News

Guest speaker McCardell asks "Why 21?" when it comes to the drinking age

By NINA COOLIDGE

Photo by NINA COOLIDGE

Former Middlebury President and W&L alum John McCardell spoke to the public about why he thinks the national drinking age should be lowered from 21 to 18.

A 21st birthday is a rite of passage for most young adults. It marks the final hurdle over which one must jump before being considered an adult. One Washington and Lee graduate and former college president, however, is questioning this logic.

John McCardell Jr., has been an outspoken advocate against the minimum drinking age of 21 since stepping down as president of Middlebury College in 2004.

“One of the things that interested and ultimately frustrated me the most during my years as president at Middlebury was the impossible set of choices imposed on the institution by the national drinking age act of 1984,” McCardell said.

He also emphasized “the need for an informed and dispassionate public debate about the consequences, intended and unintended, of legal age 21.”

McCardell started the non-profit organization called Choose Responsibility whose dual mission is to educate citizens about the dangers of irresponsible and excessive consumption of alcohol and to engage all citizens, including students, parents and administrators, in a dialogue about the culture of alcohol in our country. Specifically, McCardell is focused on how the minimum drinking age of 21 affects that culture.

McCardell visited his alma mater Tuesday to speak to students and faculty about the mission of his organization and to discuss what he sees as the effects of a 21-year old drinking age.

With the help of Choose Responsibility, McCardell recently launched a national campaign for legislation that would allow states to set their own minimum drinking age, without any threat of financial penalties from the federal government.

Jan Kaufman, director of health promotion at W&L said she still questions whether lowering the drinking age would truly alter the behavior of college students.

“We have increased the educational efforts at Washington and Lee since 2000 and have seen some decrease in binge drinking and blackouts but not to a level where those of us in health services feel comfortable,” Kaufman said. “There is still too much high-risk drinking. I would challenge the students to answer this question - what is it about lowering the drinking age that will make them drink less and only drink in ways that they are not experiencing negative outcomes?”

McCardell's proposal would not require the lowering of the drinking age from 21 to 18, but rather encourage states to institute alcohol education programs that would teach teens about responsible drinking. If an individual violated any laws regarding drinking, he or she would forfeit the eligibility to begin legally drinking at age 18.

Kaufman noted that following the scientific evidence must be the most important part of any decision-making process regarding the drinking age.

“We know that the brain does not complete its growth until about age 25 for young adults,” Kaufman said. “High-risk drinking impairs the formation of new memories which occurs in the hippocampus of the brain. To me it’s all about science. It’s not a moral issue or a political issue, but rather a health and safety issue.”

One thing that McCardell stressed was the importance of clearly articulating their argument and evidence to the public

“[I’m afraid] that we’re going to look like a bunch of spoiled kids pounding our cups on the highchair, saying we want beer. It must not be that,” McCardell said.