Newspaper Op-Eds

Call me a naïve optimist (I've been called worse), but I still think that rational discussion, fact-based analysis, broad consultation, and civil discourse are the best ways to develop public policy on important issues. That's why I'm one of more than 100 college and university presidents who signed the Amethyst Initiative which, though you would never know it from national media coverage, does not call for lowering the legal drinking age to 18, but does propose a national dialogue on the issue.

From some of the reactions, you'd think we had proposed force-feeding Jack Daniels to helpless infants. We've been accused of ''throwing in the white flag,'' and trying to ''define the problem (of underage drinking) out of existence'' because it's a ''nuisance'' we'd rather not deal with.

The most over-the-top reaction has come from the leadership of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (M.A.D.D.), an organization for which I've always had tremendous respect. M.A.D.D.'s president accused us of looking for ''an easy way out of an inconvenient problem'' and urged parents to think carefully about the safety of colleges whose presidents have signed on, saying ''It's very clear the 21-year-old drinking age will not be enforced at those campuses.'' The AP, which broke the story, didn't help matters by attaching a spring-break photograph of young men pouring beer on each other.

Folks, let's all take a deep breath.

While M.A.D.D. offers an important perspective in this debate, we are asking for a conversation that includes a recognition of a variety of consequences of alcohol abuse -- drunk driving is one, but so are alcohol poisoning deaths and loss of respect for the law. I don't claim to have the answers to underage drinking and I don't claim to know the right age to restrict alcohol consumption. But I would like our nation to talk about the issues, look at what's working and what's not, and then see if we can do better. To get started, here are some questions to consider:

What is magic about age 18? Eighteen-year olds can drive, serve in the military, vote, hold down a job – all require considerable maturity.

Given that 75 percent of high school students say they have experimented with alcohol, is it realistic to expect colleges to stamp out underage drinking at the precise time that students have left their parents' supervision?

Would lowering the drinking age allow campuses to monitor student alcohol consumption more effectively, and eliminate self-destructive behavior like secret drinking, off-campus drinking, and binge-drinking?

If lowering the drinking age would increase highway fatalities, would raising the drinking age to 25 or 30 reduce them? By how much? Could the same result be achieved by strengthening penalties for drunk driving? Could 16-year olds be given the option of a driver's license or a drinker's license but not both?

Many European countries permit alcohol consumption at 16 or even younger. Typically, young people learn responsible alcohol use at their parents' dinner table. Would that work here?

We care deeply about our students and their welfare. Whatever the legal drinking age, colleges like Muhlenberg will remain committed to obeying the law and to educating students about responsible alcohol consumption. No ''white flag,'' no ducking responsibility. We require all students to take an on-line course called ''alcohol.edu.'' We teach them about the dangers of alcohol abuse; we tell them what the law is and that we expect them to adhere to it; we enforce the law and we have a campus judicial system that deals swiftly and appropriately with violations; we have drug and alcohol counselors on staff. I write to incoming students and their parents encouraging family dialogue about values, expectations, and behavior.

The college presidents I know want what's best for our students. We think the current law could be better -- and we think it's time for a discussion. What's so scary about that?

Peyton R. Helm, Ph.D., is the president of Muhlenberg College in Allentown.