Contact Information
The Spectator
A Fresh Perspective on the Amethyst Initiative
by Max Currier '10Insights & Ideas Contributor
In July 2008 President Stewart signed the Amethyst Initiative (AI). Of course, the AI does not explicitly endorse changing the legal drinking age but, rather, calls for a debate. As perhaps the Initiative's first manifestation on campus, the Spectator's recent column on the AI voiced support from one student and opposition from another. The debate over the proposed debate suggests we are not capable of productively having this discussion. Moving forward, we must recognize that one fundamental failure of the public discourse is an inability or unwillingness to challenge assumptions; another is a lack of honesty.
AI signatory David Joyce at Ripon College argues, "It is ludicrous that we can send young men and women to war, but they can't legally drink a beer." Maybe. But if Mr. Joyce is so concerned about age continuity, perhaps the appropriate solution is not to lower the drinking age to 18 but increase the military enlistment age to 21. Besides, the disciplined attitude of a soldier is fundamentally the opposite of a drunken college student; indeed, one basic rule of basic training is the strict prohibition of alcohol. The non-military demographic age 18-21 is demonstrably not sufficiently mature for alcohol. Nevertheless, many repeat the statement as a rallying slogan for their cause, not because it actually makes any sense.
If, granted, the age 21 limit is "not working," perhaps the solution is not to decrease the age to 18 but increase the age to, say, 25, so that all college students are prohibited from alcohol. If the age were lowered, the alcohol culture the AI seeks to curtail would be legalized and thereby exacerbated. So, if the Initiative is named for the Amethyst stone that the Greeks and Romans believed prevented intoxication, perhaps prohibition should be an acceptable option. After all, studies show that national prohibition of the 1920s failed not because it was fundamentally flawed policy but because of inadequate enforcement and a fundamental failure to revolutionize a culture away from alcohol.
Indeed, I firmly believe the primary problem, by far, is failed enforcement. Students who staff sign-in tables at parties do not verify ID—check the sign-in sheet at any party to find Harry Potter, Britney Spears, and Batman have all signed in—and students authorized to serve alcohol at those parties routinely serve to anybody, with or without ID. At least anecdotally, Campus Safety officers spend much more time writing parking tickets than enforcing state law on alcohol. And RAs, an exceptional staff to be sure, routinely turn a blind eye to dorm parties other than to encourage reducing the stereo volume. Perhaps proper enforcement would prove the current age limit is actually tenable.
On enforcement, it seems, President Stewart's signature suggests she has given up. It seems neither she, nor most other College administrators, want to be responsible for enforcing an unpopular policy. This suggests to me that, because the situation is difficult, we might as well give up and let everybody do whatever they please, so long as it's not any of the College's responsibility anymore. We all seem to have forgotten that JFK demanded in 1962 that we send a man to the moon "and do other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard." We alive today are apparently the ones who choose to give up and allow intoxication, deregulation, and general entropy.
In a recent Spectator column, one student apparently wants to give up. "If we have blatantly ignored the legal drinking age, who is to say we will not ignore whatever laws come from [AI]?" I perceive the statement to suggest that if some students do not comply with the current law, perhaps no student should comply with any law. To be sure, many do believe that whole volumes of criminal law books are offensive restrictions upon personal liberties. And that is true; in fact, that is the point. Your right to free speech does not permit you to yell fire in a crowded theater or disseminate classified information; your right to self-defense does not permit you to carry an assault weapon; your freedom to drive a vehicle does not permit you to exceed the speed limit; and your freedom of expression does not permit lewd public behavior, no matter how "expressive." Essentially, I believe that alcohol consumption is not a question of rights but of public safety, public decency, and genuine social interaction.
We should also acknowledge that America is not Europe. America is not a culture that appropriately educates its children about alcohol use at an early age. Collectively we are a consumer culture that markets and buys everything, even drinking water, and has consumed itself into an obesity epidemic, massive debt, and intoxication. (Regarding Europe, though, the legislature in Great Britain is now actually debating increasing their drinking age from 18 to 21, suggesting the European model is not even working for Europe). I appreciate Class of 2011 Representative Jeff Escalante's honesty in telling The Spectator that at American schools, "It is true that the culture around drinking is that you drink to get trashed, not just have a couple beers for fun." I agree. If the AI's dialogue is to be productive, scores more students must talk more honestly and publicly about their motivations and consumption patterns.
Admittedly, changing the drinking age will not accomplish much on its own. Students will require better parenting in early years at home, more and better social options, and a willingness to improve one's self. But if we are truly committed to enhancing our community by relinquishing an admittedly disgusting culture of college alcohol consumption then I strongly believe we must remove every tempting bottle and taunting can while we seek to change the underlying, fundamental symptoms. Otherwise the cycle continues.
President Stewart was quoted in The Spectator as hoping, "I have every expectation that Hamilton students will exhibit the clear and cogent thinking and engage in the thoughtful discussion for which they are known." That is excessively naïve. I am not optimistic about such a discussion, if there is to be one at all. I wrote a Spectator editorial last spring entitled "Hamilton's Alcohol Problem" months before President Stewart signed the AI. The article was widely read and discussed, as I had hoped. Yet, the discussion was overwhelmingly negative; I have the hateful e-mails to prove it. If there is a debate, only a small minority will abstain while the majority will rush, intoxicated, to grab all the alcohol they can get and the legal rights to defend their doing so.
If President Stewart is going to passively hope that Hamilton will discuss this problem, then the AI will surely fail. Success will require College administrators at every level, especially including President Stewart, to proactively initiate a community discussion and to enthusiastically promote a dialogue throughout a sustained period of weeks at a time. The leadership must first admit that, at least so far, enforcement of underage drinking is almost universally regarded by students as a joke, and that the unstated, de facto school policy does permit underage drinking. The leadership must promote all to challenge assumptions, or as CIA intelligence analysts are told, to "subvert the dominant paradigm." Most importantly, the leadership must ensure that students and administrators are honest with themselves and with each other.