Panelists Debate Drinking Age

Approximately 30 students attended a panel discussion on the current drinking age policy and its effectiveness on college campuses in Harvard Hall yesterday evening.

“We were going for a more nuanced discussion than just ‘the [current] drinking age sucks’,” said Anita J. Joseph ’12, the chair of the National Campaign Committee, the group within the Institute of Politics that sponsored the discussion.

Joseph is also a Crimson editorial board editor.

The discussion featured guest panelists from several walks of University life, including Ryan Travia, director of Alcohol & Other Drug Services at UHS, and Economics Department Director of Undergraduate Studies Jeffrey A. Miron. Stefan K. Muller ’12, the president of the National Youth Rights Association, a group that advocates lifting legal restrictions that are imposed on minors, was also a panelist. IOP Fellow and political consultant Teresa M. Vilmain moderated the discussion.

The panelists specifically focused on the need for more youth education about alcohol abuse as well as developing potential policies that could help prevent further underage drinking.

“We need to do more than just change the law. We really need to change how people are educated about alcohol,” said Muller, who identified himself as an advocate of lowering the drinking age.

“Alcohol itself is neutral. The abuse of alcohol is what needs to be taken care of,” he added.

Alcohol policy at the College made headlines last year when the Undergraduate Council party grant system came under fire from the administration led by David R. Pilbeam, then serving as interim dean of the College. Pilbeam also instituted a ban on hard liquor at House events, and new guidelines regulating the funding and alcohol consumption at student group parties, which led some students to express discontent about the College’s stance on underage drinking,

Though the panel engaged in an hour-long dialogue regarding current problems and possible solutions, some spectators noted that the overall tone seemed to favor one side of the debate.

“I thought it was a little bit more represented by the side that endorses lowering the drinking age,” said audience member Nicholas E. Souder ’09. “But I thought that their answers were also thorough and convincing.”