A lower drinking age will bring bingeing boom

Combating binge drinking on colleges by lowering the drinking age seems akin to decreasing speeding by raising the speed limit.

States that hiked their speed limit discovered that lead-footed drivers still weren’t content. Those who used to drive 70 in 65-mile zones sped up to 75 in 70 mph zones.

It seems unlikely that states that drop their drinking ages will record a sudden upswing in responsible behavior. Rather than sober 18-year-olds, they could end up with more drunk 16-year-olds.

I once assumed that drinking was limited to teens who were adrift, who weren’t focused on athletics or academics and were filling the void with vodka and orange juice. Then, at a coffee shop late one night a few years ago, I watched a parade of drunk high school girls stumble by on their way to use the restrooms. Among them were sports stars and would-be valedictorians. I have learned since that 81 percent of high school students try alcohol.

An 18-year-old drinking age would free colleges from acting as cops and nannies to beer-ponging freshmen and sophomores. That’s why a new call to lower the drinking age is coming from college presidents, who have united under the banner of the Amethyst Initiative.

Ancient Greek for “not intoxicated,” the Amethyst Initiative maintains that the 21-year-old drinking age is a failure, citing research that indicates binge drinking on campuses remains unchanged, despite crackdowns and awareness campaigns.

But there’s also research suggesting that colleges can and should do more to deter underage drinking. Last month, the Harvard School of Public Health College Alcohol Study concluded that students drink more on campuses that have a strong drinking culture, few alcohol-control policies on campus or in the adjacent community, weak enforcement of policies and easier access to alcohol through special promotions and low pricing by local stores and bars. The Harvard study found binge drinking didn’t exist at some colleges, while others had four out of five students bingeing, suggesting that specific college environments contribute to the problem.

It’s easy to understand the motivation of the 129 college presidents who have signed on to the Amethyst Initiative. No longer would they nail-bite their way through first semester fretting over inexperienced and immoderate freshmen swigging fifths of vodka and falling off dorm balconies. But the problem wouldn’t disappear with a lower drinking age; it would land like a hot potato in the hands of high school principals, who wouldn’t necessarily find too many allies among parents.

A consistent research finding is that parents shrug off underage drinking as a rite of passage. Studies also cite fraternities and sororities as epicenters of campus alcohol abuse, yet most college presidents don’t want to take on the Greek armies.

In “Wasting the Best and the Brightest: Substance Abuse at America’s Colleges and Universities,” the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University found that fraternity and sorority members are far likelier than non-Greeks to binge. Sixty-four percent of Greeks report binge drinking, compared with 37 percent of their classmates.

At the time that the Columbia center released its study last year, its director, Joseph A. Califano Jr., issued a statement that the Amethyst Initiative signers and parents ought to heed:

“By failing to become part of the solution, these Pontius Pilate presidents and parents, deans, trustees and alumni have become part of the problem. Their acceptance of a status quo of rampant alcohol and other drug abuse puts the best and the brightest —- and the nation’s future —- in harm’s way.”

Learning Curve is a new weekly column on education. Please send suggestions for topics or feedback to mdowney@ajc.com.