Another fraternity party death

<p>

</p>

<p>Having the drinking age be any age from 19 to 21 means that, at a residential college campus, there will be some students who can legally purchase and possess alcohol and some who cannot, which makes restraining underage drinking at residential college campuses more difficult (other than imposing “dry” rules on campus and for recognized fraternities, etc.). A drinking age of 22 or 18 may reduce the issues associated with trying to restrain underage drinking on residential college campuses that do not want to go completely “dry”.</p>

<p>Students at <em>residential</em> colleges are probably less likely to be victims of DUIs, since few of them have cars or drive while at school. A residential college is in general a safe environment for 18 yr olds to experiment with many things. Back when the drinking age was 18, which coincided with my turning 18, I never knew anyone who was killed or injured in a DUI, either in HS or college. Nor did I ever know of a person who died of alcohol poisoning or was hospitalized or spent the night in a drunk tank. When my older sib was in HS–graduated in 1966–there were MULTIPLE deaths and maimings as the result of car accidents at the same HS. I can tell you that as soon as CT raised the drinking age back to 21, we started finding paper bags full of beer bottles in the woods on our walks. Clearly, kids were driving around or to a secluded spot to drink. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Sorry, but we will have to agree to disagree. I do not believe that conditions that require hospitalizing a dozen 18 year-olds over a few weeks portrays a “safe enviroment”.</p>

<p>Well, I actually agree: the conditions created by the 21-yr-old drinking age have definitely <em>decreased</em> the comparative safety of the residential college as a venue for experimentation. </p>

<p>But at least they aren’t driving while drunk.</p>

<p>I think it’s simplistic to say that the 21-year-old drinking age is what’s causing the binge drinking surge. Britain has an18-year-old drinking age, and an even worse binge drinking problem among youth than we have.</p>

<p>Another interesting fact is that this binge drinking is largely a white/Hispanic problem. Other college students don’t drink at nearly the levels of white and Hispanic students.</p>

<p>^^not to mention, that British dorms can have pubs in their basements. </p>

<p>There was a pub inside the student union where I went to college 1966-71.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Drinking problems are not confined to the USA. The relation between heavy drinking and hooliganism is not hard to miss, and so is the relation between drinking and the low SES that has plagued the old continent. </p>

<p>Speaking about simplistic, it would be easy to target the availability of liquor at universities as opposed to target the bad behavior and poor judgments exhibited by people placed in positions of power. As a perhaps poor analogy, sex is from absent on our campuses, but having sex is not the same as being subjected to sexual abuses or discrimination. Colleges have and are responding to claims of sexual, gender, or racial abuses in a much swifter manner than they have addressed the non-ending and quasi omnipresent antics of organized groups such as fraternities. </p>

<p>Despite the lack of betterment, the punishment after the original blah-blah never amount to a whole lot, and are as close as impunity as possible in the eyes of future transgressors. </p>

<p>Compare the punishment of people whose actions have resulted in death by alcohol poisoning and the punishment imposed on someone who decided to capture his roommate on a computer camera. And perhaps, compare the reactions of the media and the students and parents in light of similar incidents. To be blunt, safe and except a small place on the internet such as CC, are we really paying any attention to the deaths among students? Fwiw, we probably know how many people have died of Ebola in Liberia but have no earthly idea of how many students have died on a campus in the past 10 years. </p>

<p>And, cynically, do not seem to give it much thought. In a way, we might be worried that catching Ebola on US soil is possible, but having a friend, son, or daughter dying at the hands of the “brothers” only happens to … others! </p>

<p>Until recently, the majority of British youth left school by 16. It has been gradually raised, I think it is currently 17, with plans to raise it to 18. The majority of British kids do not go to university.</p>

<p>Interestingly, they have been gradually raising he drinking age, too. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Government policies, here and abroad, are usually following the path of least resistance, or end up doing “the right” thing after all others have been exhausted. The Brits famously derided the Americans for the latter, but they are hardly immune. There is always a balance to seek between what is good for the citizens and the powerful interests that have the financial clout to direct politicians.</p>

<p>Consumption patterns also change, be it with drugs or alcohol. When one becomes scarcer, other show up. For instance, the consumption of beer has dwindled in most countries while the consumption of wine and hard liquor has increased. The game becomes to locate the higher percentage of alcohol in the cheapest vessel.</p>

<p>No matter how we look at it, we can safely assume that the younger want to go with the popular crowd, and are easy to convince that drinking is just part of life. There is no consensus about what constitutes reasonable drinking and when drinking becomes habitual and nefarious. It is pure utopia to think that alcohol will vanish from our universities and colleges. The best hope is for reasonable restrictions to keep activities at an “acceptable” level. Again, what that is subject to biases and preferences. Yet it would not be an utopia to believe that the perennial abusers and creators of the most negative environment can be found and … dealt with in terms of open and permitted presence on campus, and that participation in such groups can be controlled by the imposition of a honor code. If it appears beyond the real of possibilities for administrators to force fraternities out, they surely can (and should) restrict the spigot and make participation restricted to certain classes of students. For instance, a minimum age of 21 would be a perfect antidote. And asking students to be full adults before deciding to join a fraternity a reasonable compromise. </p>

<p>And yes, it is NOT lost on me, that asking for a minimum age of 21 all but makes fraternities mostly irrelevant. As they should be at academic institutions. Call it a senior privilege! And, fwiw, the fraternities could still engage in all those positives activities they purport to focus on. Alumni groups, help with future employment, and the occasional good deed. In the meantime, freshmen, sophomores, and most juniors will be saved. </p>

<p>One of my daughter’s friends was drinking a beer at a fraternity party. One of the brothers saw her with a beer, confiscated it, and handed her a fruit punch drink. They do not want girls drinking beer because they will stay too sober and can monitor their own alcohol intake.</p>

<p>Of course, it was not an official fraternity party. All of the fraternities on her campus are “dry” due to alcohol violations, but they rent near or adjacent houses to use as party spots.</p>

<p>I hope that was the end of the party for her. The minute someone tries to drug me against my will is the minute I leave.</p>

<p>ETA: and the guy would be wearing the drink before I left.</p>

<p>Despite the 21 drinking age, 80% of college students drink alcohol and 50% binge drink.</p>

<p>My vote is for an 18.5 drinking age for beer and wine. In an effort to keep some kind of lid on HS drinking, especially since HS kids drive around a lot.</p>

<p>Let college kids (don’t sweat the freshmen not quite 18.5 yet) drink the less potent stuff legally and while they are more likely to be walking around than driving. They have to learn sometime. Drinking beer in the campus pub is better than doing vodka shots behind a closed dorm room door.</p>

<p>Maybe you limit beer, wine at first to licensed bars. Maybe you do only near beer at first. Would be smarter to have kids be able to transition into drinking rather than total prohibition (which means total law violation).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Not a very persuasive argument. Unless the pub is dirt cheap, in-room shots will still reign supreme if nothing else, just bcos its cheaper (and perceived to be safer since no one is dumping a drug into your drink).</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Actually 80% drink, and of the drinkers, 50% binge drink. That means 40% of college students binge drink. The majority of college students do not binge drink. Moreover, among colleges, the variation is extreme.</p>

<p>Most college students are under 21. 80% of college students drink and 40% binge drink. </p>

<p>That’s a lot of drinking. And most of that drinking is underage.</p>

<p>Seems like a different approach might be worth a try. </p>

<p>When I went to school, it was 18. The campus pub in the student union was quite cheap, safe and legal. I drank there plenty.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>It’s a bad policy mistake to assume things can’t get worse. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>That should be seen as a big warning sign to get out of that party and have nothing to do with that fraternity ever again, because getting victims drunk or drugged is often what serial rapists do before raping them.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The landlords must be desperate there, if they are willing to rent houses to people who will use them as fraternity party spots. The administration also needs to tighten up the rules on fraternity parties outside of the houses.</p>

<p>How can a university monitor / control parties off campus? How is it different if it’s a fraternity versus those 4 wild and crazy guys who rent a house off campus? I’m used to a system in where Greek houses are on the campus (and clearly under university jurisdiction) so I’m curious how it works when they are off campus. </p>

<p>There are two competing issues here. The law and what really happens. </p>

<p>The reason for the drinking age being 21 is pure and simple, it is to avoid kids drunk driving (like that 16 year old in Texas whose “affluenza” made him steal beer and kill and maim people while drunk driving). Federal highway funds are linked to the 21 drinking age.</p>

<p>The colleges that allow (know of and do not bust) alcohol on campus make a gambit, that allowing alcohol on campus increases the safety factor tremendously by making it unnecessary for any student to drive.</p>

<p>The thing I wonder is, how bad is the problem compared to the past? Is it worse? Is the death by drinking in the college population different than the death by drinking in the 17 - 22 year old non-college student cohort?</p>

<p>It is terrible if someone dies from drinking alcohol, and they were a college student with a great life ahead of them. I do wonder though, aren’t there kids not going to college who are dying from drinking? Or not?</p>