It takes a lot for 129 heads of universities and colleges to agree sufficiently on anything to sign a joint petition. As well expect cats in a sack to miaow the Hallelujah Chorus in close harmony.
But that (the petititon, not the chorus) is what has happened in the US. Not only has this regiment of academic presidency affixed their signatures to a piece of paper, they have formed a lobby group called the Amethyst Initiative.
What, you may well ask, could unite all those rivalrous institutional leaders? In a word, beer. And why Amethyst? Not because they advocate getting stoned, but because the word, in its original Greek, means "not intoxicated".
What these clever folk are asking - nay, in their diplomatic way, demanding - is that Congress amend the 1984 National Minimum Drinking Age Act. Currently the MDA stands at 21. The call from Amethyst is that it be lowered to 18.
Britons, particularly undergraduate Britons, who go to the US are routinely amazed to be "carded" in restaurants, clubs, and bars and, if they can't prove legal drinking age, bluntly refused service.
Those who serve, supply, or oversee the supply of alcohol in the US are vigilant. It's self-preservation, not morality. The law comes down on them like the proverbial ton of bricks if they trespass.
My 20-year-old son helped an illegally aged girl friend carry a case of beer from a liquor store to the boot of her car. Just one case. And it was pure gallantry. Jack didn't touch the stuff himself - having been through AA at the age of 15.
He was unaware that the liquor store in question was being staked out by local police. He was arrested, for facilitating the supply of alcohol to a minor.
His girlfriend, who was Mexican-American, got bail and promptly high-tailed it over the border. Prison for Jack was possible, but unlikely. Loss of his driving licence (the equivalent for a Californian 20-year-old of hemiplegia) was certain, if convicted. It cost me $2K in attorney fees to get him off.
The liquor store was less lucky. It was closed down.
In the US, you can get a driving licence from as young as 14 (South Dakota), vote at 18, and buy a gun (in Virginia) at that same age. You can die for your country in Afghanistan while still a teen. But, if you abide by the law, you'll die sober.
Why do so many college presidents want to open the beer spigot? You can read their arguments, elegantly expounded. They boil down to the following:
1 Manifestly, college students do drink and, because it's illegal, they are that much more likely to binge. The psychology is familiar. Forbidden fruit encourages excess.
2 Other kinds of on-campus excess are similarly encouraged. Go on the web and check out Coeds Gone Wild. Booze figures prominently.
3 Prohibition doesn't work. It creates criminals.
4 Colleges find themselves in an appallingly difficult position vis-a-vis their student accommodation, particularly where fraternities and sororities are involved. If they do nothing, they can be prosecuted as passive suppliers. If they actively interfere, or patrol, or raid fraternity fridges, they put themselves on a par with prison wardens. Not good.
5 The 21-year-old regulation, passed in Reagan's second term, is the equivalent of Nancy's "just say no", or the religious right's advocacy of abstinence as the best contraceptive. It's downright primitive and, worse than that, it doesn't work (look at Bristol Palin's tummy, and Levi Johnston's MySpace).
6. The law is hypocritical. During the Vietnam War, the MDA was dropped to 18. Why? Because it would have been disastrous to prosecute a 20-year-old who had won the congressional medal of honor for drinking a couple of brews with friends in his hometown.
Are there any plausible counter arguments? As it happens, there are. Alcohol-related car accidents and road deaths are disproportionately high among the 16-21 age group. They were nightmarishly higher in the 1960s and 70s, when the legal drinking age was lower. States like Minnesota, which was among the first to go to 21, at the end of the 1970s, recorded a sizeable drop in young driver deaths and accidents. Prohibition is a blunt instrument, but it keeps blood off the highway.
In the 1980s, Swarthmore College offered its students (those old enough to drink legally) a choice. They could either have cars on campus, or drink on campus. The students chose wheels. But their options highlight the dilemma at the heart of the matter.
If you allow teenagers to drive cars and even (in some places) own guns, the 1984 alcohol prohibition is entirely rational. If you raise the legal driving age to 18, you could, reasonably. lower the drinking age to the same level. But it's tricky.
Neither of the presidential candidates has taken a position on Amethyst. It's too hot to handle. In his heart, Obama, who has a natural constituency in the MTV generation, might be in favour. He's recently confessed to drinking and using himself as a student.
And in his heart, that old soldier McCain might go along with Amethyst, too, married as he is to a beer heiress. One suspects that he cannot, for the life of him, see why a young marine risking his life in Iraq, and entrusted with the command of a helicopter gunship, shouldn't enjoy a Bud when off duty.
But neither candidate could risk enraging the Mothers Against Drunk Driving right now by supporting reform. In the White House it may, perhaps, be different. But then there's the second term to think of.
So what will happen? Nothing, anomalous nothing. Cheers.
