Letters to the Editor

Drinking and the law

To the Editor:

In his letter to the editor about last week's PennForum on lowering the drinking age ("PennForum hangover," The Daily Pennsylvanian, 9/16/02), my fellow panelist Doug Sherrets noted that I criticized the very existence of drinking age laws and also that I criticized the fact that they were not being enforced. He thought it a contradiction, but it isn't; the two comments were merely taken out of context, as they were in answer to two completely different questions.

First, I certainly believe that our Prohibition-style drinking age laws should be repealed. As I said at the forum, rather than choosing some arbitrary age, you should be allowed to drink at that point where you demonstrate that you have the maturity to handle your alcohol. Under that standard, some 18-year-olds would be allowed to drink, while some 35-year-olds wouldn't. Children, of course, are always the parents' responsibility.

My second comment was not specifically about the drinking age, but rather about respect for the law in general. I maintain that when you have a law that isn't enforced, that cheapens that law, and all other laws by implication.

For example, letting one person drive in excess of the speed limit sends the message that others may do so as well. When the police let you go with a warning rather than a ticket, it creates the impression that you'll be able to get away with it again.

Eventually, all pretense that a given law must be respected erodes away; hence my conclusion that either the laws on the books must be enforced, or they are a counterproductive sham.

So for the good of society and to maintain respect for the law, the choice is to either enforce any given law or repeal it; and when it comes to the 21-year-old drinking age, I say repeal it.

No contradiction there, Doug.

Ken Krawchuk The writer is the Libertarian candidate for governor of Pennsylvania. The complete picture To the Editor:

Perhaps Nominations and Elections Committee Chairwoman Rebecca Silberman could enhance her committee's attempts at education by paying attention to the actual role of other student government groups.

In Silberman's guest column ("An invitation," DP, 9/17/02), she describes the Student Committee on Undergraduate Education as a branch of student government that aims to "enhance your academic experience throughout the next four years." She continues, "SCUE members work to maintain the level of excellence expected from collegiate scholastics."

SCUE, the oldest continually-existing branch of student government on campus, is a committee that works tirelessly to improve the state of undergraduate education at the University. Our members sit on numerous committees, often as the only student representative, consulting with high-level administrators on educational initiatives and reform. Most importantly, we are continuously devising ideas and programs to improve education.

Our successes include the pass/fail grading option, the extended New Student Orientation, preceptorials and the Major Advising Program. We have also had significant input on the shape and development of the Pilot Curriculum from its inception.

None of these achievements or roles are conveyed by Silberman's "enhancing academic experience" or "maintaining the level of excellence expected from collegiate scholastics."

I look forward to helping the NEC, members of the Class of 2006 and the entire student body learn more about SCUE's important role on campus this semester.

Jacob Cytryn

College '04 The writer is chairman of the Student Committee on Undergraduate Education.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.