To the Editor:
U.S. Federal Law states that you must be 21 years old to consume alcohol. And, as Kyle Teamey pointed out in a recent column ["Prohibitionist Tendencies, Responsible Drinking and the Raging Kegger," Nov. 18], this drinking age is entirely arbitrary. All the rights and responsibilities of adulthood are granted at age 18, except this one. Nowhere else in the world is such a high drinking age in effect; even in the most civilized countries, legal drinking ages are barely enforced. The 21-year old drinking age is one of the relics of America's Puritan past.
But apart from the idealistic problems of the law, it is simply impractical. The drinking age extends three years into the college life of the average student. During this time, they live in an active community of young people, and no one would dispute that alcohol has figured in the social lives of young people for longer than there have been federal governments, police or even colleges. Thus, attempting to enforce this law becomes a futile exercise in attempting to stem the inevitable tide of alcohol use.
As an institution receiving federal funding, however, Dartmouth is obligated to enforce the law. Those who oppose the CCAOD's alcohol regulations must consider the College's predicament: administrators are faced with the hopeless task of damming Dartmouth's river of booze, but they must attempt to do so, or they won't get paid. It is not likely that Dean Pelton and his colleagues are opposed to alcohol on principle, but they are caught between a rock and a hard place.
The key to coming up with a workable alcohol policy is an understanding of the conflicting forces. On the one hand is the need for thousands of college students to maintain an active social life without the benefit of local bars with lax regulations (as can be found in any city). On the other hand is the need for Dartmouth officials to enforce the drinking age to receive federal money.
I think that the College's proposed alcohol plan is ridiculous in that it is doomed to failure. Anyone who doubts this can consider the success of America's Prohibition. What is needed is a plan that allows the College to allow a reasonable amount of alcohol use on campus while making a show of enforcement (in the face of recent alcohol-related tragedies at other schools).
The self-monitoring system criticized by CCAOD was just such a plan. Perhaps there was not enough of a show of enforcement, and that is most likely why administrators want to scrap it. However, with some careful tinkering, it can be adjusted to meet the demands of federal regulators without infringing on the right of college students to a social life without Safety & Security. As the CCAOD proposal stands, the College is trying to crush the can of beast without realizing that its contents -- very many Dartmouth students -- are under pressure.
