Shortly after Kansas became the first state in the union to outlaw alcoholic beverages in 1881, a woman by the name of Carrie Nation set about personally enforcing the new state law. Considering herself "a bulldog running along at the feet of Jesus, barking at what He doesn't like," Nation quickly became well known for storming into bars and saloons, reprimanding the patrons for their actions, and smashing any bottles of liquor with a hatchet.
In the following years, public attitude towards liquor only grew increasingly hostile. The Woman's Christian Temperance Union blamed family instability and Godlessness on alcohol, while the Anti-Saloon League used anti-German rhetoric to associate beer with treason in the midst of the First World War. By 1920, Congress had overridden a presidential veto and passed both the Volstead Act and the 18th Amendment, both of which made the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcohol illegal in the United States. The consequences of national prohibition proved to be disastrous.
Tax-paying, law-abiding citizens were turned into criminals overnight and driven into speakeasies that employed elaborate schemes designed to evade law enforcement. Gangsters like Al Capone and Bugs Moran built criminal empires off of illegal alcohol sales, while many government agents charged with enforcing prohibition laws took bribes and looked the other way. By 1933, the failure of prohibition combined with the effects of the Great Depression, brought about prohibition repeal by way of the 20th Amendment.
Despite prohibition's obvious lack of success in creating an alcohol-free society, Americans once again rallied around a mini-prohibition in 1984 when Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. By imposing a 10 percent penalty on a state's federal highway appropriations if they had a drinking age lower than 21, the federal government created a de facto legal age to buy, sell, or consume alcohol. The consequences, much like the prohibition enacted 64 years prior, have become painfully obvious.
Because the bulk of students on college campuses are less than 21-years-old, underage drinking has become a prevalent issue for those who work at, live on, and run universities and colleges. The current drinking age has forced students into hiding or binge drinking off campus at many schools and led many to create fake I.D.s that teach students early on about evading the law.
Whether or not raising the drinking age has been an effective deterrent to underage drinking is questionable. According to a 2007 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, half of those questioned 20 years old or younger admitted to drinking within the past month, and 35 percent engaged in binge drinking.
In an effort to address the ineffectiveness of the 21 minimum drinking age, an attempt to begin a dialogue about lowering the drinking age was launched in July. Called the "Amethyst Initiative," named after the gemstone believed to counter the effects of intoxication, 129 college and university presidents have signed the statement since it was drafted a few months ago.
Acknowledging that the current minimum drinking age needs to be reconsidered, the signatories are embracing an open exchange of ideas and a national dialogue that is long overdue. Just some of those to sign thus far include the presidents and chancellors of Dartmouth, Colgate, Hamilton, Johns Hopkins, Middlebury, Mount Holyoke, Pomona, and Smith.
Conspicuously absent from the list is Barry Mills, president of Bowdoin College. In a statement released in mid-August, President Mills wrote, "I understand the arguments and am in agreement with many of the points raised about under age drinking...but it [discussion about the appropriate legal drinking age] goes well beyond the gates of America's college and university campuses since many young people who would be affected...are not enrolled in college."
Although it is true that lowering the national minimum drinking age would allow all Americans, not just college students, under the age of 21 to buy and consume alcohol, the question remains as to why that is a reason to not sign the statement put forth in the Amethyst Initiative. It is precisely because changing the drinking age is such a complex, far-reaching issue that it deserves to be talked about more thoroughly in public. More college presidents need to support the initiative, however, for the issue to gain enough clout to receive notice on the national stage. This is an issue Bowdoin must be a pioneer on, not a follower.
Cespedes is a member of the Class of 2012.