Banning Greek organizations isn’t an effective counter to problems arising from them, according to a Monday column by Sophie Nelson.
Her piece comes after the news of a student’s death at a West Virginia University fraternity party Friday, resulting in the indefinite suspension of Greek-life activities at the university. One WVU fraternity had its charter withdrawn a week prior because of an incident in which “19 pledges faced arrest or citations for alcohol possession.”
I agree with Nelson’s assertion that banning Greek organizations won’t end “sexual assault, drinking or partying on campus.” So what can we do? I have one suggestion: lower the drinking age.
It might seem counterintuitive, but lowering the drinking age to 18 could stymie some of the problems that come along with campus-party culture. Before we look at why that could be, let’s look at some history.
For much of U.S. history, 21 was the age of majority. You had to be 21 to vote, and the Selective Service Act set the draft age at 21. This changed during World War II, when the draft age was lowered to 18. But you still had to be 21 to vote. In 1971, due in part to immense public pressure, the 26th Amendment was ratified, bringing the voting age in line with the draft age. With a lower voting age, many states began lowering the minimum drinking age.
In 1984, the National Minimum Legal Drinking Act passed. The federal government wanted a national drinking age of 21, but the 21st Amendment granted power to the states to regulate alcohol sales. The new federal law was a creative side step around this problem; it didn’t force states to change their law, per se, but if states chose not to adopt 21 as the drinking age, they would lose 10 percent of federal highway funding. Unsurprisingly, by 1995 all 50 states, as well as Washington, D.C., complied.
To understand how a lower drinking age could alleviate problems within university social scenes, we need to understand the underlying causes of these problems. What makes frat parties so rowdy that kids end up in handcuffs, the hospital or the morgue? In part, it’s a lack of adult supervision—no older and wiser voices to step in when things get out of hand. And although many colleges have medical amnesty policies, which protect underage drinkers from discipline if they have to call for help, students may still be scared to reach out before it’s too late. A lower drinking age would assuage students’ hesitation.
But maybe we should look at a more basic question: why do college kids drink so much in the first place? Proponents of a lower drinking age often cite the “forbidden fruit” argument; for those underage, alcohol gains a mystique from its illegal status, which makes the alcohol seem desirable. A second argument is that young people lack opportunities to learn how to use alcohol responsibly before the age of 21. Both of these factors contribute to the problems resulting from on-campus alcohol consumption.
As a 27-year-old, I know firsthand the truth behind these arguments. Being able to drink a beer at a bar lessens the appeal of excessive drinking and partying. I stated above one reason college parties get out of hand is a lack of supervision. But if 18-year-olds could drink legally, they may have an incentive to drink at a bar, where at least there would be someone to say “you’ve had enough” or provide help if needed. Bringing drinking out of the shadows, legally speaking, would give college students an alternative to house parties where there isn’t anyone sober enough to make good decisions when something bad happens.
Shutting down fraternities won’t solve the problems stemming from on-campus alcohol consumption, and admittedly, lowering the drinking age won’t completely solve them either. There will still be parties. There will still be excessive drinking. If we can’t stop college kids from drinking, reducing the party culture’s dangers through a lower drinking age is a step in the right direction.
