics of the Initiative mention the cultural differences between the U.S. and countries with an 18-year-old drinking age.

Professor Buchanan talked about two schools of thought pertaining to dealing with alcohol and drug problems in the U.S.

He first mentioned the “distribution of consumption” school pertaining to the Support 21 Coalition, which states that stronger alcohol policies will lead to less alcohol consumption and social problems.

The second school is the “cultural socialization” school of thought. This idea says if the U.S. becomes more like European countries such as France and Italy, which integrate alcohol into every-day life, the U.S. would have fewer alcohol-related social problems.

“That kind of cultural transformation is a much larger issue that is not going to be touched on at all by whether or not we drink at age 18,” he said. “The idea that changing this would enable us to adopt these cultural morals of the Europeans is implausible.”

UMass sophomore Monica Manchiraju sees this issue from another perspective. She feels one of the main ways kids learn to be responsible in certain situations is to experience them firsthand.

“In other countries, people grow up with drinking in their home, and I know a lot of kids here have grown up like that. In my house it was never a big deal,” she said.

“If you don’t make [drinking] something people look forward to then people aren’t going to be as crazy with it,” she said.

She also does not foresee a major change in everyday life at UMass if the drinking age is to be lowered.

“I don’t think [UMass] would change. I don’t think there are a lot of kids who wait to turn 21. If they are really that interested, I’m sure they’re doing it now already.”

The debate sparked by the Amethyst Initiative has reached a point of expansion. More and more U.S. citizens are forming their own opinions towards what should be considered “underage drinking.” Only time will tell if America is ready for, or even wants, the 18-year-old drinking age.