If the legal drinking age were set at 18, there would be many benefits to Princeton campus life. Upon arrival at the University, freshmen might be less likely to take reckless advantage of the easy availability of alcohol, a substance now shrouded with forbidden allure. Many under 21 would no longer feel the need to participate in what the petition terms "a culture of dangerous, clandestine binge-drinking." The campus would no longer be divided between those who can legally consume alcoholic beverages and those who cannot, and students would no longer be forced to make a choice between following the law and participating in many campus social activities.
Lowering the drinking age would be good for Princeton's unique campus, where the eating clubs have worked with the University to take precautions against over-consumption of alcohol and there is very little need to drive. Outside our gates, however, the debate is not as cut and dry.
If lowering the drinking age caused an increase in irresponsible behavior in society at large, both those engaged in such behavior and thegeneral public would suffer. Groups that oppose lowering the drinking age point to the decrease in alcohol-related driving deaths among people between the ages of 18 and 21 since 1984, when Congress effectively raised the drinking age to 21. Other arguments center on the effects of alcohol on young people's brain development and on the repercussions a lower drinking age might have on high schools. But there are arguments on the other side of the issue as well; for example, the decline in fatalities among 18- to 21-year-olds in alcohol-related crashes may be attributable to a number of factors, including increased safety belt use, safer vehicles, stricter drunk driving laws, greater use of designated drivers and a shift in the population demographics.
The ambiguity and complexity of the issues involved, which often are oversimplified in public discourse, warrant an informed and dispassionate debate. Because the issue of the legal drinking age is complex and because of the significance it holds in the lives of college students, universities such as Princeton should lead the way in encouraging debate on this topic. For these reasons, President Tilghman ought to actively contribute the University's perspective to the debate called for by the Amethyst Imitative and bring our university into the national dialogue on this important question.
Read More
Why can’t lecturers win the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching?
Jerry ZhuLet’s acknowledge those who make “boutique teaching” possible, those who work tirelessly to make our rigorous curricula more accessible, and those who dedicate their time to advising and guiding us through all the challenges we face at this University. Lecturers should be eligible for the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching.
Let’s acknowledge those who make “boutique teaching” possible, those who work tirelessly to make our rigorous curricula more accessible, and those who dedicate their time to advising and guiding us through all the challenges we face at this University. Lecturers should be eligible for the President’s Award for Distinguished Teaching.
Princeton’s administration of justice is Trumpian
Frances BroganThe disparity between the University’s approach to Giberson and its approach to pro-Palestinian protestors reflects a concerning trend of appeasing an increasingly emboldened right rather than resisting the threat it poses to academic freedom and the wellbeing of Princeton students.
Secular Opening Exercises? Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water
Frank StrasburgerThe secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
The secular makes no room for the spiritual. What Opening Exercises are meant to convey is the spirit of the institution so that it may be kept alive from generation to generation.
