Search News


Browse Archives

News

He Spoke Out ... and Got a New Presidency

January 7, 2010

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

John McCardell has for the past few years been the poster child for the idea that you can't take controversial public stands and be a college president.

That's because McCardell, who served as president of Middlebury College for 12 years, through 2004, waited until he was out of office to take on an issue that clearly matters a lot to him: the drinking age. McCardell helped create a national debate on the flaws in the drinking age laws, and the way they may impede colleges from teaching students how to be responsible in their drinking.

He kicked off the discussion, shortly after leaving the Middlebury presidency, with an op-ed in The New York Times, and he noted in that article that he has been "as guilty as any of my colleagues [as presidents] of failing to take bold positions on public matters that merit serious debate." Since then, many a college president has said of McCardell's efforts some variation of: "Well that's the kind of thing you can do when you are out of office, never when you are a sitting president."

Maybe not.

On Tuesday, the University of the South named McCardell as its next president -- with the understanding that he would continue to speak out about the drinking age.

McCardell is a natural fit for Sewanee for many reasons. He is Episcopalian, as is the university. He's a historian of the South, and Sewanee takes its Southern roots seriously. Choose Responsibility, the organization McCardell founded, announced that he would step down as president, but would remain active in the group, particularly speaking out on the need for college leaders to talk about these issues and by serving on the board. Sewanee's announcement also indicated that McCardell was not abandoning the movement he helped found.

In an interview Thursday, McCardell said that he told the Sewanee search committee that "I have views and that I'll continue to express them."

He acknowledged that it will be unusual (in today's environment) to be speaking out on an issue beyond those on which most higher education leaders agree (such as the need for more financial aid). "It remains to be seen if a sitting president can do this more effectively, but I may even be more effective as a sitting president," he said.

Asked if he thought his hiring might challenge the idea that sitting presidents need to avoid speaking out on controversial topics, McCardell said "I hope so."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on He Spoke Out ... and Got a New Presidency

  • Kinda figures....
  • Posted by Chattanoogan on January 7, 2010 at 8:45am EST
  • Probably doesn't hurt that Sewanee has a notorious reputation as a very hard drinking place...

  • Happy to have him
  • Posted by Sewanee Prof on January 7, 2010 at 11:15am EST
  • Chattanoogan's comment implies an unfair degree of cynicism in the choice of McCardell. Sewanee does indeed have a long tradition of student partying. However, it also had, until the drinking age change, a long tradition of civilized social interactions among faculty staff AND students, that may or may not have involved alcohol. The campus is a microcosm of one of the unintended consequences of raising the drinking age, which include driving alcohol use by young adults underground where they frequently engage in the numerous unhealthy practices we hear about all too often. The faculty and administration at Sewanee have worked consistently and aggressively to curb the "hard drinking" that is implied in the previous comment, which often involves irresponsible behavior.

    McCardell has had the courage to ask the politically difficult question about whether raising the drinking age has worked as people thought it would and, if it hasn't, to suggest that perhaps we should seek alternative ways to moderate the impact of alcohol use on the lives of young adults. Such real leadership is rare in almost all public spheres today and I am very excited to welcome our new President to campus.

  • Posted by Elliot , Marketing Manager on January 7, 2010 at 11:15am EST
  • YEA Sewanee's RIGHT!!

  • Speaking Out on Difficult Issues
  • Posted by Jonathan Gibralter , President at Frostburg State University on January 7, 2010 at 11:45am EST
  • There is no credible evidence available nationally that supports lowering the minimum legal drinking age. In fact, quite the opposite--there is an abundance of scientific evidence that shows that where the drinking age is lowered, that the number of traffic fatalities due to underage drunk driving increases dramatically.

    I wish that the actual national debate had occurred because there are effective strategies to to reduce college student binge drinking. Lowering the drinking age simply isn't one of them.

  • Alcohol abuse not just a college issue - a national epidemic.
  • Posted by Dani Smith , Prevention Education Specialist at Chapman University on January 7, 2010 at 3:15pm EST
  • In my work with students (17 – 25 years of age) regarding alcohol and its effects, my professional opinion is that it would be a mistake to lower the current drinking age. Research shows that binge drinking and associated high risk behaviors are serious issues, not only among high school and college students, but the general population. There are serious ramifications with giving easier access to alcohol to a younger and high risk population. The potential consequences are dangerous. (See

    http://www.collegedrinkingprevention.gov/StatsSummaries/snapshot.aspx

    There is also an increase among underage college students in the use of illegal I.D.s. These students (18, 19, 20 year olds) are using fake I.D.s to purchase alcohol and/or to gain entrance into night clubs and bars. With the lowering of the drinking age will we then see 15, 16, 17 year olds with fake I.D.s trying to do the same?
    Another issue that needs to be considered is the fact that many young people are taking prescription medications for depression, anxiety and other psychiatric reasons. Mixing even a little alcohol with the use of psychotropic drugs is a prescription for disaster. Alcohol is a central nervous system depressant. The U.S. has a high occurrence of depression and the suicide rate among young people is on the rise. Alcohol exacerbates depression and increases the risk of acting out behavior.

    A very important issue is that of rape and sexual assault. The majority of rapes and sexual assaults that occur on college campuses have an alcohol component with one or both of the individuals being under the influence. Lowering the drinking age may increase the incidence of sexual assault among high school students and the university population. As a licensed therapist I can testify that most of the stories that I hear involve alcohol being used as a weapon to sexually assault individuals, including college students. Easier access will put this weapon in younger hands and also put them at risk of becoming victims of sexual assault. Alcohol use is also associated with increased violence in other areas besides sexual violence. We already have a problem with violence on our high school and college campuses.

    I often hear the argument used to support lowering the legal age of consumption that European youth drink more responsibly because they can drink at a younger age. According to a number of sources, this is a myth. European countries have a huge problem with alcohol abuse and “are now looking to the United States for research and experience regarding the age-21 policy”. (See: http://www.higheredcenter.org/services/assistance/faq/are-there-fewer-alcohol-related-problems-countries-where-youth-are-allowed-d).
    Contrary to opinion, a lower drinking age doesn’t work in Europe and it stands to reason that it won’t work here.

    My many concerns regarding lowering the legal age to purchase and consume alcohol are based on a number of factors which I have already discussed. I continued to be baffled that so many individuals within higher education are seriously considering lowering the legal age (citing little or no potential negative consequences to this decision). In theory, it’s a great idea to help our young people become responsible decision makers at an earlier age, but lowering the drinking age to help them learn to do this would be a disaster. We must not forget that alcohol is a very potent drug.

    What we need to do is challenge the beverage industry to be more responsible with its advertising and its push to brand younger and younger individuals. Perhaps that’s the real issue we need to discuss. If children are taught that one needs alcohol to relax, to chill out, to socialize, to have fun and to be an adult, then a larger profit is to be had by lowering the drinking age. The beverage lobby is powerful and the need for younger consumers’ buying power should not over shadow our civic duties, to protect and educate our youth in a responsible way. Lowering the drinking age will have long range negative effects.

  • I support John McCardell
  • Posted by Eric Paine on January 7, 2010 at 7:00pm EST
  • John McCardell has done a wonderful job

    Most states in the nation adopted a minimum drinking age of 21 soon after federal passage of the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, which required states to maintain a minimum drinking age of 21 in order to avoid a reduction in federal highway funds. The original intention of the law was to reduce the incidents of alcohol-related accidents among people under 21. But since passage of this legislation, and the raising of the drinking age in many states, the percentage of people who drink between the ages of 18 to 20 has skyrocketed. Many say the prohibitions have actually encouraged secretive binge drinking, more dangerous behavior, and less educational programming targeting this age group. Respected law enforcement officials and university presidents have recently called for changes in the federal law to permit states to lower the drinking age. It's time for the nation to repeal these Prohibition-era laws and adopt a more intelligent, progressive, and educational approach to drinking among younger adults. These laws simply don't work, they aren't enforceable any longer, and if anything they are counterproductive. Literally millions of responsible young adults are already consuming alcohol and that's not going to change. What we need to do is stop wasting the taxpayers money chasing, charging and prosecuting responsible young adults who want to have a beer, and start putting the money where it ought to be, in promoting smart education about responsible drinking, and in pursuing far more serious criminals, including those at all ages who drive under the influence of alcohol and drugs. -- Eric Paine President & Founder Drink At 18 www.drinkat18.com

  • A few more thoughts.....
  • Posted by Sewanee Prof. on January 8, 2010 at 10:30am EST
  • I am pleased to see this conversation moving well beyond the initial cynical post that started it. I think this is exactly the kind of conversation that the Amethyst Initiative is about. If President Gibralter really has effective strategies for significantly lowering binge drinking on college campuses (not simply moving it to off-campus locations that make the problem go away), I am sure such strategies would be welcomed by all in the academe.

    I for one am not convinced by the logic presented to support the 21 such as that presented by Gibralter regarding drinking age and "underage drunk driving rates" The flaw in the logic is this--If the drinking age and the driving age were the same (i.e. both were 16 or 18 or 21 or whatever) then there would be by definition an exactly 0% rate of "underage drunk driving". That is not to say there would be no one between the ages of 18 and 21 driving drunk, simply that they would not be "underage" in the legal sense of the word. The issue of drunk driving is best handled by enforcement of driving laws not via an indirect mechanism such as the drinking age. If we really want to stop people from driving under the influence then enact laws that say, one strike (i.e. being convicted of driving under the influence one time) and you lose the privilege of driving for life (driving is not a constitutional right) or at least for a very long time (5, 10 years or such).

    As for the arguments presented by Dani Smith, they imply there is a magic age at which people can handle alcohol and at which the negative impacts of alcohol abuse stop. It is likely that alcohol plays a role in sexual assaults involving young adults between the ages of 21 and pick an age. Does this mean we should raise the drinking age to prevent this? The same logic can be applied to most of the points brought up in this post. If we raise the drinking age to 30 then we can lower the ability of college age students to use fake IDs. Raising the age from 18 to 21 to stop 16 year olds from using fake IDs is based in this logic.

    What I am trying to get at is the question of how one arrives at the age at which problems go away? It was the attempt to curb the societal problems of abuse that led to prohibition originally and it the unintended consequences that led to its repeal. The reason that many in higher education are wrestling with this issue is that we have been thrust to the front lines of a prohibition enforcement. As one of our student life staff put it once, "we have to focus on law enforcement rather than responsible behavior." This approach skews and hinders our ability to deal with the advertising culture noted by Smith, which we also would love to see change as it simply reinforces the idea that to be an adult one needs to go out to a party and drink.

    A few final thoughts. As Eric Paine notes, the federal government in essence implemented a national drinking age (which is well beyond its constitutional powers) by coercion, in much the same way that they originally instituted the 55mph speed limit. When that change happened (which was really for fuel economy not highway safety), people claimed that the lower speed limit resulted in less highway deaths, which was ultimately shown to be false (the real reasons were improved automobile safety designs). In a similar vein, I have never seen a convincing study to show that changing the drinking age from 18 to 21 has LOWERED drinking among that age group. What I see while working in the trenches is that it has changed HOW they drink, and often in not helpful ways. It is also ironic that we think of 18 year olds as adults in their ability to kill and be killed but not in terms of expecting them to behave with responsibility toward a potent but legal drug.

    I think all parties in this conversation ultimately want the same thing- to prevent young adults from making bad choices with regard to a dangerous substance that is so embedded in human culture that prohibition is simply not possible. I think the differences are related with how to get there and that is why an open, honest and respectful conversation is the only way forward. Let us begin.