Whileperusing Monday's issue of The Dartmouth, I was interested and surprised to read the following quote from Director of Health Services Dr. Jack Turco: "18-year-olds should have the right to drink." (The Dartmouth, July 17, 1995).
Hardly a rage call on the part of Dr. Turco, this statement does bring up some interesting issues.
Why, for one thing, is the drinking age 21? To do most other things in this country, one only has to be 18. At 18 you can vote, serve in the military, are required to pay taxes and are an adult in every way except when it comes to drinking.
One problem caused by the higher drinking age is that students see groups such as Dick's House and Safety and Security as the enemy. Students should see Dr. Turco as their friend, someone to turn to when they or one of their friends has a drinking problem.
But instead of using Dick's House as a resource, most students connect Dick's House and alcohol only through the $500 glass of water and aspirin provided to intoxicated students forced, often against their will, to spend the night at Dick's House.
The 21-year-old drinking age forces colleges to focus their efforts on fighting underage drinking rather than dealing with abusive drinking. Dr. Turco also stated in Monday's article that the current drinking age "prevents colleges from dealing with abusive drinking." The College can hardly encourage responsible drinking to its underage students when it is required by law to enforce the legal drinking age.
Another example of a group designed to help students hampered by the current drinking age is the monitoring system in Greek houses. Monitors are there for the dual purpose of protecting the safety of students while confirming that fraternities and sororities are following the rules of the College.
Most monitors are reluctant to enforce the drinking age. They simply do not bust students for underage drinking. In recent months, efforts have been made to emphasize the safety of students who are intoxicated at parties.
Still, most student monitors are hesitant to turn in another intoxicated student for fear of the repercussions the drunk student would face, including disciplinary action by the College and the aforementioned Dick's House aspirin.
But there are policies in place to encourage dealing responsibly with someone who has overindulged.
One is the College's "Good Samaritan" policy. This policy allows students who have been drinking to turn in an intoxicated friend without fear of disciplinary action against either student.
It also encourages students to look after the safety of other students regardless of whether they are 19 or 22. Safety is put above enforcement of the law.
But this policy does not apply to "repeat offenders," and so students are still unwilling to turn in friends who have been caught before.
The "Good Samaritan" policy also does not extend to the local police, something Delta Delta Delta sorority discovered this past spring when it called an ambulance for an intoxicated sister. The Hanover Police arrived with the ambulance, and the sorority was eventually charged with serving alcohol to a minor.
In calling an ambulance, Tri-Delt was doing the right thing by protecting the safety of a sister. The result of this action was a court case, a fine and community service. Other houses see what Tri-Delt went through, and I have to wonder if houses will now be less willing to call for an ambulance when one is necessary.
Beta Theta Pi fraternity recently adopted its own version of the "Good Samaritan" policy. Beta will now pay the medical fees of brothers who spend the night at Dick's House or the hospital.
There are those who disagree with Beta's policy, believing that it encourages brothers to drink without facing the consequences of their actions. While it is true that brothers will not personally pay their expenses, the money will come from dues, meaning all the brothers will be paying.
This encourages communal responsibility, meaning that brothers will watch out for each other. Nobody will want all of their house funds going to Dick's House.
And if just one person is saved through this policy, then it will absolutely be worth it.
A lower drinking age would allow both the College and its students to deal with abusive drinking without the worry of financial and legal repercussions. Maybe then, they can look to solve the real problems.
