A belated notice...

Hi all,

Just wanted to let you know (a few months late!) that this blog has been relocated to our website. We hope you will weigh in there with your thoughts on [CR] and the drinking age.

Thanks for participating in this important discussion,
The [CR] team

Equal time for equal crimes?

When we first heard of it, we found this story from Charlottesville, VA impossible to believe. Two parents hosted a birthday party for their 16th year-old son, who claimed he would obtain alcohol and get drunk somewhere else with his friends. So with good intentions, but ultimately bad judgment, Elisa Kelly and her then-husband George Robinson purchased alcohol for the teens at the party. Long story short, the police were called, found that 16 of the party-goers had measurable BACs (though none even approached .08--generally defined as the point of intoxication), and the Robinsons were charged with 16 counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. They were convicted in 2003 and sentenced to eight years each in prison. Eight years far exceeds the sentence for many heinous crimes in the US--notably, writer Lisa Provence points to the case of a UVA student who fatally stabbed a police officer 18 times. His sentence for killing another man? 31 months. In a related article, Provence brings up a case that had taken place in the Charlottesville area a few months before the Robinson's party. A 16 year-old girl was killed when a car she was riding crashed. Both she and the driver were intoxicated. The sentences for the two teens charged with providing the alcohol that led to Brittany Bishop's death? 10 days for the minor and 30 for the boy who was over 18.

On June 11, Elisa Kelly and George Robinson went to jail to serve 27 months each (their sentences were reduced upon appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court). In the intervening years between the 2002 party and this week, they divorced. Their son dropped out of high school, their house burned down, and Elisa Kelly faced bankruptcy.

In the face of a monstrous legal ordeal that destroyed the fabric of a family and has stunned many American parents, some of the most acute failings of Legal Age 21 emerge. John McCardell comments, "This very sad episode reminds us that current law disenfranchises parents from any role in attempting to create a safe environment...In this particular case, the parental impulse may have been misguided, but the more general question posed by this incident is whether the law ought properly to displace parental judgment entirely, because any parental role is effectively eliminated by the law until a child turns 21." This case is extreme, but points to a policy that actively discourages parental responsibility while fostering a climate of illegality, recklessness, and excess amongst their children.

For more about this case:

The Times (London)

The Washington Post

[CR] on NECN

New England Cable News came to Middlebury this past week to interview John McCardell and members of Choose Responsibility about the ineffectiveness of the 21 year-old drinking age. Here's their story:

More proof that Legal Age 21 isn't working

Take a minute to read this article, and the comments that follow for another example of the puzzling inconsistencies posed to young adults by Legal Age 21.

Alcohol and the Family

Binge drinking continues to be a serious health problem in the both the US and the UK and solutions to curb dangerous alcohol consumption are allusive. A study released in the UK earlier this month found that when parents provided alcohol to their children in a family environment, children were less likely to engage in binge drinking and experience negative drinking outcomes. The findings come from a survey of 10,271 15-16 students in North West England published in the online journal Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy.

"Such family consumption," writes lead researcher Marc Bellis, "may help open up an early dialog about alcohol between parents and children. It allows youths to experiment with alcohol in a family setting with positive parental role models rather than outside the family with pressure from peers to consume to excess." And it is from this experiential learning that these young adults come to learn responsible drinking practices.

The Worldwide Decline in Drinking and Driving

While this research is not new, it is worth revisiting. In 1993 traffic safety experts convened from six countries to report on progress against the drinking and driving problem. Statistical records kept from 1982-1992 for alcohol-related traffic fatalities in each of the following countries show the following trends:

United Kingdom: 50% Decline
Germany: 37% Decline
Australia: 32% Decline
The Netherlands: 28% Decline
Canada: 28% Decline
United States: 26% Decline

This downward trend in drunk driving across the board shows quite clearly that the 21 year-old drinking age in the United States was, at best, the least effective measure to limit drunk driving amongst these developed countries and, more likely, is falsely credited as the key to changing social mores that in fact changed across all industrialized countries with no drinking age changes. Amongst these six countries only the US raised the drinking age (in 1984) to curb drunk driving; others adopted policies that recognized drinking and driving as an especially dangerous outcome of irresponsible drinking behavior. Rather than target drinking, they targeted behavior. Nearly all countries stepped up intoxicated driving enforcement and lowered legal BAC level. The Netherlands, recognizing that drinking and driving was a behavior best limited if prevented early, lowered BAC levels further for young drivers. Not a single country outside of the US lowered the drinking age, and yet every last one of them managed to reduce alcohol-related fatalities at higher rates than the US. It would seem that the drinking age then is the least effective way to reduce drinking and driving.

Lower Drinking Age For Marines

The Marine Corps Times reported this last week that on April 19 US Marine Corps commandant General James T. Conway issued a change of alcohol policies for Marines under the age of 21. The new rules decriminalize welcome-home beer for underage Marines returning from deployment and giving commanders the authority to hold an 18-and-up kegger on base upon a unit’s return from a war zone. According to North County Times of San Diego, a 1995 rule dictated that underage marines were held to drinking age of the states in which they were stationed. Permitting alcohol consumption is now at the discretion of base commanders.

In addition to this domestic policies, Marines will now be held accountable to the legal drinking age laws of the countries they are stationed in. Previously, Marines under 21 were forced to abide by the 21 year-old drinking age even if the laws made it legal for 18 year-olds to drink. Under the new policies marines will be held to the laws of the country in which they are stationed. If the drinking age is an age lower than 18, an 18 year-old legal drinking age will be enforced. This should be of minimal consequence because of those 17 year-old recruits that exist in the marines few, it would seem, would still be 18 upon deployment.

Critics of the law suggest that increased access to alcohol could lead to increased alcohol-related traffic fatalities for marines stationed at home. However, the marines quoted in the above articles, all of whom support the law, suggest that because these underage marines are already drinking, the new rule will provide an incentive to bring that drinking back on base under the control of the base commander.

It's More Than Just Dying For Your Country

The right to fight for your country, to enlist, serve, and potentially die, is an oft-cited justification for an 18 year-old drinking age. "If you are old enough to die for your country," so the maxim goes, "then you are old enough to sit down and buy a beer." It's a powerful argument, and a common one at that. But it is only a part of something far greater that is often over-looked when used to rationalize an 18 year-old drinking age argument. There is great injustice in the fact that you can die for a country against your will (to be drafted) that doesn't grant you with the fullest privileges of adulthood. But in some way I think it means more that you can voluntarily join the military and risk your life, yet still be denied a mug of beer.

It's about justice. For better or worse, the United States has determined that at age 18 you become an adult. By the widest of definitions, this means that you are now legally responsible for your actions. You can buy and smoke cigarettes even though you know that, with time, they'll probably give you lung cancer. You may even purchase property, strike binding legal contracts, or go into debt. But most importantly (for the sake of this argument), is the fact that, at 18, you can vote and hold office. 18 is the age of majority, the age at which one finally becomes part of the ruling faction, the democracy's people. Sure, you can die for your country and not be allowed to buy a beer, and that is a travesty, but it is the over-arching disenfranchisement of responsibility for those who are in all respects legally responsible that is abhorrent.

Critics are quick to point out that 18 is not an Age of Majority, but one age amongst many that together mark the gradual path to adulthood. This argument notes that young adults cannot drink until 21, rent cars until 25, run for the U.S. Senate until they are 30, and run for President until 35. This is evidence of a graduated adulthood. But this argument is simply not sound. First and foremost, rental car companies are not legally kept from renting cars to those under 25, it is a decision made by insurance companies. In fact, some rental companies do rent to those under 25, and higher rates compensate for the potential liability. In short, 25 is not an age of increased adultness.

Neither is 30. Article II Section 3 of the US Constitution mandates that: "No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years." But strangely enough this clause has not preemptively kept individuals from running for Senate. Indeed, the man who John F. Kennedy called one of the 5 best senators in the history of the Republic, Henry Clay, was first elected to the Senate at age 28. While no one has yet to challenge the legitimacy of the Presidential Age Requirement, it is clear that the Constitutional age requirements are something quite different than graduated adulthood markers. As the lone mentions of age in all of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, the are requirements are more appropriately seen as exceptions to full adulthood, rather than benchmarks of adulthood.

So as it stands now when you turn 18 you are legal to engage in all things other adults do except drink alcohol and run for President. It's bizarre but accurate. Somewhere along the line, our society failed to remember that individuals, by becoming an adult, become responsible for their actions. Whether you are 18, 19, 20, 38, 39, or 40, you are an adult, and when you drink and drive, just as when you smoke in public areas or ignore traffic laws, you are responsible . By maintaining a drinking age different than 18, our society sends a signal that drinking and driving (the original target of the 21 MLDA) is worse in consequence for young adults than it is for older adults. This opens up a Pandora's box when it comes to expanding the logic against real and perceived public health threats. Targeting groups by age beyond some measure of adulthood validates the fears raised in the Federalist Papers that a democratic system of government offers too little protection for the rights of minority factions against the will of the masses. Above and beyond its deleterious consequences, the 21 year-old drinking age threatens the integrity of egalitarianism in an otherwise representative democracy. 18 year-old drinking age is an act of justice.

[CR] finds headlines again

Choose Responsibility found itself in the headlines again today. Two interviews with Choose Responsibility's John McCardell, one in print in US News and World Report and one on air on NPR's Here and Now, emphasize the reality of the 21 year-old drinking age's failure to prevent young adults from consuming alcohol in irresponsible ways.

An editorial by Columnist Radley Balko also appeared online where he discusses at length what has changed in the 20 years since the drinking age was raised to 21. He writes, "But after 20 years, perhaps it's time to take a second look — a sound, sober (pardon the pun), science-based look — at the law's costs and benefits. McCardell provides a welcome voice in a debate too often dominated by hysterics. But beyond McCardell, Congress should really consider abandoning the federal minimum altogether or at least the federal funding blackmail that gives it teeth."

News articles in college newspapers continued to roll in as well: The Middlebury Campus, The Kent Stater.

The First Wave

The argument for an 18 year-old drinking age is beginning to spread. Choose Responsibility was featured in the student newspaper Indiana University. Promisingly, the chief of campus police Jerry Minger was quoted as saying "I am not a big advocate of anything that would create more drinking, but I applaud the fact that (the proposal) has (alcohol) education built in."

While we would question whether this would actually create any more binge drinking than is actually occurring, we believe that the when looking at the full proposal, the benefits outweigh the possible detriments.

While the Indiana Article is in hard copy, look forward to two more articles in the Vermont Cynic and the Daily Free Press of Boston University later this week.

If you see other recent news articles let us know!

Online Forum

Choose Responsibility Director, John McCardell answered questions concerning the proposal to license and educate young adult drinkers. The transcript is here. The forum, I think, was informative for all the parties involved.

We're live!

As of today, Choose Responsibility's full website is up and functioning. Check it out! We hope it will be your go-to place for information on the drinking age and alcohol use in America.

Contact Scott or me if you have any questions, would like more information about [CR], or are looking for a way to get involved.

CR in Chronicle of Higher Education

The Chronicle of Higher Education reported today on the recently launched non-profit Choose Responsibility. Chronicle Reporter Paula Wasley writes,

John M. McCardell Jr., president emeritus of Middlebury College, is a respected Civil War scholar. His lectures on the Gettysburg Address command large audiences at alumni meetings, and his seminars on the war always attract eager undergraduates.

Recently the genteel academic threw himself into another conflict. Call it the Battle of the Binge.

The article reviews the basic fronts of the battle between advocates for and against the current 21 year-old legal drinking age. Letting the arguments of the scholars stand for themselves and against one another, Ms. Paula Wasley provides an objective look at how the opposing sides of the drinking age cast their rhetorical planks to construct their own platform on the issue. Though the self-evidence of one particular argument over the other might, or even ought (in my own opinion), to serve one side over the other, Wasley resists the temptation to gloss over the cracks in each side's argument.

On reading the article one quote, made by MADD Executive Chuck Hurleyr, stands out in light of recent events: "The fact is, legal-age 21 is working better in blue-collar America than in Ivy League America." This couldn't be further from the truth. The Fact IS, a freshman at Rider University died when Frat members persuaded him to try and drink a bottle of Absolut Citron Vodka. Rider University isn't an Ivy League school, and nor is University of Colorado, Colorado State University, Virginia Tech University, San Diego State University, University of Oklahoma or University of Arkansas, all of which experienced fatal alcohol poisonings in recent years.

New Jersey Tragedy

This past Wednesday Rider University student Gary Devercelly slipped into coma after reportedly consuming three-quarters of a bottle of Absolut vodka. He was found unconscious after suffering cardiac arrest. According to school officials, Gary was resuscitated through CPR by EMTs and rushed to a local hospital, where he remained in intensive care unit through the night. This morning, Gary, at the age of 18, died.
Though tragic, the event was typical in far too many ways.
Gary was a freshman, and a pledge for the national fraternity Phi Kappa Tau. The Wednesday night party, though not registered with the college as required, was reported to have been a step in the pledge process. Campus officials report that the event did not explicitly involve hazing; however, the difference between being forced to drink and being pressured to drink here seems negligible. The fact remains that students were serving students in a drinking environment beyond the reach of parental, administrative, or legal authority. Consequently, the drinking that occurred was extreme, dangerous, and in the end, deadly.
Since Gary was 18 this is a case of underage drinking. Perhaps more importantly, it was what everyone likes to also call binge drinking. . . but what is the connection between the two? This case of binge drinking, like most others, occurred behind closed doors, and off campus. There were no bartenders to cut-off the obscenely drunk from drinking, or any role models for responsible drinking behavior. In short, the drinking was fueled by the fact that irresponsible drinking become the normative drinking behavior.

One Trenton newspaper reports that Gary was a member of Students Against Drunk Driving. And yet, that knowledge, that membership did little to prevent the tragedy with which we are faced now. Drunk driving and binge drinking are two equally important consequences of irresponsible drinking. However, until we realize that prohibitory-style laws that seeks to limit college-age drunk driving merely increase binge drinking, today's tragedy will not be an isolated incident.

If you question the logic, try to imagine a paid staff member of an academic institution serving 3/4's of a bottle of vodka to a student in 15 minutes. It matters less that the person is 18, than it does that he or she is consuming fatal amounts of alcohol.

Travels

About two weeks ago Choose Responsibility's director, John McCardell and I returned from a whirlwind trip to Colorado. While there, we met with interested parents, students, government officials, and college and university administrators to discuss our initiative. We got quite a bit of feedback and know that we've made some friends and allies out West! This article, which appeared this week in the Longmont Daily Times-Call, chronicles our reception in the Denver area. While in Colorado, McCardell also taped an interview for a documentary about excessive drinking and the college experience. The film is being put together by the Gordie Foundation, which was created in memory of Gordie Bailey, a freshman at the University of Colorado at Boulder who died after a night of fraternity hazing in September 2004.

This trip will be the first of many as we make our way to campuses and communities around the country to talk about our work at Choose Responsibility. Please contact us if you have an idea for how we could have a presence in your community.

Stay tuned--our full website will go live on Monday, April 9!

"Higher" Ed.

This past week the Columbia University's Center for Alcohol and Substance Abuse (CASA), headed by the former Secretary of Health Joseph Califano Jr., released a report on the state of alcohol and drug use on the college level. The full, text can be found here. Though this is not the first CASA report on the subject of college student substance abuse, it does appear, at least by first glance, to be more broadly accepted as legitimate scholarship in the field. The previous study released by CASA caught the attention of several major scholars and media outlets cooking its statistics to inflate the crisis of college drinking. Here's a brief review of that criticism.

In my initial read of the CASA report titled, Wasting the Best and Brightest, I had very little trouble with their statistics. They are, in short, expected and not substantially different from other sources. In short, CASA reports that close to 50% of college students report abusing alcohol (binge drinking), illicit drugs, or prescription drugs. Previous research (2001) say binge drinking levels are about 40%. The way CASA compiles the all rates of abuse into one figure it is easy to mistake that figure for 25% increase in the rate of binge drinking (from 40 to 50 percent) in the past 5 years. That is definitely not the case. However, I do find it difficult to believe that 10% of the college population abuses illicit or prescription drugs but are not guilty of binge drinking. It's possible, but rather unlikely. The take away point of all of this? The headlining statistic of their report, may not be as high as they report. It's not the end of the world but if someone has the time it is definitely worth investigating in greater detail.

The other striking thing about the CASA report is the disconnect between the report itself and the accompanying statement by its director Joe Califano. The report proper is written well, and reflects the staid discussion of findings and recommendations that is expected from a college-funded study. That language is sharply contrasted by the rhetoric of Califano's opening statement. "Too many [college presidents, deans, and trustees] assume a Pontius Pilate posture, leaving the problem in the hands of the students." How that caustic attack on college administrators is supposed to solve the problem of abuse on college campuses is lost on this reader. The comparison is foolish, if not impudent.

Surgeon General's Warning: Underage Drinking is a Problem

On Tuesday, following the release of the 2005 SAMHSA survey on alcohol use (see previous blog posting), the acting U.S. Surgeon General, Kenneth Moritsugu issued a "call to action" on underage drinking.

The Call to Action was developed in collaboration with the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). The plan establishes six clear goals:

1)Facilitate healthy adolescent development that help prevent and reduce underage drinking by fostering societal changes
2)Coordinate a national effort to encourage parents, schools, communities, the government, social systems and youth to prevent and reduce underage drinking and its consequences
3)Promote public education of the relationship between underage alcohol consumption and human development and maturation
4)Support research on adolescent alcohol use and human development
5)Improve public health surveillance on underage drinking and risk factors
6)Apply policies consistently at all levels to prevent and reduce underage alcohol consumption

How this declaration changes the government's official stance on underage drinking prevention and treatment remains to be seen.

Drinking Age debate

On February 18, 2007 the director of Choose Responsibility, and former president of Middlebury College, John McCardell debated a representative from Mothers Against Drunk Drivers over the merits of the 21 year-old drinking age. Here it is:



And on a lighter note:

Recently released alcohol related numbers

The government made available this week new figures from the National Survey on Drug Use for 2004-2005. This survey contains the most recent alcohol use and abuse numbers, that serve as a reminder of drinking practices around the country. Before assessing what the minute shifts may mean, let’s recap some of the pertinent statistics:

For “Minors”:

• Alcohol use decreased slightly among youths aged 12 to 17 from 17.7 percent in 2003-2004 to 17.1 percent in 2004-2005.
• In 2005, about 10.8 million persons aged 12 to 20 (28.2 percent of this age group) reported drinking alcohol in the past month. Nearly 7.2 million (18.8 percent) were binge drinkers, and 2.3 million (6.0 percent) were heavy drinkers. These figures have remained essentially the same since the 2002 survey

For Young adults:

· Young adults aged 18 to 22 enrolled full time in college were more likely than their peers not enrolled full time (i.e., part-time college students and persons not currently enrolled in college) to use alcohol in the past month (64.4 v. 53.2), binge drink (44.8 v. 38.3), and drink heavily (19.5 v. 13.).

· The pattern of higher rates of current alcohol use, binge alcohol use, and heavy alcohol use among full-time college students than the rates for others aged 18 to 22 has remained consistent since 2002

For Drunken Driving:

· In 2005, an estimated 13.0 percent of persons aged 12 or older drove under the influence of alcohol at least once in the past year

· This percentage has dropped since 2002, when it was 14.2 percent.

So what does all this, and the rest of the NSDUH data, mean?
First and foremost, binge drinking and heavy drinking slightly increased or did not change. While drinking rates (once in the past month) declined slightly across the board, the more concerning figures (binge drinking and heavy drinking) did not. These figures are an extension of a previous identified movement to the extremes in drinking behavior across the country. This means that increasingly large numbers of people are abstaining from alcohol altogether, just as there is an increase in the rates of heavy drinking. While the effects of this shift (from bell curve to barbell) are less apparent in older age groups where there are significant numbers of moderate drinkers, the same cannot be said for young adults. The polarization of drinking behaviors are quite apparent and appalling on college campuses. This recent blog post on ProgressiveU shows the opinion that most students share regarding college drinking behavior.

A second finding, also pertinent to the previous discussion, is the data suggesting a growing divide in the behaviors of college students relative to their non-college attending peers. While heavy drinking continues to increase amongst college students, the rates in their non-student peers is both lower and steady (See the Graph). Why these differences exist are quite interesting but are not particularly well understood. However, to treat someone as immature, only allows them the justification to act immature. If this holds as an explanation for the differences in consumption behaviors between students and non-student young adults, then it should apply more generally to the differences between America's infantilized youth under the 21 year-old drinking age relative to the drinking behaviors of young adults across the world.

"World's Largest Cocktail Party" going underground?

“‘It's not shocking enough (to keep students from drinking again), but it's definitely a different kind of experience,’ Short said,” after the freshman at the University of Georgia spent a night in jail for underage drinking. Recent news out of the University of Georgia show that arrests for underage drinking did not decrease this past year following the communities tougher alcohol policies. While administrators of Georgia’s largest university have sought to curtail their image as a party school—famous for the “world’s largest cocktail party”— their policies of stricter enforcement and tougher penalties have had little effect. The idea behind the administration's push was that if penalties were harsh enough freshman, sophomores, and juniors at UGA would warm up to the fact that for them alcohol is illegal, and that this would make them stop drinking. It failed. This should come as no surprise. When as few as 2 out of every 1000 underage drinkers are ever punished, even large increases in enforcement cannot provide sufficient deterrence for those illegal behaviors. Administrators of the university ought to reassess their draconian policies, because ultimately they only push behavior farther off campus and deeper underground. And while this "out of sight out of mind" mentality is pleasing to the eye, it can do little to improve the drinking culture on campus. Sadly, when it comes to irresponsible drinking it may only be making things worse.

Competing editorials in the Bennington Banner of Vermont show the complexity of the drinking age question. On one hand is a high school administrator, who in his interactions with high school students experiences the problems and tragedies that occur with underage drinking. His reaction is understandable: strengthen enforcement of the current law. After all, the logic holds, if we want young adults to stop drinking, then cracking down on them hard would seem like way to do it. The following day, the editorial board of the Bennington paper, responded to the op-ed, taking the opposite view.

“Ultimately, when those simplistic and repressive controls are finally lifted, there are no internal controls left to take over. . . . As a society, we somehow have to allow teens to drink, if they wish, in supervised, controlled venues — and we have to educate them — before they are allowed into bars and package stores. We can't just hide the booze away and hope they wait until they are 21. Unfortunately, that's what we are doing today.”

And so we are left with two choices, to maintain the status quo, to accept that this is the best we can do, or to try something different, something new and innovative. On the surface, a 21 year-old drinking ought to help keep alcohol from reaching minors, by the fact that it makes alcohol illegal to consume and difficult to obtain. In certain cases that may very well be the case. But more often than not, those classified by the law as “underage” are obtaining and drinking alcohol. In the end, we are faced with a law that is out of step with our cultural attitudes towards alcohol, which encourages violation and breeds disrespect for law.

In the more than two decades that have passed since its implementation, the 21 year-old drinking age has created a climate in which terms like “binge” and “pregame” have come to describe young peoples’ choices about alcohol. The goal-oriented drinking that is now common under the current law, though dangerous, may more importantly be a consequence of the law itself. In an environment where drinking must be kept hidden from the law, the rituals surrounding alcohol consumption come to reflect those environmental pressures. As those rituals become empowered, they come to define and give weight to the culture of drinking itself. Thus, as drinking to evade the law inherently becomes an act of drinking as quickly as possible, those acts of goal-oriented drinking become part of a unique culture.

It's not just college students...

Many people think of binge drinking as a "kid's" problem, as something young people grow out of as they mature, get a job, and start a family. A recent case study of New Mexico, completed using national survey data, indicates that substantial proportion of the adult population drinks excessively. 16.5% of New Mexicans over 18 binge drink regularly, while only 1.8% of that same population can be classified as alcohol dependent. Binge drinking is a national, population-wide public health problem, and by pigeon-holing it as a plague of college campuses we risk over simplifying the problem.

Interestingly, the authors point to lopsided expenditures between treatment for alcoholism and prevention of excessive drinking--nationally, about $4 billion is spent on treatment, while only about $1 billion is spent on prevention efforts. The authors hope that their findings, as well as those nationally, will equalize the monies being spent on treatment and prevention and help send the message that binge drinking among adults is a serious public health concern.

Choose Responsibility News from Left and Right

A blog on the national website Campus Progress, a site for student progressives, caught wind of Choose Responsibility's recent proposal to reconsider the 21 year-old drinking age. Unlike the polemical statements issued by other organizations focused on drinking, the blogger Keith White praises the quality research and professionalism of Choose Responsibility. "Framing all our policy debates on such clear-headedness would be a godsend for American politics. And as a result of this apparent professionalism, this organization can show students how to effectively engage in the political dialogue on a unifying, non-partisan issue."

On the opposite side of the aisle, conservative columnist John McCaslin for the newspaper Washington Times, comments on Choose Responsibility's proposal in an article titled A License to Drink. Though he offers mostly explanation, his mention of proposal coupled with the editorializations in the progressive blogs suggest that the logic of a lowered drinking resonates across large segments of the population. 3quarksdaily, a blog of considerable following amongst the professorial type, also made reference to Choose Responsibility's proposal.

In the limelight...

...for the first time! This article, published last Thursday in the Middlebury College student newspaper, caught national attention. We were picked up by the Associated Press with this article, which made in on the wire and has been distributed to newspapers across the country. We were also profiled by Inside Higher Ed--check out the comments for a lively discussion.

Choose Responsibility is off to a running start