Pubdate: Fri, 10 Aug 2001
Source: Chronicle of Higher Education, The (US)
Copyright: 2001 by The Chronicle of Higher Education
Contact:  http://chronicle.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/84
Author: David J. Hanson, Dwight B. Heath, Joel S. Rudy

THE MISGUIDED PROHIBITION THAT GOVERNS U.S. COLLEGES

Two young college women present phony identification cards and try to order 
alcoholic drinks at an off-campus restaurant. When police are called to the 
establishment, they question the students and cite them for under-age 
drinking offenses.

The event -- with no accidents, deaths, or riots -- appears unremarkable. 
But it makes national news because the young women are Jenna and Barbara 
Bush, the president's daughters.

Compare that "newsworthy" item to other under-age drinking stories. Every 
college term, we hear accounts of students who risk acute alcohol poisoning 
during rituals like "21 for 21" -- when, on their 21st birthdays, they down 
a shot of liquor for every year of their lives. In dormitory rooms and 
off-campus apartments, students who feel depressed hole up with bottles of 
alcohol, start to chug, and are lucky if their supposed cure brings nothing 
more than headaches and heaves. Underclassmen attend alcohol parties tied 
to the Big Game, drink themselves insensible, and fall to their death off 
balconies. It's all been in the newspapers and other media, this shocking 
waste of promising young lives.

The most common response to accounts of injuries or death among such 
"adults" -- those old enough to go to war, marry, vote, sign binding 
contracts, but not to buy a single draft beer -- has been to further 
tighten age-based prohibition. Campuses and communities step up policing 
measures. Task forces produce ever-more-exotic ideas about how to 
quarantine young students from alcoholic beverages -- even those students 
who demonstrate the ability to drink moderately and responsibly.

Yet despite all the countermeasures, accompanied by mounting penalties for 
breaking the law, the tragedies continue. Why? Because the system of 
prohibition that now governs almost every U.S. institution of higher 
learning is ineffective and ill-founded.

At freshman-orientation sessions, at least half of the students are already 
regular drinkers, according to several national studies. The traditional 
newcomer, who is still in the majority on most campuses, immediately 
becomes a member of a peculiar demographic community: Almost everyone is 18 
to 22 years old. Through fraternities, sororities, other campus 
organizations, dating, and less-formal socializing, this narrow age group 
constantly intermingles. In any social setting where alcohol is present, 
the law says those 21 and older may drink beer, wine, and distilled spirits 
in unlimited quantities -- as long as they do not drive or appear 
intoxicated in public. Yet those who are 20 years and 364 days, or younger, 
must stick with soft drinks or become lawbreakers.

Should anyone be surprised that zero tolerance is met with rebellion and 
rule breaking? Outlandish behavior is a typical reaction to prohibition, 
which is why the illegal speakeasies were always bawdier than the public 
bars that the Volstead Act shut down. Today's age-specific prohibition 
seems to be working no better than the 1920's version. Although a smaller 
percentage of young adults is now drinking than in the recent past, a 
sizable minority is drinking recklessly. What's the solution?

Through our close relations with students over the years -- two of us are 
professors and one is a student-affairs officer -- we've become keen 
observers of student drinking and its outcomes. We've often wondered why 
colleges haven't developed a system of gradual access to alcohol beverages 
for 19- and 20-year-olds. Why not teach responsible drinking behavior under 
mature supervision, rather than leave young adults to experiment on their own?

We would like to suggest an alternative to the zero-tolerance policies that 
are prevalent today: a provisional drinking license.

In more than 30 states, teenage drivers   gain experience while holding 
special licenses that restrict when and how they may drive -- for example, 
no late-night cruising is allowed. Such an approach permits a slow 
introduction to an adult privilege. The same concept should apply to drinking.

What could be the elements of a provisional drinking license? There could 
be time and place restrictions. The license holder could drink, for 
example, only in an establishment where at least 75 percent of sales 
receipts were for food and only before 11 p.m. No bar or liquor-store 
purchases would be permitted.

Moreover, a 19- or 20-year-old would have to undergo formal instruction 
about alcohol and pass a licensing exam. Parents and other authorities 
could unilaterally revoke or suspend the special license without which 
service or consumption would be illegal. In addition, the provisional 
license would not be accompanied by any changes to the current 
zero-tolerance laws, by which drivers under 21 are considered legally drunk 
if their blood-alcohol content is greater than .02 percent.

We realize that a few young people would undoubtedly continue to drink too 
much, too fast, in risky settings, or for the wrong reasons. But for the 
Jenna and Barbara Bushes of the world (by all accounts they did not exhibit 
out-of-control drinking behavior) and the vast majority of other college 
students who are eager to learn about drinking responsibly but denied any 
sensible opportunities, clandestine overindulgence could give way to public 
self-regulation.

The penalty for abuse would be revocation of the privilege. Young people 
would learn to accept alcohol for what it is: a socially acceptable 
beverage in need of respect, not a source of magical empowerment or easy 
escape that increases with every gulp. Gone, too, would be the scenarios 
that invite contempt for the current law, such as the inability of two 
20-year-olds to drink champagne at their own wedding.

At the colleges where we teach and work, we delight in seeing emerging 
adults grow in academic knowledge and in life skills, turning before our 
eyes into competent adults. To leave alcohol outside that process, the 
record shows, is foolish and dangerous.

It's time to encourage a moderate approach rather than force more-dangerous 
behaviors underground to everyone's detriment. It's time to open the doors 
to constructive debate and to teach through trust and potential rather than 
through blame, accusation, and guilt. It's time to move beyond the 
forbidden-fruit syndrome -- and its tragic consequences.

David J. Hanson is a professor of sociology at the State University of New 
York at Potsdam. Dwight B. Heath is a professor of anthropology at Brown 
University. Joel S. Rudy is a vice president and dean of students emeritus 
at Ohio University. Hanson and Heath are authors of several books on topics 
dealing with alcohol.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Larry Stevens