WHEN I participated in a set of policy debates at a think tank this summer, the joke went that if you ever felt tongue-tied, never fear: The free speech card is usually here. Butter it up with a Jefferson quote, sprinkle in some democratic jargon, play it and voila: Your opponent is speechless. After all, who can argue against free speech or talking to your enemies?
But reality does not a Jefferson quote make. It’s waste of time to debate Brother Micah in the Amphitheater on whether dinosaurs existed, or Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on whether the Holocaust happened . Why? Because reasoned debate presumes reason: Both sides have to have concrete evidence, not just illogical bluster.
The Amethyst Initiative flunks this basic test. Its statement pushes lowering the 21 drinking age with a lot of whining but without a shred of presentable evidence. So, like the tongue-tied debater, the drafters pose as free speech advocates, professing to promote “an informed and dispassionate debate”. Intoxicated University students may have been swayed. But more sobering assessments by the Chicago Tribune and The Economist clearly noted that this was merely veneer for their true agenda. Since the Initiative is nothing but baseless claims cloaked in “free speech” rhetoric, University President John T. Casteen, III should waste no time rejecting it.
The facts are clear and fall on one side. Annual surveys conducted by Monitoring the Futureprove that the number of college students engaging in binge drinking fell from 45 percent in 1984 to 40 percent in 2006. And the Chicago Tribune noted that the number of people aged 16 to 20 killed in alcohol-related crashes has plunged by almost 60 percent since the 21 law (by contrast, when states lowered the age limit, such crashes rose). I could go on, but you get the point.
But the Amethyst Initiative sees no need for facts when it can trust its “gut.” It bizarrely blames the 21 age for fostering a culture of clandestine binge-drinking, when the data indicates it helped curb it. It laments how soldiers can die for this country but cannot drink to it, when it is clear that exercising one right does not entitle a teenager to every other unrelated one, particularly one that is a proven potential safety hazard. And it rambles on about the ethical dilemmas of fake ID presenters, when it is clear that those individuals clearly privileged alcohol over the honor code anyway. I would go on, but this is the exhaustive list of justifications.
The broader “rationale” for lowering the drinking age reeks of the same illogic. Ask any college student (or yourself): They don’t drink just because it’s illegal, they drink because they want to. If it is legalized, logic indicates there will probably be more drinking, data from previous experience shows that there will be a greater safety hazard, and science shows there will be more time for alcohol to negatively affect cerebral development, which continues until 25. If the age is lowered to 18, one can also expect 16 and 17 year olds to crash the party, and the problem to extend into high schools. Even a drunk could probably figure this one out.
Medical, public health and safety associations like the American Medical Association have all lined up on one side against the Amethyst Initiative simply because the facts are also one-sided. In a speech last month, Casteen himself candidly noted the lack of “developed and published evidence” and said he was “not at this point persuaded that they have all their facts on the table.” As the president of one of the premier research institutions in the world, he should go a step further and reject this hodgepodge of baseless allegations.
Casteen should also redouble efforts to supplement the wise current age limit with tougher enforcement and better education. The herd of first-years streaming from dorms to Rugby on weekends suggests that the former is easier said than done. But the University is a pioneer institution in alcohol education and reducing irresponsible drinking. Last month, a study by the University’s Social Norms Institute’s Jennifer Bauerle showed that correcting students’ misperceptions about campus drinking over a six-year period caused 2,480 more students to report 0 of 10 serious alcohol-related consequences, and 2,000 fewer students to be injured by alcohol-related events. Smart education works well in tandem with a sensible law.
When Jefferson uttered the words at the top of this page, he specifically urged us to follow truth wherever it may lead. The Amethyst Initiative is anything but a truthful attempt at reasoned debate. And it should receive treatment no different from the loud noise of Brother Micah in the Amphitheater: Shake your head disappointingly, and continue walking on by. Sorry Mr. Jefferson, but this error isn’t even one worth combating.
Prashanth Parameswaran’s column appears Thursdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at p.parameswaran@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
COHEN: Charlottesville must embrace a comprehensive solution to homelessness
By Ryan Cohen | 4 hours agoThe city has made several past efforts to reduce homelessness, but the growing number of unhoused people suggests that these temporary solutions are simply not enough.
WILLIAMS: The future of Virginia is on the ballot this fall
By Ryan Williams | 4 days agoHence, voters must make it their top priority to think critically and closely as they decide who their ballot will support this fall.
PARTING SHOT: On the art of walking and chewing gum
By Nathan Onibudo | 6 days agoStudent journalism, and maybe even life more generally, is about holding space for multiple conflicting truths.
